By the way the data is safe
It's stored everywhere

I think Steam and GOG have poisoned the well too efficiently for something like that. With their (literally) constant sales ever GOG users who left last winter would still have a backlog to last them a year or longer. Such a store would only be able to pay their employees with a constant influx of new games. And then there's the problem of independent developers and publishers trying to surf "the wave" of sales in order to get any visibility at all in a crowded market.

Mind you: I'm not saying "it won't work", I'm saying "give it 12 months for the store to appear and another 2 to 3 years for their site features to be any good..."

Hah. If you knew.

I'm middle in the same line of questionning concerning humanitarian work. And what you describe does actually happen there. People leaving some growing (and increasingly detached from the "human" level) NGOs in order to form smaller, less compromising (but paradoxically harder to fund) NGOs, more faithful to their core principles. Sometimes it works, they deliberately manage their scale in order to stay as ethically pure, and do impressively awesome work. Sometimes it dies (lack of funds and visibility). Sometimes it fails the opposite way (success, growth, loss of "soul", and, through the discontent of idealists, the weird pollination of new small independant and uncompromising projects again). Strange ecosystem.

But hey, let's see how this burgeonning FireFlower Games thing goes, for instance. It's tiny, it may die, or it may go through the ->gog->steam cycle. But maybe, just as with NGOs, it's better to bet on a multiplicity of small shops than on the development of few ones.

But it's spectacularly close to my current preoccupations. Weird parallel between serious and futile matters, functionning similarly.

Let me remind you that back when they announced the Good news™, it took them about two weeks to return with that Getting back to our roots, i.e. they don't need an excuse other than that they've been thinking really hard on the matter.

The difference here is that the matter of leaked private data is going as we speak, and the silence sounds to me that this was by design, and they see no issue with the implementation.



I've seen you make these sort of statements a few times, and not only in this thread. And I'm genuinely perplexed.

I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, but you appear to say that RainbowDragon has in the past attempted to prevent the implementation of achievements, cloud saves, profiles, and whatnot, and even belittled the users wanting them.

I took the trouble to go through the comments* of the profiles wishlist entries, and didn't see anything supporting your claim/accusation.

So, perhaps you're referring to some discussion(s) that took place on the forum. If that is so, please link to those threads, and specific posts that support your claim that you keep repeating over and over, so we can all see for ourselves.

On a side note, I find it interesting that someone that makes these statements has also asked the "Vote for Privacy" thread to be deleted, when at the same time saying that the privacy issue is serious and should be addressed.

*Interesting to note that most people that commented in those wishes clearly stated that public profiles should be opt-in, and perhaps profiles should even be optional as a whole. That's privacy related feedback starting going as back as 2012. And GOG took it to heart.


So we finally agree? Yes? No? Shame.


I'm genuinely curious - reading back your own posts, do you seriously believe that you're not repeating the same again and again?

WD

so far so good works a charm ....
GPU: Nvidia
rest: Intel


Who asked for these profiles btw ? :D
It' wasn't me cause i always turn of anything that can be turned off... so i wonder : who are the thousands that love profiles and asked for them to arrive at GOG ?

Tens of thousands Steamers love achievements: if no achievements no buy they say .... loads of posts at Steam
+1 for Achievements ....

I dont need achievements .... profiles... hours of games i played ... show all games
i turned it all off on any site if possible ...

WAIT!... Does that mean that if I set my friends list to hidden, the section is empty on the profile page too?!?! That would actually be a fix then and mean they're working on it.
And actually this is THE thing that bothered me most: That people accidentally reveal their friends who want to stay hidden just by showing their "profile/activity" page, while they kept the friends page closed.

Can someone please check this? I can't open my profile page since I have a couple of people on my friends list who definitely don't want to show up publicly.

I would also love to see all the many posts that users made that wanted the profiles to come here .. but i cant find any .... (where are they ?)

Dont come with the wishlist cause that is like polls and digital polls can easily be tampered with :D
on the other hand thousands of posts in a topic would require a lot of users or accounts to post them :D
So let us see the extremely large part that want the profiles .... i know i never asked for profiles



Anyway i am off now .... hope i dont get any profiles nightmares :D

cant check dont have friends cause i alway tell i dont have or invite or accept friend requests in any forum or account, i have none at gamersgate, none at steam and none here so i cant leak any activity through a profiles bug...

Hmmm... :)

No, this user's on the default settings. It means that said user has no friends, and while their setting is meant to keep that info private, their public profile spills the beans.

I just checked a couple of profiles of people I know have the default settings, and are not my friends. While their friends list is reserved for their friends, their public profile shows five friends right under the line that broadcasts the total number of their friends, and some of them are people that have their settings restricted to "only me".

I think I'm gonna start selling t-shirts that say "we have nothing to communicate" in GOG logo font.

That's not what I asked for, I'd like them to link to RainbowDragon's posts, or/and whoever else they've accused from the posters in here, that show that said users actively tried to prevent the implementation of what they wanted, and belittled them on top.


You'd actually be the perfect candidate to confirm what I said above to toxicTom.

And here I was hoping... ;-(

The community wish for Public GOG profiles had 1,275 votes on the day the update rolled out. In the defense of those well meaning users I would like to point out that none of them left comments like "And make sure it's all switched on by default. Get effed privacy lovers!" or "Make it mandatory to show at least the number of games as well as the nonexistent Galaxy data, so everyone can see what a failure GOG Galaxy is..."
On the contrary: The word "optional" is quite common throughout the years worth of comments and even the person who created the wish added "Optional of course." back in 2012.

*COUGH!*

That being said, I'm reasonably sure that the implementation of this feature had nothing to do with the wishes of our community or the community wishlist. But I'd say it was convenient that there was an existing wish for it in order to make that data publicly accessible.

[Edit:]
To what end, I'm not sure really. Maybe it was a case of industrial sabotage. ;) Wouldn't that be nice... :(

Sorry to get your hopes down, but you seem to forget that it's all about openly sharing, even that that some want to keep private because within the big happy GOG family nothing's private. Isn't it the same in your family?



My point is that emotions that can strongly motivate people to partake in something exist on both sides of the spectrum, like enthusiasm, excitement, and strong interest/longing. But you are free to think otherwise, it's not necessary that we agree.

Regarding the post after post bit, well, you weren't even here back in 2012, and I wasn't partaking in the forum, so neither of us knows, and I'm surely not going back to check; I stand by my argument on how very desired things get voted when first put on the wishlist, and I'd think you could see some merit in it if you think that the community wishlist is an obscure feature of the site.
As for the implied statement of this wish being spammed in this thread, toxicTom already explained the reason for that.

And speaking of it, I just bumped the "Vote for Privacy" thread.


If all you wanted is to inform people of the existence of another related wish, why point out the amount of votes, and the time span it took to amass them? The context is right there in the way you framed it, I even commented on exactly that.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree, and move one.



Yeah, wait until all the unsuspected/uninitiated people find out that they have a public profile that's been broadcasting their data as well as that of their friends since Apr 23.

25% of all on my friends list on launch day still have no idea as they're not regulars here, and haven't logged in yet.

A little over half of my friends were unaware of the privacy breaches; half of those switched to private after I told them, the rest hasn't come on yet to find out, and make a decision for themselves.
Out of the ones that switched, a few would like to keep their profile more or fully public, and would have if it weren't for this issue. All agree that the implementation and launch were handled extremely badly.

Another thing that came to light from contacting and talking to my friends is that a few out of the non-regular ones, expected/were looking to find a way to change the related privacy settings on the profile page itself. Even if one considers the announcement adequate in terms of informing people, it's so far down the front page now it's easy to miss, and pretty soon it's going to drop off the front page, so tough luck, peeps.

So, yes, based on my experience from my own friends, the way GOG shoved public profiles onto everyone has inclined most to set their privacy settings to the strictest level possible.

And no, my total friends list wasn't comprised of a handful of people but the exact number is nobody's business but mine.


[emphasis added]

It looks to me that you need to make up your mind.

Do you know or have the connections to know how to create an online store? I'd like to think that if Fireflower can get games on their store, other stores can.

Props to GOG for even allowing us to talk about creating competition to them on their own forum. :P Geez.

edit: unfortunately you'd need expensive lawyers to write up contracts. :-/