Did you get DRM-free copies of games you wanted? Some people may have only bought games because they thought GOG would grow into some giant crusader and change the entire industry but I think the odds of that happening (changing the entire industry) would always have been very low.

Also I'm pretty sure GOG developed Galaxy because lots of users wanted a client. (there's probably an old poll around somewhere) You can argue they should have said "no" but hindsight is 20/20. I can't blame them for trying to grow into true competition to Steam (it was more believable before Epic made their move), though I do think they should have done more to keep all the single-player content here DRM-free. Something like 75% of people in a poll (circa 2012 I think) wanted new games here, and now some people think GOG made a mistake allowing new games too.

You're more than welcome to stop buying from GOG of course, your choice. Are you done buying games in general or just GOG? (buying from Steam, Zoom, Fireflower, etc.?)

Achievements can be implemented without needing DRM. I see this similar to MP per DRM. Its just misimplemented (from the context of DRM free) if the feature in the implemented form is only usable per DRM.
Games like Battle for Wesnoth also have achievements (campaign completions) that are not bound to any online account or some such - I think they are stored offline anyway.

And do you have an alternative solution (to DRM creep, censorship, ... on GOG)? And if so what is it?

Yes, aware and was discussed. ARD only cares about the client-based achievements. I still prefer most games still not even have such in-game, but it's fine. But ARD demands Galaxy achievement implementation.

Another 15 minute youtube video for something that could be explained in 2 . :P

Gotta get dat sweet, sweet ad revenue!

I fully agree with you (albeit late) 'bout any kind of unsatisfying situation actually thrives on smug replies ("this is life and deal with it" type, all way down to the original anti-discussion gem: "TINA", (c) M. Thatcher). They think they're savvy and hardened, they actually pave the way to future policies that are going to displease them too, since policy-makers don't worry once they see there's no complaint!

Greetings from Italy, a country where "smug on the front side, angsty on the back" is close to national character :-/

Hey everyone. First off, sorry for my lack of communication recently. I have been very busy over the past couple of weeks. I've been through a crazy busy patch at work and was also making plans to travel over the holidays, which involved booking a lot of covid tests etc., which sucked up a lot of my time.

I have just updated the first post and I apologize again for falling behind on that.

Secondly, seeing as we are getting pretty close now to the end of 2021, I would like to discuss where to take the 'boycott thread' going forwards. Some of you have probably seen that fronzelneekburm has started a new thread (which I'm not allowed to link to) about boycotting GOG for 2022. It's obviously up to him if he wants to make a new thread, although it has quite a different format to this one and doesn't seem to be maintaining much continuity.

So, I am going to propose that we do this a bit more 'democratically' and hold a vote of those who have been boycotting for 2021, to decide where we go with it. I propose the following 3 options (if people would like to see others, let me know). I will count up the votes this Friday night and take action accordingly. Only votes from people who are currently on the boycott list (full or sympathetic) will be counted:

A) Go with fronzelneekburm's new thread, in which case we will have a change of 'facilitator'. In this case, I will look to wind down this thread over the next couple of weeks.

B) Keep this current thread going and just roll it into next year.

C) Make a new thread for 2022, in a similar format to this one, and carry over the current list of grievances and people boycotting. In this case, I would be happy to continue 'facilitating' and managing the boycott list. In this case, fronzelneekburm's thread would probably be considered as a separate boycott.

So as not to disadvantage any particular option, I propose we do it via a 'transferable vote' system. So, please give a preference ranking of those 3 options (e.g. BAC). I will give it until Friday night, then I will:

- count up the 'first preference' votes.
- drop the option that gets the least of those.
- transfer the 'second preference' votes for that option to the other two.
- that should then decide it, third preference would factor in the unlikely event there is still a tie

Sorry if that seems a bit over-complicated, but I want to make sure it is done as fairly as possible. I will be happy to go with whatever decision the group makes and I am intending to do a post in this thread to summarize the 'state of the boycott' before the end of the year.

Whatever happens, I'd like to thank everyone who has been supportive of the boycott this year. Hopefully our efforts have played some role in sending a message to GOG's management that they need to reassess their direction.

Here's my vote, listed by preference (most preferred option first):

C)

B) (on the condition that a mod changes the number in the thread title to 2022)

A) (I'm actually not all that eager to maintain that list for a year. As long as we get a boycott thread with the number 2022 in it, I'll gladly back down)

I vote for Option C. That's my only preference, I don't have a second or third preference.

My reasons for that are:

I don't like Option A because the original post of a boycott thread needs to be worded in a concise & professional manner, and in a manner that won't give GOG any reasonable justification to lock or delete it.

I think Time4Tea is able to do that by writing a new OP for the 2022 boycotting thread, whereas alternative "Boycotting GOG 2022" threads will not/do not necessarily follow those standards.

I don't like Option B because this thread will no longer match its thread title as of 2022. And casual readers of this thread will think that we are just rehashing old grievances, under the false impression that they've probably already been resolved way back in 2021...even though the reality is that they have not been resolved and remain as on-going issues into 2022.

Hence, a new thread title that properly reflects that GOG still needs to address & resolve these issues in 2022 will be the most appropriate thing IMO.

I disagree on dropping the year from the name altogether. "Boycotting GOG 2021" sounds like activism with a tangible goal, just "Boycotting GOG" as a thread title immediately gives the impression of it being just a whiny rant. Of course, this is just my personal gut reaction, everyone else's mileage may vary.

I'd suggest going with option C, as said above it gives it a sense of a tangible goal, without the yearly increment it could be perceived as just an ongoing rant thread.

C B A

General thoughts:
The thread could do with having 2022 in the title.
This thread is rather long already.

D) I think our best bet to be heard and offer a solid show is to make each boycott reason a separate thread, which you can join if you agree with. It keeps our causes active and showing. (hopefully displacing forum games)

C)

B)

A)

Heads up: Option A is now out of the question, as I asked a mod (who handed me a 3 week ban) to kindly lock it, as I will not be able to maintain the list of boycotters until my ban expires.