The main reason why political discussions are banned in lots of forums, chats, etc. is that they are essentially "You are dumb." - "No, you are dumb." - "NO, YOU are dumb." - "NO, YOU ARE dumb" - "NO, YOU ARE DUMB" - ... It is a circle and you constantly read the same bullshit over and over again. And usually you see the same usernames involved in these discussions. Both sides are problematic because both are discussing political topics without any form of respect. You can read constantly personal attacks. And this makes these discussions pointless. Similar things can be said about discussions about religion.

As said above, posts that comply with the current rules set by GOG should be OK. That excludes the topics that you mention. However, often there are crossed accusations of posts being political. More often than not they are not, ad the other is trying to suppress an opinion. It is the call of mods to tell which posts do not comply, there can be a wide grey area.

In the case of this thread. The fact that GOG decides to adhere to a code of best practices is not political by itself. However, the way the OP critized this adhesion, and the sources linked, might seem to be part of a political agenda.

Firstly, I think it's important to state that ESG scores are almost completely unrelated to the actual good(s) produced or services rendered by the company in question. Many are fine with some rating scheme on goods and services, but on everything ancillary to those goods and services? In practical terms this would mean that a maker of hammers would be forced to consistently account for everything -- and every person -- around the making of those hammers... instead of focusing on actually making the best hammers possible.

How can a company make a superior product when they cannot focus solely on making that product?

(and understand there are laws... but ESG is a third-party scoring system based on "ethics," not laws)

Secondly, with ESG scores tied to finance, businesses are coerced into accepting and even championing the system. Who wants to lose loans, advertising, market share, or other non-tangibles because your ESG score was low? Certainly a truly voluntary system would be somewhat problematic, but a scoring system that has built in "policing" via financial repercussions -- and ostracism if you opt out -- is simply coercion.

How can a company financially exist in an ESG system without playing by the system? It can't. So although technically "optional," it's not.

In 1999 ESG scoring came from the world of finance as a way for investors to determine the social and environmental ethics of a company, but as its adoption by financial markets, corporations, and even governments has grown...

... so have the elements of ESG scoring. Look into the auditing process and you'll see just how labyrinthine, complex, and rife for manipulation the process is.

Have a discussion with someone deeply invested in intersectionality and you will probably come away with "everything is connected to everything!" Now merge intersectionality with the world of finance, and you can certainly see where ESG's "everything is connected to everything" is the perfect authoritarian control mechanism -- an expansive and ever-growing list of potential offenses (today's ethics are often tomorrow's unethical), a complex and ever-changing formula for calculating scores (does anyone truly know?), and a constant data-gathering and surveillance on potential infractions.

If you were to just take that last sentence and correlate it to a type of government, I think you would see this system would have been the wet dream of a number of "bad players" who loved top-down control.

Now, with that said...

... I think people should be very aware of what they consume, where it was made and how it was made. And if they don't like how a business performs its business, then do not purchase from them. (Whether many believe it, the people (bottom-up) really do hold the power to change everything from business to government.) But ESG scoring is a just...

... a technocratic authoritarian control mechanism masquerading as "building a better world" or "saving the planet."

Many will learn this in time... but they still don't understand that technocratic control wants general de-industriation through extreme bureaucratic oversight (of which ESG is just one component)... or what "sustainability" really means.

But Winter of Coming...

Buzzwords about diversity, environmental impact, and other terms that jobsworth busybodies love.

I hear this decried a lot...

... essentially calling people problematic and lumping them into groups that shouldn't be conversed with... while claiming their issues are either non-existent or simply used as attacks.

But I hear no real, reasoned discussion of points raised.

And that seems the point. Guerrilla tactics. Undermine opponents, get a threads locked having had the last word. Convenient.... but no discussion... no answers.

In fact I'm still waiting to hear about whether someone here drinks coffee or eats chocolate? But they know where that will lead...

IMHO this lack of discussion (and underming of discussion) is THE problem.

People have various ideas and all are valid. And in fact many people agree on where they want to go... just not how to get there.

But first is the civil discussion... followed by dissection of your own beliefs.

It's sad that some are blinded by ideology that they can't discuss... refuse to discuss...

Sad state

Apologies for butting into an exchange of yours with another poster, but 'SJW' is as valid an invective as 'nazi', 'comicsgater' and assorted aspersions your side of the political divide uses. Of course not. That's precisely why you examine them in light of the context we are discussing here. You really believe it's just a coincidence that their lowest ratings ever are happening right now? Or that, in a year where post-pandemic box office earnings rose by 112%, the ceremony recorded their lowest viewing rate ever? You're missing the point. P&G reported an impairment charge of $8 billion in the fiscal fourth quarter, resulting in a net loss of $5.24 billion after Gillette's 'toxic masculinity' ad. After that close shave (ha), they haven't pulled such a stunt again. Again, I'm afraid you're missing the point - the one about it not being a cheat code but merely signaling an inevitable downward trend, loss of consumer confidence and lack of focus to the detriment of the end product. Neither Dragon Age I or Mass Effect I were 'woke' by any means, and one need look no further than Bioware's current state to see where their chosen direction took them. You certainly won't find me defending Marvel's quality or merits, but one can't deny their overwhelming success until a certain point. A point in which the focus shifted from telling the best story you can within the constraints of the 'dude or dudette with superpowers' formula and faithfulness to the source material to correcting perceived social ills and injustices via The Message and not caring about the characters' legacy. You won't find my agreement, as I don't share your anti-clerical/religious view, but that's neither here nor there. On the topic at hand, it's hard to financially manage lawsuits when you lose 425,000 members after your so-called 'gender inclusive name change', for one. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the inclusion of a female protagonist automatically makes a movie woke. That's not the case at all. Unlike the 2016 mess, Afterlife positioned itself in the actual Ghostbusters' continuity and provided ample fanservice, instead of replacing the characters with some 'don't need no man' distaff versions and antagonizing the fanbase. You know, the people you're actually counting on to watch the movie. It made a fraction of what Toy Story 4 did. Even for a spinoff, that's bad. Netflix sadly still dominates the streaming ratings, getting six out of the top 10 spots. But their insistence in subverting every new property they get their hands on is slowly killing them. I think you're confusing Gen Z with Millennials. A bit of an overstatement, but ok, let's say one billion may be peanuts to Disney's coffers. It certainly isn't in box office numbers. The final chapter of a successful 'trilogy' making substantially less than the first is not how it's supposed to go. Again, that's really not the way it's supposed to go. At least not with entertainment juggernauts of the Lord of the Rings' caliber. For comparison, GoT much-decried 8th season saw growth until the final episode, and its viewership quintupled between seasons 1 and 8.

I'm aware. If I were moderating, there'd be multiple pairs of smoking boots/ashen craters already and the thread would have already been locked with a clear explanation of (towards the OP, mind), "You are an idiot who doesn't know the first thing of which you speak and only made this thread to stir shit."

The way I see it is this: I'm not happy that my favorite studio is doing this. However, at the end of the day, my love for them comes from their games, from GOG and from the way I feel valued as a customer. As long as they still release great games without forcing agendas in them (my biggest concern), as long as they provide great games DRM-free through GOG and as long as I continue to feel valued as a customer, I'll stick with them.

That said, I am definitely concerned. I don't care all that much what a studio does internally as long as they're releasing great products and treating the customer right. My only real concern is that they'll start shoving agendas into their games. I just want them to keep releasing well-written, fun, immersive games. I don't want to be preached to.

Guess time will tell. I just hope it doesn't go the wrong way because I love their games and I love GOG. I do NOT want to have to abandon them all because they're pushing this garbage.

Everyone does.

And I personally don't mind "Threat everyone with respect except those assholes who try to bully others" as an agenda.

For me, the one and only important question is, if it's still a good and believable game.
I mean, HZD is considered to be a good game, no? And that, despite it being so unbelievable. In a growing civilization with only few people in it, everything would be done to get more children, relationships among the same gender would be forbidden. Yet we only very rarely find a "normal" couple, most of the characters who talk about relationships are gay.
Stories talking constantly about how women are oppressed and must step up? 20 years ago it was normal for us that a woman shot hundreds of bad guys, these days the player must be told that she is doing something special.
So what. Show some humor, shake it off and enjoy the game.

There's a difference between weaving a message into your art and just shoving an agenda into something to fit a diversity quota or to push some sort of forced nonsense. That means it's no longer art, it's just propaganda. For example, Star Wars has always had a bit of an anti-war message despite the perpetual state of warfare in the galaxy. It has also always had an anti-tyranny message. However, neither of those messages are forced into the series (or rather, they weren't until the travesty that is Andor). Instead, the message is expertly woven into the story, so that those who don't want to hear a message can just ignore it, whereas those who are looking for a message can have a relatable piece of art to enjoy and, perhaps, learn from.

Compare that with modern Marvel where it feels like they take every opportunity to push their agenda. It's why Marvel hasn't been good in a very, very long time... honestly, Marvel has always been overrated but it has been terrible lately.

So yeah, to conclude/TL;DR it...

You can put a message into art without forcing it in for the sake of satisfying quotas and SJWs. When you force it into a creation, that creation isn't art; it's a propaganda piece. When you naturally weave the message into the story, then that's a fine definition of what art is all about. People don't want to be preached to, they want to have an enjoyable piece of escapist entertainment. If the artist wants to tell a message, they can do so in ways that are not forced and ridiculous.

And that basically matches my TL;DR: The most important thing is if it's a good game.

I don't really care about the messages. If they follow a path I really don't like, I stop playing and play something else instead.

A bunch of people sitting in front of computers? If you think that's wasteful, you should see what some companies are doing in the cloud, commanding what is sometimes thousands of servers crunching 24/7 for trivial pursuit. Oh and they are tossing these servers in the garbage bin after a couple of years of operation btw.

Compared to that, a couple hundreds employees working during office hours, their machines remaining idle most of the time, is small potatoes.

I don't know the specifics of EGS, but I think regulating industries for environmental externalities is fair game.

Why? I'm a software developer and while I want the industry I work for to be environmentally accountable, I don't intend to stop working.

It isn't binary.

That doesn't work. Businesses themselves will tell you that whenever they do something awful, their accountability is to profits and it is the government's job to regulate.

I'd love for you to be right on this, but my intuition is that without a nudge, most people won't do the right thing there. We are the product of our social environment.

Again, it depends about the specifics, but from my perspective, what you posted is needed right now.

Society is not about always doing what you want. In a world constrained by the laws of physics, accountability is also part of the picture. Actions and consequences.

Na, big server farms in data centers should see the first backlash of this control mechanism.

Ah sorry, may have misunderstood your post.

I would do the same but considering how CDPR is my favorite studio and they make some of my favorite games, I really don't want to have to do that.

No worries, no harm done.

Personally I don't think they will games about these topics, but they will make sure that thes principles are not violated in new games. After all they don't want to scare away customers.