Because FREE STUFF. Same with adding store links to list.

I though I explained the problem I'm looking for a solution for. But I will explain again and thoroughly.

So you are facing a long list of game titles in the give away. Let's say you don't recognize 85% of the titles listed.

If you take the time to look up each game title to determine if it's a game you would want to play, by the time you are finished that one game title you did recognize and do want to play, might be gone. And maybe none of the other remaining titles after you spent the time examining each title for what kind of game it is, (which can take hours of time, and might need to be broken up into multiple efforts and take a day or two) are as desired by you.

So the point is to give players a time to check out the other titles without risk of the title they do recognize and like being lost if they don't find anything better in the list.

Like this monthly Gog giveaway, I spotted a game that I really heard good things about and thus picked it knowing checking out the other titles would take a long time. But I checked out the other titles anyway hoping I could go through the list before my request is satisfied or that LS would be willing to change my request if done in a timely fashion.

Going through the game list I found a game that I want much much more than the title I requested. But LS was relatively prompt in filling my request and was not willing to let me switch.

Surely I am not the only one who faces such a situation .

The title isn't "lost". It's gone to someone who has as much right to request it as you do, and who will presumably enjoy it very much.
What makes your desire for a game (which is apparently not all that great, given that you want to check out everything else first), more important than anyone else's desire for that same game, that you should be able to conditionally reserve it, thus depriving them from the chance to request it?

(I do heartily approve of researching everything available in the giveaway. I've done so many times myself, and encountered some games I'd never heard of, which are now favorites. And from where I stand, that time investment is totally worth the "cost" of potentially missing out on other games.)

It's a giveaway thread by Doc. It ran for roughly two months, with activity every single day. It's the third time, I think, where he donated the 'leftovers' from one of his massive giveaway threads to the community giveaway.
If this is news to you, and you never bothered to read up on any of his threads... well, your loss, really, as Doc tends to come up with the most interesting and community-building threads I've ever encountered, which imo would still be massive hits if there were no games being given away at all.

That's not at all a fair way to phrase this.

This is a simple concept, a person might like one game, and like another game much more. Not sure why you're so keen on twisting this into something negative.


Again with the dishonest phrasing.

We are talking about a option for everyone. Not one person.

And as something that would apply to everyone, then your words would also apply to both the nomination system and the fact that the first person who asks for something is the one that gets it

Just a few notes:

I usually prefer not to update the full list at once, and normally add a few games at random intervals. However, this month, I considered better to have the full big list from the beginning, so nothing was missed (even though many people knew most of what Doc was going to donate, some might not be aware that a few Skyrim keys would be added to the list). Besides, suddenly dropping the bomb was quite fun :)
Some later donations from other donors are being added to the list from time to time.

The nomination system is designed to allow you to ask for a game for a friend you think will really like it, but might not be around at that very moment and could lose the chance to get this gift. The nominated is granted a reasonable amount of time to accept or decline this nomination, but this lapse time isn't the purpose of the nomination in any case.
Self-nomination isn't an option. Nomination is meant to help other people.

Any delays when granting requests are due to my RL schedule. Adding any form of extra delay would not only mean more work for me, but also confusion for users who have to navigate through several pages of unhandled requests to check if a game from the list is actually available. It happens from time to time, but it's better to try to avoid it than to promote this kind of situation.


^This. There are a LOT of great games still to be claimed (And Anna Conda is starting to get pissed because nobody asks for her one...)


A final note: Every minute you spend in complaining about the mechanics of a giveaway is a minute you are not playing a very good game you got on it. :)

Thank you for that, and no one said that any of your generously donated titles are any less than great.

It's real simple. You like one game, you like another game much more. This is not about most expensive or latest titles.

But according to Doc's words, there is no need for that.

See all of the games Doc generously donates are of great quality, so even if you can't be around that moment, you can get another game that will also be good without a nomination.

So why do we need nomination system? It takes up more of LS's time and provides a unfair advantage to those who have someone on Gog who can nominate them & a unfair advantage to those who have memorized more game tiles and thus can immediately spot a super loved game among the list that they want and can tell their friends what game titles to reserve for them.

Could the point of the nomination system be because some people like one game more than another while appreciating all the great games so kindly donated yet having limited time to be on the forum?

"Gift" being a specific title reserved for them. They can still get another game instead.

Whether you are nominating for someone else or yourself, the point of nominations holding a preferred title is exactly the same, only restricting it for other people is completely unfair. The problem I'm told is that much less people nominate for other people, but if we could self nominate, it would take up too much time. In other words if we favor only a select few that have friends through Gog, it won't take up too much of LS time!/ Unfair favoritism of a select few isn't such a drain on LS time!

May I please get feedback about my idea/suggestion about submitting a list of games ahead of when we can request & telling people about how many batches will be released in a single month? That is, you give a list of games that will be released but not allow people to request a title from that list for a couple days. I don't see how that would take up any significant more of LS time.

Perhaps even if you would please LS providing links to game pages to make it easier to look up games? Perhaps those who kindly and very generously donate the keys could also please provide the game links at the same time so that LS can post them.

I disagree. When there are popular titles on the list, and possible choices are limited to a small selection, risks of multiple requests for the same game will be higher.

Complaining?

The more games are on the list, the greater is the chance someone asks for one. The greater is the chance someone asks for game the more time Lone_Scout spends checking the forums. The more time Lone_Scout checks the forums, the less time he spends playing :) .

I sympathize with him.

I do not need much time to recognize the game I want to play. I have my own wishlist and if some game is on it then I ask for it.

If there are no games "compatible" with my wishlist then I just skip giveaway to let others get what they really want.

My decisions are always thoughtful.

If I have not selected anything on "that month" and there are still games left, I can do a "recheck" after some time.

Debating? Arguing? Discussing?
Whichever term you prefer ;)

Sorry, but there's no problem, or it shouldn't be even for you. We are not entitled in any way to get for free our most desired games, or whatever is the most popular. We should be grateful to our donors and to Lone_Scout that we can get for free a game we are interested in, and that should be enough. Period!

Also, I don't like to do this, but... the attached picture kinda speaks for itself.

Which, I dare say, is always better. Because even someone who visits this forum every day, usually can't check this thread every minute. As a result if there are like a dozen games added during the month one-by-one they are always snatched by those who DO check giveaway thread every minute.

With such a big batch of games, like the one from Doc0075, added at once far more people can get games.

I love this method. Some people let's say camp on the thread, but they're more likely to to grab from the first update they see rather than risk waiting until they see an update with a game they'd love to have.

That works too. Most of the forum regulars knew of and were either participating in or were at least reading Doc's GA, so they knew (after Doc's announcement) that he would be donating to your GA. I mean we didn't know exactly when, which is always how this goes. Updates happen to your discretion - this is completely fair and reasonable. Don't like the regulars getting a heads up from Doc, the donor? Become a regular. The GAs are supposed to encourage active participation in the forum, not reward idle once-a-month fortune hunters.

Yeah, I'm not understanding the argument that somehow this isn't fair. If you want someone around to nominate for you from your wishlist, make a friend here. Or make friends with everyone and let them surprise you with a nomination. Friends are good... and thinking of friends for a gift is good too. *shrugs* Active participation. Bring the community together! This is why it's called the GOG Community Giveaway, people!

*cheers* I don't like "placeholding". If you can't see something you want just by reading the title, then it's fair that you risk not being able to request anything because you were busy "browsing". Browse the store in your own time and work out a wishlist. If you don't see a game on the list that month, let it go and try again next month. None of us deserve a game a month; we are lucky to get anything at all!

Yep. From this side of the curtain it's easy to forget there is a good amount of work running these things. finkleroy and zeogold both did a fine job, as are you. The idea that any of us should be demanding more work for you (in order to make it easier for us to take gifts :P) is ridiculous. This shouldn't need to be said in the first place - you're not an employee, you shouldn't have to answer to anyone.

Dang it, right again! I should be playing a game right now myself ... but I have my cattle to feed now instead because I got all caught up in my little rant.

Be excellent to each other, AND: part on dudes!!!