Not even the miserable downvoters can stop this thread.

We don't need advice from back-seat 'boycott consultants', thanks. We're perfectly capable of running our own protest.

If you don't want to join and protest against GOG's misguided direction and slipping standards, that's your choice.

Oh yes. Moreover it im who toxic "sniping", yes. Not OP and you but im. Right.

Criticism shouldnt looking like kid whine. And to you understand - im not GOG fanboy (is they even exist?). GOG noobers repackers. Always be. But i not see on first page NOT A SINGLE obective critisim - only whine.

And when im named OP fat-troll - it is compliment. I hope he just posing acting like little kid just to make this trolling triggering thread. Not really little kid and not stupid as he look like. It is just acting. But that only for OP - he is not as he looks like (can be seen also in other threads where he really be more objective and less f*s* about fake DRM blaming). Im not sure about any else here.

There is only ONE real DRM product on GOG - online official guide+interactive map for Cyberpunk 2077. Like online guides on Steam (deleted entirely from Steam). Not a DLC at all (guides on Steam is only technically DLC).
Still not a big problem (just dont buy it, it not a game content), but still not a product that should be on GOG store.

GOG Galaxy builds > offline builds? Well, that obvious. More cooperative with publishers less work for GOG (at same time GOG and ZOOM stores make less work for publishers sharing it with GOG). Galaxy online builds allow private_branch and make tiny hotixes without replacing whole offline package. That make offline updated last. This is NORMAL

Did GOG Galaxy online build get advantages after offline? No. Moreover - sometimes offline builds is superior to Galaxy.

And THIS is why im not GOG fan boy. It is people here who lie. GOG never lie. But they just noobers-repackers who always do little mistakes. There is no reason for stupid hating and toxic like most ppl here do. And no reason to fanboy GOG's. 50/50%. GOG can forget put something to game build - but not for purpose. Just forget to do it. As result - this superior build can be online for one game and offline for another.
They dont do anything to betray us and DRM-free thing.

It is problem in people who let themself decide what mean such technical term - DRM. Custom innosetup build = DRM!!111. Real case happend from lamo-linux users (most of linux users looks lamo for me, at least them who can be seen on net\forums)

It dont make me toxic and ctitism if YOU dont like it. But what i say - just true. What you can say in response to me?
'No! You toxic sniper!!111'
Great, you right! (no).

OP just try to trigger GOG haters. And then trigger GOG's to put them in a list. So this thread not about GOG issues. Not at all. And at least first page - not describe any such issues.

Im not fan-boy. You can try to move me on "boycott" side. At least for games available on ZOOM. I didnt decide which one store i prefer more (discover ZOOM year+ ago). They BOTH are GOOD place to buy games and they versions are BETTER than Steam and any else. GOG have forums and support site. And regional prices. Forums can be used by anyone. Im OK with US non-regional pricing on ZOOM.

There is releases make some GOG versions a little bit broken (Disciples 2, Quake 2, DOS+Win games whitout Win exe file, all ScummVM releases). But this is random little technical mistakes. I can deal with them myself. Should be ONE. BIG. ISSUE - to completely boycott GOG at all. Not to just whine here - but real boycott. Again, this thread if for flood reason. OP is NOT GOG boycotting - he didnt say that outside of this thread. And after all - he is still here. You all still here.

This whole thread is about. When you see it happened to you - i see this is happened to me in your post when you named me "sniper" and "attacker". And GOG who "be attacked" here for no real reasons.

Read again if you miss it - but im still NO ATTACKING you. If you dont like something from my post =/= that im attacking OP or you. I just say what i see here. Whining OP "for a good reason" (well, he is just trolling) and more worse acting from any else who lie about GOG lying and really believe in it.

I just read the first post and just want to say... You guys are winey and self centered. Lmao

I have seen you on zoom before. You come off as someone who just hates GOG. So I don't believe that's the reason you're protesting against GOG is for misguided direction and slipping standards.

Welp, here we go again...

If you want to criticize ALL the criticisms in the OP, then I suggest you do your homework, go through each point and tell us what is wrong with each. Blanket statements like the above are not constructive or useful in any way.

What is or isn't DLC is irrelevant to whether it's a DRM product. If it includes any DRM code at all, it's a DRM product.

I should also add that some people here consider Galaxy itself a DRM product. I have no personal opinion on that since I've never been, and have no intention to ever be, a Galaxy user, so I don't know enough about it to have one.

I would argue that a lot of that should be possible to automate for offline installers - if they design their deployment system right, a hotfix done through Galaxy (which someone has to write the configuration, scripting or code for anyway) should be something they can turn into an extra scripted installation step using the same configuration, script or code, or in worst case a translated/ported version of it. In most cases the only manual step needed should be to double-check that the automated system didn't do something stupid (for example because of scripting bugs).

Sure. If that's the case we shouldn't see the same issues over and over, but only very occasional ones. Checklists combined with a work ticket system (like Jira for example) can do wonders to keep track of such things for you, so that those mistakes almost never happen.

I agree that the definition of DRM is problematic, because there are a lot of different ones being used. Not least of all GOG's own definition, which has been vague at best. I'm sure that's very convenient for a business trying to stay out of trouble.

A very common definition for DRM used in this thread seems to include any games that can't run without a server connection. That definition is also problematic, because many developers and publishers are likely to strongly disagree with it, so they might not pay attention to demands based on it.

But I don't recall seeing anyone here relating it specifically to custom setup builds before your post brought it up. Where did this idea come from?

Might be a good idea to let other people respond to you before you put words in their mouth and answer them. Just saying.

I can't speak for the OP's actual intentions, as I'm not Time4Tea (shocking, I know).

But there are plenty of other people who claim to agree with some or all of the issues listed in that post. Whether you personally consider it "kid's whining" or "GOG hating" isn't really all that relevant, since a significant amount of people are deciding to forego buying some games from GOG based on those points (as well as other points not listed there).

The two lists of people were originally made by mrkgnao in this post (but moved later to a different post because more people were added). Time4Tea just obliged by adding them to the OP since it made more sense to keep track of the iists in a place that's easy to find.

Again, I can't speak for mrkgnao's intentions, but I think it made perfect sense at the time. Keeping track of who's joining and who's agreeing on principle but not really joining allows both us and GOG to make some sort of estimate for how common it is for people to be so fed up with GOG's choices that it affects spending habits.

Meh. What people consider a good reason for reduced spending or full-on boycotting is very subjective, and whether what those people are doing can be defined as a real boycott is not a very useful distinction. The best we can do is try to maintain a general idea of what the average user cares about, and how much it affects spending.

What should matter here is that some people are fed up with GOG's way of doing things to the point that they are reducing their spending significantly, and that GOG can potentially gain some of that userbase back if they change their ways. This thread makes some of it visible instead of hidden away. So it helps GOG with keeping tabs on some of us, at least.

Though it would be great if we could also find out how many people are not here and still doing the same.

We aren't attacking GOG here, we're informing them. Thread or no thread, I'd still be boycotting GOG. Not because I hate or want to attack GOG, and not because I want to see them fail, but because I'm not willing to support many of their recent anti-consumer choices and would prefer to see them thrive without resorting to anti-consumer tactics. I'd be much more interested in buying games here if that were the case (in fact I used to re-buy games here that I owned elsewhere because I still viewed GOG as something I wanted to support).

The topic of us "attacking", "hating", "being against" etc. GOG, by the way, has been discussed several times in this thread. But it suffers from the problem that when old topics get brought up time and time again by newcomers, those old posts are tedious to find.


EDIT: Minor formatting fix.

Well all right then.

Disagreement is fine.

Personal attacks, snipes, etc that I'm referring to include:
"fat-troll"
"whiner"
"acting like little kid"

In other words, the personal attacks are unnecessary to any points you may have to make. You can make points disagreeing with OP, me, anyone in here, without adding on these little unnecessary insults.

Now, let's get on to a productive discussion.

My position is that no DRM or DRM-like schemes should be on a store that is (known as/supposed to be) DRM-free.

This means that even a minimal amount of DRM is too much, to me. It contaminates the purity such that the purity is no longer there. Perhaps you disagree with my position and are more allowing of some of what I call DRM or DRM-like schemes (i.e. something that may not fit the technical definition of DRM, but functions similarly or has same practical effects as DRM would). By the way, I happen to agree with you that the Interactive Map where one must be logged in to some third party website is a clear-cut example of DRM. What did you think of GOG's responses to user complaints about this Interactive DRM (if you saw/were aware of them...iirc its respective forum topic would have them)?

What's interesting to me is that people will disagree with me on wanting a pure standard, yet would share my standard with various other areas in their life. As an analogy, if someone orders a submarine sandwich and there is a dead cockroach inside it, does it really make much sense to try and rationalize "it's mostly cockroach-free" or "you can eat around the part with the cockroach so stop being entitled" or "most customers nowadays are okay with dead cockroaches inside their sandwich, so you're just a vocal minority" or "it's to deter thieves, so really it's for our benefit to have dead cockroaches in the sandwich" or "it's just how that chef chose to design his sandwich"?

Anyway, you are also missing (at minimum) in your comment the online-only game GWENT. Can you explain why you believe GWENT should/shouldn't be on GOG's store?

There are many ways I could answer this point, but to pick just one direction for the moment:
Are you aware that Galaxy client has a rollback feature in which users can obtain previous versions of games, while offline installer users are not able to get them without using this feature in Galaxy?

I am not accusing GOG of "lying"; however, I would be curious to know how you view the situation where a certain game was set to come here, I believe had its own gamepage and everything, only to then be removed due to what GOG claimed were "messages from many gamers." The main discrepancy that stands out is that GOG has received messages from other gamers (one could call them devoted fans of the game :p ) expressing a different view on this release as well as on various other topics, without any response from GOG, or with a much more delayed response from GOG. Even their precious Galaxy client has a huge amount of wishes on the community wishlist to be on Linux, yet GOG doesn't respond to that (that I know of). Can you account for such discrepancies?

^Edited to fix a typo, formatting a bit, adding a question.

I feel like thus far it's only been a "thorn" to the staff who don't make decisions / low-level employees unfortunately, but hopefully the word is passed along to the true decision-makers/execs.

And I have referred to them, obviously, not the CEO.

Hey fren.....hope yer doing well and all.

That said, I don't mind this gogger posting here.....they're much more civil and friendly than some of the prior ones(like the one who we shall not name). :)

=-=-=-=-=


Yeah, it is pretty fun(still have yet to finish it, but I loved much about it.....minus things like limited save locations) :)

The OP is (imo) understandably upset after some things GOG has done over the past few years. And yes, sometimes they can come off as a bit resentful/etc against GOG, but given some of the things GOG has pulled over the last few years I can't/don't fault em much.

Anecdotal/etc, but: I recently talked with someone (via PM) who doesn't use the forums much, who told me they dislike some of the things GOG has pulled/changed/etc over the last several years......so there is at least one person(and likely more) who don't use the forums who are also critical of GOG & some of their actions/choices.

=-=-=-=

To Everyone

Looks like i'm Mr. (-)4000 now, y'all :)

The first game I buy on GOG that has DRM will be the last game that I buy on GOG.

Just saying I have seen him post on Zoom, which can become a circle jerk of hating GOG sometimes. He is promoting Zoom on these forums constantly seems like he made up his mind about GOG. Also, pretty sure I saw him saying something about never going back to GOG on Zoom. Unless someone else had Time4Tea and pooh as avatars at the time. Lol

To me, that comes off a little hypocritical. We do not know how zoom will turn out in the future—acting like Zoom is so much better comes off little fanboys and naive.


Edit: Little off topic. haha

the blame is on gog for doing so many awful moves and getting their customers mad. they supported drm with games that are still on the store and also the epic store games on galaxy.