AstralWanderer: This stance [of boycotting in one's own way by limiting, not necessarily ceasing, spending], in my view, creates three problems:
It creates a slippery slope If it is OK to spend $20, then why not $40, $100 or more? The point of a boycott is that you withhold business
completely - once you start diluting this, or allowing others to dilute it, the relevance of this campaign drops significantly.
I would argue that it is okay to spend those amounts if the person deems it okay and if it is reduced from what they would have otherwise spent had they been fully satisfied with GOG. By the way, your point about the amount being spent cuts another way too and I do not think I have seen anyone respond to the counterexample that I and others have offered earlier in the topic. Perhaps you would care to try? Namely, take two users: User 1 used to spend $20 a year but now spends $0. User 2 used to spend $2000 a year but now spends $200.
Clearly, User 2 in that example is impacting GOG's business more by their boycott. Thus, it is not possible to conclude that boycotters must be "pure" to your own standards as, in fact, the "impure" boycotters may be more valuable to the boycotting cause if they were bigger spenders and all else is equal. As an aside, it has been clear from the outset of this topic that the definition of this boycotting includes "less than full cessation of spending" so they are "pure" anyway with respect to the standards actually set out in this topic.
This campaign is plenty relevant and has persisted for over a year (obviously). Literally the only people saying it is diluted or irrelevant are the ones who insist on playing these grammarian games, 100% crossover, wow what a coincidence. You have offered some thoughtful points though which I respect.
AstralWanderer: It appears like a double-standard The main objection of most people here has been with GOG's failure to adhere to "100%" DRM-free. Advocating a "less than 100%" boycott in such a case starts to look ironic, if not hypocritical.
Well, as you imply, not everyone boycotting is necessarily concerned with GOG being completely DRM-free, so those folks are excluded and perfectly valid in their "less than 100% boycott" until proven otherwise. Beyond that, hypocrisy is a weak charge. Focus on the ideas, not the people. Beyond that, the outcomes are not equal. If some of us here use a definition of boycott that the grammar guardians don't like, the main result is them getting upset and continuing to try to bog the thread down with these endless grammar games. If GOG does not maintain DRM-free, DRM-free gaming as a whole is on a death knell and there are broader implications for ownership in general too.
AstralWanderer: It reduces support for other stores If anyone boycotting wants to purchase a game, surely it would be better than they get it from another DRM-free provider than use their "boycott allowance" to buy it from GOG?
It would be better but as you may be aware, that is typically not possible. I would love to buy more on Zoom-Platform. I would love to buy games direct from developer sites DRM-free. Most of the time this is not possible. Also in some cases if someone has any slim hope for GOG to eventually turn around, there is an argument for buying select releases here in hopes of more such games being brought here in the future.
AstralWanderer: As such, I would suggest this policy be reconsidered - at least those participating should be
aiming for a 100% boycott, since lack of commitment here is likely to result in lack of reaction from GOG. In particular, Time4Tea, as thread originator and list maintainer, others here will look to you to set the example - so any perceived backsliding on your part could have a magnified effect.
More backwards understanding. This is not some cult who looks up to a leader for instruction. Time4Tea has done a great job maintaining the thread but it is not "his" own cause. Also, as I have already addressed to another user, the reaction from GOG is solely on their end of things. We only have so much influence. Given that historically they have been criticized for communication with users, and given the imo inadequate responses to Hitman GOTY release and Devotion non-release that are "communications" we did get, I don't see why people buying games here and there would change matters one way or the other in terms of getting communication responses.
Edit: wrong quote tags, lol.