3.5 Those boycotting/complaining the loudest are ironically doing it on their forums therefore can't take them seriously.

For all intents and purposes, it's a hypothetical scenario, but not an impossible one.

"We see a marked decline in sales last month. Apparently these games are selling far below projections."
"What's the common denominator?"
"Well, uh... they are all DRM games."
"Oh. It must be because people are pissed off about our lack of communication, our heavy pushing of Galaxy and our conduct during the recent Devotion debacle!"

That line of reasoning makes no sense, IMO.

No, I think the only thing you can protest by specifically avoiding DRM games, is DRM.

Have you EVER written any software?
You ALWAYS test it, ESPEICALLY if we're talking pure manual coding.
Do you really somehow came to conclusion that there was no quality control in games "back in the day"?
QA == quality assurance / quality control.
It was always a thing.

No, that's shitty coding and not controlling your project's complexity in relation to your capabilities.

No offense but you clearly have no clue how gamedev works.
For the sake of simplicity let's separate QA into 2 cathegories:
1.Testing product performance on target hardware
2.Testing actual quality of the product

"Nowadays" systems (let's for the sake of simplicity talk about Windows only for now) are rather unified. There are dependencies easily available (for example VC redistributables), large chunk of population has similar setups, GPU drivers get game-specific fixes, etc.
It's not exacly "hard" to make game cross-system-compatible when you are working on same base packages across them.
Testing performance of the product on end-user hardware isn't something that can be done 100% since there can be rather high permutations.
But usual, popular configurations are usually well tested. And those are that have "support" - it doesn't mean the game will not work on others - it just means other won't get official support (if something breaks you are on your own).
That's normal.
Now, if we are talking acutal QA of actual product...
Bugs like some textures not rendering properly (for example invisible water) can be attributed to problems with hardware configurations along with software stack.
Meanwhile bugs like car sinking through a world map have nothing to do with hardware whatsoever.
Same for shitty AI shooting you through the walls - it's not shitty because your CPU is weak, it didn't get "dumber", it's not a code that has intelligence and capabilities dependant on hardware it runs on - the AI won't get "dumber" because your CPU is worse than average - it's bad because it was coded bad - and the code was not properly TESTED.
If your character makes a stunt Crank homage in the middle of motorcycling it has nothing to do with your GPU for example, it's just that the game was not properly tested and shit like that either slipped through QA or someone at HQ ignored QA and let this through.

Hold up, if by any chance you are putting "CP2077 shit last gen console release" under this cathegory then you clearly get it wrong.
PS4 / XONE have known components, platform is fairly static (minus aftermarket changes, tho no developer alligns to that, except for maybe CDPR expecting for every customer to have devkit parts in their consoles).
Optimising for it is literally easier than for majestic glorious indefinite amount of random configurations.
It's not like CDPR was not aware of the specs they have in hand. THEY KNEW.
One of 2 things happened:
1.Someone out there at HQ upon being presented with the port running on DEVKIT (mind you, devkits are beefed up versions of consoles since you cannot debug absolutely EVERYTHING on computers in terms of console port coding workflow and thus part of debugging is done on devkits thus they are more powerful for that reason), game running "acceptably", that someone completely ingored (or was utter ignorant not knowing any better) and made mental connection "game runs ok enough on devkit" == "game will run fine on consumer hardware".
2.Or that somebody was presented with port running on actual off the shelf consoles, it was running terribly, and that someone said "f it, we will just release it like that to not make last gen people wait longer than current gen and we will patch it later, people are hyped and they will love the game so they will surely forgive us".

Yes, it is a difference between manually painstakingly and painfully quality testing 64 k on slow hardware while pushing it to limits compared to heavily relying on automated debugging tool helpers on powerful hardware which should it happen to be insufficient you can just throw money at a problem and buy better or rent computing cluster for needed time to just test 10 GiB.

Gee, I wonder how pretentious do you have to be to not realize how hypocritical are your comparisons.
Skyrim had uncomparably higher amount of staff involved in development process.
If your game is more complex then you just throw more people at it. It's a rule of the industry.

It's funny how you just blatantly assume it was a bug and not for example code and architecture limitation (that would not be possible to overcome until newer hardware and software) without knowing actual code.

Are you for real?
When someone in gamedev enriches complexity of their software it's only natural for them to invest more resources into testing it properly.
It's insane to expect same quality level on 2 fundamentally abyss-separated (in terms of compelxity) projects being tested by exact same amount of people with exact same skills.
You are just never going to have equal quality levels like this.
Bigger project means more needed QA.
If games are getting bigger and qulity is getting worse it's direct evidence some development studios simply don't care about investing enough resources into testing it appropriately and fundamentally.
It IS possible to make big complex games that are generally bug free.
It's only a matter of doing proper QA, which again, many developers these days seem to cannot be bothered with since they see most customers put up with whatever BS and keep repeating "oh it's complex, oh it's new, it's okay that it's broken on day one" - no - it's not okay, such things fall under QA and if games get released broken it means there wasn't sufficient amount of it.
This has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with project size. It has everything to do with properly handling human resources and investing TIME into ensuring your product is of quality BEFORE releasing it and not making an "afterthought postrelease patch spree".

Oh really? And just WHERE are we supposed to talk about it?
The platform in question allowed us to use it's forums, so why not use them?
What's the problem?
Should we "go outside" just to not use the very features that we are given?
WHY?

Ah, yes, "let's mix up different problems and different outcomes and pretend 'it doesn't make sense'".
There is A LOT wrong with GOG recently, more so other time.
GOG is loosing customers not because of just one problem.
Devotion is pissing off some, EGS ordeal others, etc.
Groups are interconnecting and crossing, overall combined they create a punch hole in GOG's revenue. Whether it's noticable so far to GOG or not is not for me to decide. So far they are radio silent so I guess they are fine with it?
Or perhaps they are M type of people... /s

edit: fixed formatting

I would say you have it backwards. GOG is denying customers like me the type of store necessary to want to give it funds. If they're going to turn into another DRM storefront, and the whole reason I came here in the first place was DRM-free gaming, why would I keep giving them money?

Don't see why that would be ironic. Posting on the forums doesn't give GOG any money, quite the opposite.

GOG has only supported a genocidal dictatorship, just a tiny bit, but maybe a bit premature to start gathering a mob of protestors outside GOG HQ. Complaining here on the forums is just fine for now.

I find that refraining from publishing content degrading a world leader (something that I consider to be of bad taste to begin with... there is unfortunately a lot of it in the media and even when its targeting someone I don't like, like Trump, I find it to be among the basest most shameful kind of discourse someone can have... that people publicly engage in such base discourse with impunity and without any kind of shame speaks volumes about the regression of our culture) at the risk of alienating a 1+ billion user market to be a compromise that I can live with.

If it gets broader than that (ie, "not promoting democracy, not portaying any kind of revolt against dictatorships, etc"), then we'll talk.

Uh.. that was exactly my point. The person I quoted was suggesting we fix the problems we're addressing in this thread not by boycotting, but by only buying non-DRM games, and I don't see how that could possibly work.

A) Devotion didn't make fun of China's Pooh Bear anymore. The one tiny scrap of paper making fun of him was removed from the game already. Although, I hope they put it back when they get the game published with some platform that has some balls and dares to stand for free speech.

B) Any idiotic leader in the world can and should be made fun of. Trump, Pooh Bear, Putin and everyone else, even historic ones like Muhammad and other religious leaders.

This is always said. People never learn

The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (later known as A&P) was the first company to ever gross $1 billion (US) a year in sales. They created the Supermarket. They were the biggest and most unstoppable company on the planet - until they weren't.

Sears was the largest retailer in the world in 1990. By 2000 they were being bought out in bankruptcy.

Woolworth was the biggest discount big box store, until K-Mart was the biggest and baddest, then it was/is Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is unstoppable until Amazon.

Apple was in bankruptcy in 2000 and going out of business until Microsoft bought 15% stake for $150 million. Apple is OK now.

Yahoo! was the biggest until Google

Netscape was king until until Internet Explorer which was king until Chrome.

Sony was king of electronics. Until the ipod killed the the walkman brand. And Samsung, LG and others killed the Sony TV brand.

MySpace was the biggest until they weren't.

Banks are too big to fail - until they failed.

Toy R Us is the king of toys until they went out of business.

The idea that people changing spending habits can't move the needle is nonsense.

GOG is said to have 10% of the PC digital game market. If 1% percent of the overall game community changes that is 10% of GOGs base. GOG being smaller more niche than Steam it is going to have the most selective and forceful following so it is most likely that 1 percent of us in the overall digital buying community can move the needle 10% on GOG. Potentially more if we are the largest buyer group with the longest history.

You clearly haven't. You throw a lot of words around that make you seem competent, but any real dev sees easily through this. You should really stop to embarrass yourself.

And btw. I have sent in Amiga disks to get an updated version, and only s few weeks later I got new disks back with the fix for the game-breaking bug.

And sorry to say that from you wall of text - you should seek professional help. Not everybody out there to get you and intend to screw you over. Mistakes happen, and the more complex the product the more possible points of failure. Sometimes two identical set up systems (from scratch) will behave in wildly different ways. I've been there, I've scratched my head until I lost hair, and I fixed it.

I'm writing software since the 90's btw.

do you really think anyone found it competent? it was fun to read, though, some very interesting use of the language there. My favorite bit was "enriches complexity" - what a lovely turn of phrase. I think I am going to make use of that one (not in the same way or context, off course), I know some managers it will work perfectly on.

"Born idealist", huh?

Yes, there are many kinds of ideals, some of them conflicting.

I believe in making an effort to understand one another and trying to minimise conflicts. We know how ugly things can get when we let our baser instincts get the better of us. Human history is filled with such moments.

Not being demeaning to people is not always about them, especially in the case of those who do horrible things.

Its also about you and about those who listen to you.

Also, nobody, no matter how decent they are, has universal popularity. Everyone has detractors. One always hope they can keep a minimum of decorum.

The deep conflict you're talking about is what is Truth, in the first place.

Why you would make fun of someone if they were right, or telling the truth about something, if they really are telling the truth or making something right? Or how would you really know what is the Truth? How can you judge if Bob is saying the real Truth? Just because of how you, specifically, understand how the world works? What if your world view is verifiably wrong, even though you may not understand that yet?
(Philosophical question, those who understand, will understand where Im getting at.)

This is completely necessary in a world full of arrogance where we can't truly understand what the other is really saying with his words or expressions. We can't fully understand simply because we're not in someone's place* to know and/or understand what he/she thinks he/she knows, and feel what he/she is feeling.

We have only objective moral values to judge things, and even through them, we fail. Not because objective moral values doesn't exist, but because we fail to apply a judgement about them, or using them, correctly. (If you, who reads this, agree and believe that. Or we may discuss it, Im open for debate, always.)

*Someone's place = Only the person that is saying something can get close of what he/she is really feeling or meaning with something he/she said or did. When I say we aren't in 'someone's place', I mean that, the person that said or did something have lived a life different from yours and mine, so because of a million of factors, he/she did, said, etc what he/she did, said, etc.

He/she have his cultural, egoisthical, familiar, etc reasons to do what he/she is doing, Even if it's verifiably wrong or imoral, the person that is doing so, have his/her reasons.

And just to clarify, I focused on Objective Moral Values because In NO WAY we can defend wrong doings like what C-Country is doing right now together with so many other countries and people too.