I, on the other hand, want to enable everything for myself. Opt-Out is one of the worst concept ever evolved especially these days. But I get what you mean, though ;-)

Oh, a wise guy, eh? Well, have a green +, see how you like it.

Outfunnied by a German. Unbelievable.

Good Lord, are you late to the party. This has been done to death. Use the search function. Also, the wish list you linked to took six years to gain 1200 votes. Four days in, and the one requesting privacy is nearly at 500. So...what's your point, other than to try to stir things up?

Never mind. I don't really care.

And if you are correct, it illustrates perfectly why law is a poor, unacceptable substitute for ethics.

Well, obviously I would have preferred that as well, but it is definitely too late for that without a time machine.

And for that I would like to say THANK YOU!

I do hope that both those who completely are against the profiles and those like you who UNDERSTAND that we do not want to take the public profiles away from you, but just want gog to add options for complete privacy will be able to get the feature request granted!

These options would not hurt anyone and would make the vast majority of users happy GOGers again. Hell, I might even buy a few more games to celebrate that day - hey gog, need some money ;-)?

Finally, we're always very sensitive of our users' privacy. - GOG, 2011

Well, that didn't age well.

Wild Irish Rose. o.O

We use no DRM and we never will. ... There's no bloatware or privacy invasion. - Guillaume Rambourg, GOG.com's Managing Director 2012

(Google cache version is at https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UoJVDInDUNEJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/05/18/the-truth-is-it-doesnt-work-cd-projekt-on-drm/)

We want to treat [gamers] like humans, not like wallets standing on two legs. That's not how we see things - Guillaume Rambourg, GOG's Managing Director, 2014

Good Old Times.

Boy, were we suckers!

The way Gog's handling this situation is abysmal.

Sure wouldn't mind some of that here.

The US is exactly the opposite, even disregarding the utter clusterfuck of current administration. My fear is that because of the sheet financial power of "American" multinationals (they don't pay much taxes here, either), they are in the perfect position to influence legal matters worldwide. Hell, look at Sweden and the whole "file sharing" thing. Before US corporate lobbies went with millions of dollars into offensive in that country, file sharing was legal for the most part. In a few years of "lobbying," Sweden turned from a country where file sharing was legal (hell, copyism was born there...) to one hell-bent on the destruction of such a concept.

Money talks, and there's always somebody high up willing to get the right legislation in for sufficient financial "contributions..."

Just because something is posted does not mean it has to be immediately collated for instant access.

I do not know how GOG database worked before, but any shift of focus on such features will make it necessary to streamline access and retrieval of such information.

While "security through obscurity" is hardly something to base privacy on, the more difficult it is for data-miners, or GOG should they decide to sell such information directly, to access it, the better for us.

Also, you do not know what else is being gathered now, whether to support profiles or just because it's something that can get monetized in the long run. The point is that any focus on data gathering (which implementation of profiles achieved by necessity) is an excellent opportunity to implement additional "features."

Given GOG's partnership with Facebook, I think there's a very strong case for feeling uncomfortable about the whole situation.

Well, the only proof is there in GOG's own code (and discussions between upper management). I doubt even most GOG employees would be aware of them.

The point is that we are living in times when customers are just another highly profitable "good." Or rather, customers' data. I have already been arguing about the way GOG's "new" privacy policy (the one that just got amended) allowed data-mining back when it was just a proposition. In legal terms the policy is so broad that all GOG needs to do to get into data-selling business is slap a "trusted partner" on the buying company and it's all legit. Hell, Facebook already achieved that status.

No, I do not have irrefutable proof, but the constant changes GOG has been making cause me to be extremely wary of any changes bringing that possibility closer.

The site began with a "no-whistles" design that was quick and fantastic considering the collection of bloat that, as an example, Steam's store pages are. Then the third-party scripts came out (look at what's running on GOG page - the data-mining is already present there). Then the Privacy Policy was changed to one that did nothing to alleviate such concerns. Then GOG's support page was outsourced (fun fact - you can't even access GOG's Privacy Policy without running third-party scripts. Also, Zen Desk, the provider of those sub-pages, operates under US jurisdiction with all the juicy allowances our "best money can buy" laws provide them). For a time, you couldn't even log into GOG without running Amazon scripts (another fun fact - Amazon's AWS service distinctly states that any data running through their service is willingly shared with Amazon). You still have all the "social media" tracking elements on the page. Now we have a partnership with Facebook.

Sure, you can wait with complaints until it becomes clear beyond any doubt that GOG is already trading your information, but by then not only will it be a bit too late, but given GOG's silence on the profiles debacle it'll be another fait accompli anyway.

I just want one place on the internet to pay for my games with no fucking strings attached. Seems like too demanding of a wish nowadays.

"Then don't use GOG?" I have already put quite a lot of money into my library when such "features" were not present. But I guess fuck me, right. Who cares about individual consumers (or even groups of them) - apparently not a company that broke into the market by making "customers first" as their business motto.

Mine are just a small part of valid complaints against GOG's treatment of consumers (as is that post), too.

You know what's very telling? The lack of any actual discourse with anybody from GOG on this matter.

"This is how we want it. Deal with it, you plebes." That hardly strikes me as a "consumer first" approach there.

Some people (seriously, that wishlist entry was under-4000 votes from GOG's supposed 500,000+ userbase) want profiles? Sure, give them to THOSE PEOPLE. Make the whole thing opt-in, and leave us troglodytes completely out of that part of your system.

So, the fact that this is forced on everybody does make me suspect of intentional data-mining direction.

Eh, I feel like the community aspect is one where Steam is way ahead, no surprise considering it's a much older aspect. It's also my main motivation for mostly buying on Steam - talking to people about games, while gaming feels much better than just gaming. Fite me, troglodytes! :P