I'd like to be deleted from the sympathetic list as well, thank you.

As I said multiple time the main issue with this thread is not "what is a boycott" but it is that it's not A boycott but multiple potential boycotts somewhat aggregated into a single thread. To have any chances to have any effect boycotts needs to be focused, "X or Y boycott until they release Devotion" is a boycott, but "X boycott until Devotion is released, Y until Epic deal is canceled, Z until online cosmetics are made offline", etc... is not.

If peoples are worried about non-offline content in single player then they should create a thread "Gog Boycott until they get rid of online only content in single player" and focus on that. Same thing for the others subjects. Here it is just a diluted mess, even if Gog was looking at this thread they would have no way to know, out of the boycotting or sympathetic list who is there for what.

If people made multiple threads it would become more unfocused and harder to follow for some users, also Gog would likely frown upon it and close many of them(as they did in the past) for being "duplicates".

(maybe one extra thread would be ok, though, as said before)

Done mate, thanks for your support.

This isn't a dig at you personally, but I find it interesting that those who seem to have a problem with the semantics are almost all people who were on the sympathetic list. Only one person so far has asked to be taken off of the actual boycott list. Now, I appreciate those who are sympathetic and don't mean to downplay their support, but I find it very interesting that some people seem to care very much about the semantics of what we are doing, yet they weren't willing to really commit to any form of boycott in the first place.

Well, apparently you're not commited either, so get off your high horse.

Oh, and I've been thinking of asking ot be removed from the list for a while, your own wishy-washy-ness was just the final deciding factor. And again, while you can repeat it untill your keyboard breaks, it's not about semantics. It's like having a group of vegans protest against eating meat, and then going for burgers and arguing that beef doesn't count as meat because "language can change" and they are still vegans, and when someone points out that's bullshit, they hand wave it away as "semantics". I eat meat, I make no pretense of beign a vegan, but I would respect them as long as they kept to their professed ideals. Once it's clear they actually don't, my respect is gone.

The thing is, there isn't an objective "application;" rather, constantly fluid subjective applications. The fact that many/most people agree on a particular subjective application is what makes it seem like there even is something to "misapply." All that is needed for application is for a group (even as small as two people) of people to agree on a term (as an aside, food for thought, names and nicknames work the same). A word or phrase could literally be made up "out of nowhere" by the group but if they agree on the meaning then it has meaning to that group. Similar case for slang words which function the same for those who use them as "official" words do.

I would say calling a dog a turkey is not a good analogy for what is going on here, as your example of a dog involves an individual living being, and here we are just using a concept of not purchasing/purchasing less. Irregardless, to say that "by that logic no word actually means anything" seems meant as a reductio ad absurdum but it's actually something that can be accepted. There is no objective meaning to them; they are descriptors we apply, made up of letters which are also arbitrary shapes we choose to use together. Like I said earlier, it is not as though there is like a wild "letter A" roaming around the universe. It is something we made up, just like slang, and really, just like "official" words.

All that said, can anyone who is criticizing the use of the term "boycott" elaborate what problem is caused by some of us calling what we are doing a boycott, even though you disagree with our usage? The only thing I can think of is if one is worried that, since we're so subjective, we will change the topic into something else entirely (which ironically those derailing it over semantics have done). But I think us boycotters have been pretty clear individually about what we are doing, and have remained consistent in our individual positions at least. Shouldn't those of you who disagree be more focused on calling out GOG's use of "DRM-free"?? That would be more productive.

Those of us who "boycott" by reducing spending have been up-front about it as far as I can tell. In other words, we have professed our own ideal just fine. So, there is no inconsistency. Inconsistency would be present if we said we were reducing spending, but didn't/spent more; or alternatively if someone specifically said they are spending a specific amount or percentage, but went over it. Please consider dialing back the analogies as they are not 1:1 comparisons and just serve to cause confusion/wasted time trying to unpack them and get to the real meat (heh) of the discussion.

I agree I can be pretty harsh at calling out DRM, but that's just my style I suppose. I try to avoid directing ire at any individual person, for what that's worth. Instead, I like to discuss concepts. If someone is tied to a concept in some way (e.g. has a massive library of DRMed games), this may feel personal to them but I don't intend it to be. I think it is useful to highlight that DRM is a serious issue, one that extends beyond gaming even in terms of ownership. So for someone like me to be animated about it signals, hey this is worth paying attention to, even if it also puts off other people to some degree. Also, to answer your question, it is difficult to reach the people who are in charge of making DRM/DRMed stores. It is more realistic to be able to reach fellow gamers on the ground level, as it were. Once there are a number of us who agree, then social media comments, video comments, etc, could get the ball rolling for change.

Yes, definitely. This thread is an invaluable resource: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_video_games_digital_distributors/post1

What I meant was more that GOG is the only major store that is DRM-free (per my view). There is no other DRM-free store where I can get what I consider big releases, though Zoom-Platform is gradually getting there. My belief is that if nothing changed and hypothetically GOG went out of business tomorrow, DRM-free gaming would be in serious, serious danger and on the verge of "extinction" even with a few small stores around. So it is important to me for GOG to remain DRM-free since I want DRM-free gaming to still exist in the long term.

Yes. I was just using an extreme example to show the point. I think a filter would be helpful though honestly I don't take the critics at their word that they will be satisfied with such.

Btw thanks for your kind words and manner throughout.

Look man, I've no dog in this fight. I buy from GOG. But boycott means "to refuse to buy, use, or participate in (something) as a way of protesting" or "to stop using the goods or services of (a company, country, etc.) until changes are made"

It doesn't mean whatever you seem to want it to mean. I've no issue with you doing you, but come on. Language DOES matter, and when you purchase from a store you're boycotting, that's always a win for the store, and it is considered that the boycott is broken. If you want to buy from GOG, just admit you do and end the nonsense about boycotting them. Move yourself to the sympathetic list, since that's exactly what you are: sympathetic to a boycott but unwilling to commit to it. I won't condemn you for that, but for claiming you're something you're not, it irks the shit out of me. That you'll elevate yourself to a pedestal to condemn GOG for not sticking to principles and demand they commit to doing better when you refuse to stick to your principles in action is just hypocrisy, and no one loves a hypocrite.

I was committed to my principles and did not buy from GOG until what I considered unforgivable was remedied to my satisfaction. Whether or not you choose to do so isn't my problem. It's the publicity that you would stand by your convictions and say that the actions of GOG are unforgivable to the point that I will forsake purchasing from them (unless I REALLY want to), which makes your whole cause lost. Your house of cards is built upon pillars of sand, and will crumble at the slightest scrutiny.

Now that I've said all that, do you. Boycott, don't boycott. Just be willing to admit if you're not going to stick to your boycott.

What is the "harm" in some of us using a term you don't like us using? Shouldn't you be hounding GOG to define the term DRM-free and for them to get rid of DRM/DRM-like/online connection requirements in games here?

With this group getting smaller and smaller, Time4Tea admitting that he is not actually engaging in a boycott, and a sheer multitude of offtopic shenanigans going on throughout this thread, I formerly request moderators finally close this embarrassment of a thread. The self admitted faux outrage from these "boycotters" (yet not actually boycotting) has gone on long enough.

To be fair, while I generally agree with you and your prior post about application, the point of all this isn't (shouldn't be, at least) to communicate within our little subgroup, but to communicate something to GOG. Unfortunately those channels are very limited to begin with. What we're communicating is that a subset of the userbase is dissatisfied with some things GOG has been doing. But how this is prioritized is already very vague. Arguing the definition of 'boycott' furthermore makes consequences very vague.

I get the criticism. Imagine you're GOG. Some people don't like some things and maybe they spend less money. This is difficult to act on and maybe even difficult to justify acting on.

Boycotts are 100% or nothing, there is no other percentage that is viable. You either are boycotting or you're not, it is just that simple. If "Goodwill purchases" or whatever nonsense you can come up with helps you sleep at night then go ahead and lie to yourselves. You cannot have it both ways, it only makes the people doing it hypocrites. Do it right or at least have the balls to pull your name off the list if you're still making purchases. This is just sickening.

BTW, I see that I was listed as being sympathetic, please remove me from that as well as it means nothing if the people listed as boycotting aren't 100% following through.

I've noticed the issue with DRM-free being more and more restricted, and I also can no longer find the link for the Offline installer (though that may be my search engine DuckDuckGo). While I am not quite willing to do a full-boycott of GOG, I am sympathetic to the arguments raised in this post.