thefallenalchemist: It is considered immoral to eat people, yet there are cultures and tribes who do it all the time. You can go to those cultures and tell them they're immoral, they won't care and they will just eat you as well.
HappyPunkPotato: Again, just because some people think it's not immoral doesn't make it so. Obviously the outcome of that path is that nothing is objective (which may well be true).
thefallenalchemist: We are dealing with women here and that's like trying to figure out a rubicks cube designed by the devil. She can tell you she wants you one day, and then the next day you're a rapist because she changed her mind. Yes, this is very much a thing. When you bring women and rape into this conversation, it muddies the waters entirely.
HappyPunkPotato: Yes some women claim to have been raped when they haven't, and that's a terrible thing to do (or not, if morality is subjective?). But that also doesn't make rape ok. And what's all this about bringing women into it? Do women not exist as people who deserve fair treatment, or are we just some subspecies to be discussed and confuse things for men?
thefallenalchemist: Let's just ignore all of this because we are just going to go round and round, I'll get called all the things and nothing will become of it. So without further ado, let us please go back to this boycotting nonsense... I mean, boycotting business. Slip of the tongue there.
HappyPunkPotato: I have not called you anything. If you're saying the boycott is nonsense it seems less like you're keen to get back to it and more like you know you're wrong and eager to have the last word. Having said that, I do feel guilty dragging what I believe to be an important subject and a good job by Time4Tea off topic so I'm willing to ignore it if you are.
Oh crap, did not realize you were a woman. Hence the line of reasoning. I should have guessed that from the fact that it went from murder to rape in an instant. I'll refrain from further speaking on this subject, my views prove subjective morality quite well. Once again, morality is subjective and it always has been. It always will be. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that someone else doesn't either. I don't have time for this social justice nonsense right now and how people want the world to be. All I know is how the world actually is, and it doesn't give a damn about your "objective morality." I guess some of you need to experience that for yourself.
thefallenalchemist: Where's the second and third part? It's not here.
It's not here. And that's the problem. If I was in charge, I'd fix this mess.
Boss: "The second part of Goober's Quest came out today. Why isn't it on my platform?"
Employee: "Well, you see... The publisher DOES NOT WANT TO PUBLISH THE GAME HERE..."
Boss: "Ah, ok."
Melvinica: thefallenalchemist: Where's the second and third part? It's not here.
It's not here. And that's the problem. If I was in charge, I'd fix this mess.
Boss: "The second part of Goober's Quest came out today. Why isn't it on my platform?"
Employee: "Well, you see... The publisher DOES NOT WANT TO PUBLISH THE GAME HERE..."
Boss: "Ah, ok."
Melvinica: Boss: "Well, why not?"
Developers need to give an answer and you are also making excuses for GOG. They should come out and tell us if a publisher or developer chooses to no longer publish with GOG that way we aren't waiting.
News: GOG loses partnership with (dev team/company).
Just tell us flat out GOG, don't keep your customers in the dark. I am an adult, I can take the truth. If a publisher or developer felt the game did poorly, we should know that, so we don't expect things that will never happen. This company needs more transparency. Tell us what's going on. I spend a lot of money here, I think I deserve to know.
Elmofongo: I need them to stay afloat to still have access to these 600+ games.
Setilla: Guess what; all those games have been reuploaded somewhere else. They call it piracy, but when business fails, it's normal people with resources who save media. You payed for them to keep their developers alive (or any other sentiment), not for access. Corporations can do whatever the hell they want with games: they can revoke your access for any reason, they can remove the original releases from their store, they can even back out on selling a game the same day they announced it...
We all should think a bit hard about the consequences of these "handy" services before going on a buying spree.
No, let's not promote software piracy here please.
Time4Tea: 2) Backing up your installers anyway is a good thing to do. Even if GOG don't go under, part of the reason for this boycott is a concern that, the way they seem to be going, they may at some point remove the offline installers entirely. If that ever happens, then you would be much more tied to GOG and their client to access your games. Well said....if GOG ever removed the offline installers or went under for some other reason, people would lose access to those installers anyways. That is why it's a good idea in general to back one's data up as soon as one can.
