While you're at it, take me off the sympathetic list too. While I am still sympathetic to a lot of grievances, the whole thing as on display in this thread has simply become way too silly.

Me too, please.

You can take me off the "sympathetic" list as well.
I still think Gog is doing a lot of things wrong, but tbh I've bought quite a few games by my standards here last year (about 80 Euros worth), so I can't in good conscience claim to boycott Gog. And I also don't want Gog to fail (for my gaming needs they're still the best option), so I'm not sure a total boycott is something I'd want to support anyway.

That's pretty damn ironic seeing as how you take exception to GOG doing the exact same thing.

I think the state of GOG's customer service is fully deserving of a boycott, but I also think this thread has outlived it's usefulness.

Has somebody already suggested splitting people into "Total boycott" and "significantly reduced purchasing", or something like that? The title can stay a simple "Boycotting..." even if the thread is more nuanced.

Please refer to my previous post and see if you can refute what is said in it: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/boycotting_gog_2021/post3716

What you point out is not quite this amazing "gotcha" (here's another "improper word" that became part of language, btw). The term "DRM-free" has already been corrupted imo even outside of GOG. So I would agree it is important for us to be a little more specific in what we mean by DRM-free. Often, though, this is evident enough from context alone. For example, my complaining about Cyberpunk "My Rewards" being DRMed by requiring Galaxy implies several things such as cosmetic content does "count" for my determining of whether something is DRMed and that I consider a client requirement to be DRM. Another example; my complaining about multiplayer modes being locked behind Galaxy and/or third party online logins, implies that I do not share the definition of some folks that "DRM-free only matters for singleplayer content." It would certainly help matters if GOG listed a clear definition of DRM-free so whether we personally agree with it or not, we would know what to expect on the store. The closest I have seen was the now-defunct FCKDRM campaign; might I add that Galaxy requirements seemed to check the boxes of the "DRM" part of the compare/contrast list that had been featured there.

Please also consider that those of us who consider ourselves boycotting despite making some purchases are not doing the same "harm" in our use of language as a supposedly DRM-free store is doing by fudging or altering the definition of DRM-free. GOG is the last major bastion of DRM-free gaming (meaning the way I define DRM-free gaming). If they shift to a DRMed direction (regardless of couching it in the term "DRM-free" still or not), then what I would consider DRM-free gaming as a whole would basically be gone never to be seen again. Please contrast this effect to the effect of what happens when some people in a forum discussion use the term "boycott" in a way that seems to bother you and another user or two...at "worst" a dictionary will be updated with a new definition. By the way, why do you think it is that dictionaries continue to release every year with revisions of words? Seriously, by the logic of you and your prescriptivist buddies, we should have never needed a single new dictionary since whatever was made by Noah Webster a few centuries ago. Along the same lines, why do you think some sub-definitions which are included in dictionaries are listed as "archaic"? That is, the old prior meaning of a term that is no longer in usage or at least not common usage.

Ultimately words are shorthand for concepts, no? There is not a wild "DRM-free" roaming around. It is just a shorthand for what we mean in describing what is effectively user control over something digital (vast oversimplification but just as a somewhat neutral definition). If indeed the term DRM-free becomes (more) corrupted (than it already is), then perhaps it will be time for a new term. This need not be a source of anguish and upset; it would simply be people talking and language evolving in real-time. In the meantime, those of us who are fond of the existing term can try and make the case for why to keep it intact, but that is our own preference, not some sort of objective universal demand.

I believe you are the first but I don't see where that is truly necessary beyond pleasing 2-3 people (Note: I have not cross-checked the list, so I am not even sure they are among us "boycotting" to whatever degree anyway). This thread is full of disparate and in some cases outright contradictory feedback. If anything, I believe that more detail should be applied there, so that GOG specifically knows who is boycotting because of DRM, who because of curation, etc.

I would think the most useful information to GOG is the reasons why people stopped purchasing to various degrees; not so much the fact that some stopped purchasing completely and others only mostly. The only way I could see that being useful to some extent is if GOG knew a particular user who was a big spender was committed to no more purchases entirely. Am I wrong? I believe if GOG knew specific things to address, they could at least start trying to fix them.

Of course, some contradictory demands would come down to GOG picking one or the other. If person A wants all adult games removed from the store and person B wants GOG to accept more, GOG would have to calculate and make educated guesses about which move is better going forward. But there are plenty of non-controversial examples that don't require such analysis, and it stands to reason that GOG could deal with the non-controversial examples first.

For example, I am not aware of anyone who insists the Cyberpunk "My Rewards" cosmetic content must be locked behind Galaxy. In fact I recall discussing with at least one Galaxy user who, even though they personally had no issues accessing the content, agreed that it should at least be available another way for offline installer users. If re-committing to DRM-free, this one would be a very easy start for GOG.

No, not really, seeing as there is no globally agreed definition of the term 'DRM'. It was established much earlier in the thread, after lengthy debate, that everyone who is boycotting pretty much has their own definition of the term and is making their own judgement about where 'the line' is for them, which GOG is crossing.

In fact, part of the problem with GOG, imo, is that they have never been clear about what definition of 'DRM' they are working to.

+1. Language is and always has been fluid and evolving, with different terms/words being used in different ways in different places, by different people. Imo, it would highly counterproductive for the GOG boycott group to tear itself apart over an argument about semantics.

The important thing is that we define what the term 'boycott' means to us, as a group. I have never tried to impose or push any sort of hardline 'rules' about how people should be going about their boycotts and in any case, there is no way it could be verified or enforced anyway. From the very first pages of the thread, I have been supportive of a permissive, inclusive approach, where people are free to boycott how they see fit and that anyone who considers themself boycotting is welcome to be included on 'the list'.

Absolutely nothing has changed here since the earliest pages of the thread. If anyone didn't realize that and feels misled or that it's not 'hardline' enough or whatever and wants to be taken off, I am happy to do that. If anyone wants to propose a 'vote of no confidence' in me as 'boycott thread facilitator', I'm totally fine with that as well - please go ahead.

That's not an argument about semantics, but about what you're even doing here at all. Also language doesn't work like that. Yes, over time a word may change it's meaning when misapplied consistantly by a vast majority of people. That's not the same as one person misapplying a term because it's convenient for them being automatically correct. By that logic no word actually means anything. If you call a dog a turkey it won't be correct because "language may change", and it won't be a matter of "semantics". It will just be flat out wrong. As is saying you boycott a store when you make purchases at it.

I wonder if you even see the irony of what you just said.

Now please, remove me from the list already.

First post has been updated and the requested changes have been made.

I think this is a decent idea. Another option might be to just add a clarification to the first post of what exactly we mean by 'boycott'.

I agree.

Well said :)

But you yourself said some things are based on intuition or gut feeling....so why then seemingly "push away" (even if not on purpose, and I mean with some of your wording) others who aren't as strongly against DRM-free as yourself, and/or those who do so differently?

Why not reserve the main bulk of such for those more responsible(i.e. the ones who make DRM and put it in their games, stores that sell only/mainly DRM games, etc)?

Yes, sticking together is good....but doing so on a forum mainly controlled by Gog(we can't even have more than one thread on some topics) has been shown to be much less effective(like with the Hitman GOTY incident) than a more "public" site/space. Also yeah, some Gog run social media is just as bad.....but there are also ones not run by Gog as well, and many posted to such during various prior issues(hitman goty more so than some others).

Well said....Gog forums have their uses too.

This is also helpful.....getting said issues to YTers that have large user bases can be a good idea as well.

Also well said :)

Well, we still have zoom-platform and a few other stores...yeah, they're small, but at least if something did happen to Gog then we'd all have someplace to turn to.

Agreed

Or finding a middle ground, like a filter for "adult" games for those who want such ;)

=-=-=-=

Seems like me that such I (not agreeing with OP's level of boycott or because they don't hold the same definition of the word as yourself) is a minor reason to leave the boycott. Still, yer call and best of luck to ya.

=-=-=-=

Gog's decisions/words (like re: Devotion/etc) affect all customers here and are on a business level, whereas OP's stances are on a personal level....so I think there is some difference.

=-=-=-=

A new thread would possibly split up/divide the users here....also Gog might call it a "duplicate" and lock it.
That said, I am for such a thread for those who disagree with some things(OP's/user's stances/level of boycott/etc).

=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=

Side note/to the thread: I find it interesting how a number of those who have left the boycott were the ones who started this seeming virtue signaling & nitpicking over definitions/OP's level of Boycott, which pushed the thread somewhat off-topic in the first place

Also probably make it more clear that each person on the boycott list is free to boycott to the level they prefer(full/partial), and also maybe mark which level each of the boycotters has chosen.

The above aside(which are good ideas regardless), I don't think it'll please/bring back those leaving due to things like how you/others define the word boycott or to what level some choose to boycott.

(side note on my own name: I actually sometimes buy a rare cheap game for myself or others, but then I also sometimes temp boycott...like with Hitman GOTY and etc.....so dunno which list I should be in.....maybe you could put me in both, if that is alright?)