rjbuffchix: 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.

Krogan32: What GoG has or has not done is irrelevant. YOU said were boycotting them. YOU went against your own boycott by buying games from GoG.

Krogan32: YOU are the one justifying your faux boycott by saying "I'm engaging in a second boycott." Your attempts at deflection have failed.

Krogan32: Anyways, since you've sufficiently destroyed your own stance and credibility, there's nothing left to discuss with you on this topic.

richlind33: Time4Tea expects GOG to be pure and unadulterated with respect to being DRM-free, while at the very same time he claims to eschew "black and white" interpretations when it comes to his own life. That's hypocrisy.

As for how DRM-free is defined by GOG, as far as I am aware GOG has never provided a clear and unambiguous definition, which is a pretty good indication that it was never anything more than a clever marketing ploy.

Time4Tea: 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.

rjbuffchix: So do I, and so have I. At the outset of the topic, I described what I personally planned to do (boycott, except for what I considered "must-haves") and requested to be put in whichever category applied best. As the topic evolved, it became evident that the boycott category represented people boycotting to various degrees.

Hypocrisy is a weak charge and does not invalidate the general theme of this topic where people have reduced spending (in part or in whole) due to their individual concerns about GOG. This is not the "Time4Tea Ethical Consistency 2021-22" topic. Forget about him, the focus should be on the topic at hand, not ad homs.

I don't personally care for how some boycotters buy on Scheme but you don't see me calling into question their character as a person. Not everyone in here boycotts the same. And there is nothing wrong with that. Let's focus on getting GOG to make positive changes instead of infighting.

Time4Tea: No. Arguing about the 'official' meanings of words and what specific words we choose to use (which seems to be what we are doing here) is a semantic argument, by definition.

Time4Tea: 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.

richlind33: What's so hard about calling this a consumer protest, rather than a boycott?

richlind33: Without mutually agreed upon definitions, communication becomes next to impossible.

rjbuffchix: Thanks for honest engagement with this point. It probably got lost in the shuffle but I believe I have actually addressed what you're bringing up. If we step back and look on a broad level, this Boycotting topic is full of various individual demands and perspectives, some outright contradictory with one another which is where difficulty would occur on GOG's side of things. However, I think GOG could look at certain demands as "low-risk" in the sense that to make changes on these points would bring certain customers back while not turning off others.

rjbuffchix: An example I gave previously is the "My Rewards" cosmetic content in Cyberpunk which is currently locked behind a Galaxy requirement; this would be "low-risk" to fix and make accessible to offline installer users, considering that no one (besides GOG/CDPR) is insisting the content must stay locked behind the client requirement. I would think a couple other relatively "easy" fixes would be for GOG to offer more detailed explanation about the situation with Devotion and the situation with the Hitman DRMed release. Perhaps we should keep brainstorming and ask for easy fixes first.

richlind33: What's so hard about calling this a consumer protest, rather than a boycott?

Time4Tea: ...

lolplatypus: There are rather concrete and significantly upvoted Wishlist entries being ignored, too. So I'm not sure how useful it'd be to leave room for interpretation.

lolplatypus: And here's the thing: I don't know how easy those fixes actually are.
I'm with you with the Cyberpunk rewards, but I don't know how things work internally over there and if for some reason CDPR wanted more online shit for Cyberpunk and told GOG to push that, there's probably not much wiggle room for GOG. But I have no idea.

Devotion explanation is just flat out not going to happen. At least I can't see that. We pretty much know what happened, but were GOG ever to address that, they'd also have to explain why they didn't just sell Devotion and region lock it. I can't see a reasonable way to do that without throwing themselves and many gamers under the bus. Presumably the fallout from that isn't worth it, even if a few hundred forum users packed up shop and left (and judging from this thread, it probably wouldn't be that many to begin with). I'd go as far as to say it's actually the most difficult fix of all and GOG's playing it perfectly the way they are. And I did not enjoy writing that.

Hitman explanation is more likely, but I don't really see that one happening, either. GOG pulled the game, that's an implied "we messed up, sorry" and realistically that is all they had to do. That also would be the best possible explanation for GOG if they decided to elaborate, so there's really not much point. I'd also like to point out that GOG didn't say a whole lot when the feedback was DRM, but once several outlets claimed review removal the game got pulled pretty quickly. So why would they address anything now, the dogs are sleeping again after all.

So that's the problem: what is an easy fix?
The modus operandi for a while now has been to do something, not to communicate anything for two to three weeks, and if the pushback hasn't died down sufficiently to track back about 20%, sell that as "listening to the community" and silently be content with the other 80%. Like clockwork. They're not going to address something that happened a year ago. I think all of the easy fixes are forward facing. Like the revamped store pages. It's taking a while, but maybe that'll turn out well. Maybe some more public stuff about DRM-free commitment. Opensourcing Galaxy, if we're lucky.

rjbuffchix: This is why I think we need brainstorming in order to determine where to focus, as it seemed obvious to me that these fixes were the easiest ones yet your points have me calling that into some doubt now.

Enebias: It seems correct to say this: at first, I was in with the boycott. I asked to be moved in the sympathetic list when things started to improve -although there is still much to do to recover for certain lows- and I bought Mechanicus, one of the very few purchases I made last year.

Now I asked to be removed altogether because, despite still thinking GOG needs a proper kick in the groin, I find my priorities on the matter divergent to what is stated in the OP. That's it.

GamezRanker: I'd just ignore that user....they seem to be trolling to derail the thread, and will likely keep doing so if you keep replying....that said(to all):

I think we all should ignore those nitpicking/arguing about semantics/etc(like what constitutes a boycott), as it's only derailing the thread.