That's a lie. When kingdon come deliverance came out many users who do not belong to gog from their origins waited to buy it in gog. It was enough to go through forums or social networks to read that many users would prefer to have the game later but free of drm. The only thing that was asked was that it incorporate the same steam options.

If gog is going to premiere some new forums I hope that they have a greater moderation. Despite the "campaign" in favor of privacy and publishing the "Disable" view profile "function for customers who care for their privacy!" in different social networks only more than 600 votes have been obtained, which makes it clear that this forum is a minority of the will of the majority of gog users.

In addition many of those who have voted are in favor of not only greater privacy but the evolution of the galaxy platform, achievements, profiles, cloud save, linux ...

However, I am happy that the profiles are optional, even if it is a minority group that we have requested, I believe that privacy is too important.

I also believe that the thread should be closed, the same users always write and in social networks there are many people who are angry with the education of some of them. I nevertheless believe that we must respect each other.

Hi elcook. Thanks for sharing the news. I hope that you get a chance to reply to this because there's something I'd like to know.

I really like the new profiles. It's good that they can be disabled, and I have disabled mine, but I would love to be able to to have a public profile. In fact, I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of those disabling their profiles would gladly make their profiles enabled and public if there was a bit of granular privacy control instead of an all-or-nothing choice.

What I'd like to know is: is GOG planning to leave profiles as they are now, or will you be adding granular privacy controls in the near future?

Personally, I want the ability to have a profile and make certain things public while keeping other things private, like this:

- Gameplay stats about me are private. I don't want total hours played, total achievements, stats for a particular game, etc. displayed anywhere - not on the top-right corner of my profile, not on friends lists, not anywhere at all.
- Gameplay activity is also private. I don't want a list of recently-played games on my profile, and I don't want "started playing", gameplay milestone or achievement messages about me appearing on my profile or in other people's activity feeds.
- (Related to that, but not strictly concerning Profiles as such, I don't want GOG to display what I'm "currently playing" anywhere, and I especially don't want Galaxy to give my friends an alert telling them when I launch a game.)
- Everything I publish on gog is public, so if I make "thoughts" on my profile or review a game or create a new forum topic then those can appear on my profile and on my friends' activity feeds.
- I'd like my list of games owned to be public (but, of course, not my gameplay stats). My wishlist being public is nice (I'm glad we can still have this while our profiles are disabled). My friends list can also be public as long as it doesn't leak stats about people who don't want their stats leaked.
- My profile page itself would be public, but wouldn't have a "recently played games" list because when and what I play is my business alone.

Please, please encourage management and dev to add enough granularity for that to be possible. Then I and many others would be using our profiles happily.

Stop being reasonable and level headed! Post something overdramatic,whiney and dumb instead like:

"My best bud GOG just broke my trust! Only dumb sheeple can buy from this store,that's run by data stealing Zuckerberg friends!"

If only those people realised their trust is utterly worthless when they have such an unhealthy obsession over an online store that at the end of the day only cares about profit,just like everyone else.

I'm happy to say: no it's not (anymore) :)

With this change, I've reconsidered. I terminated the deletion process for my profile.

not every Christian turns the other cheek we have many who wont turn the other cheek unless they are heavy supporters of a Christian party ( CDA , CU, maybe SGP )

Well done, GOG, I knew it was a matter of time that you'd take the criticism into account and introduce relevant modifications to the feature.

It's true you often take long to do stuff... Galaxy beta development being a prime example of that, so I'm not surprised it took a while to get this one, too, and I'm pretty certain it's because of your "own tempo" thing rather than some malice you're being accused of.

I'm quite happy for the introduction of this setting, too, even though I'm happy with my public profile myself. :) Great that everyone can now be happy, whether they want to keep everything to themselves or not!

Great post! Personally, I'd also welcome the option to have the personalized message (currently labeled "About you") displayed even if much of the other stuff in the profile is set to private. It could be very helpful e.g. for clarifying if and how you would like friend requests or not, or similar things.

Stop with it already.

When you go shopping and the cashier returns your change, do you also refrain from saying "thank you" and instead say "HUH, I'd say THANK YOU, but you're only doing what you should be doing, so NA-AH"?

Even if GOG wronged the community, it's already been redeemed, I feel, by having to endure the bullshit of some people.

When you go shopping and the cashier doesn't give you your change, you call them out on it, then then give you your change..

If you are going to make analogies, they should at least be somewhat bit-for-bit.

Thank you GoG for allowing those of us who do not wish to participate in profiles to disable them entirely. However, before profiles were introduced, the account link at the top of the web page (immediately after "SUPPORT˅") used to default to the account's game page. Now it defaults to the "feed" page. When the profile is disabled, this means that clicking that link (at least on MY browser) links to a 404 page, since I no longer have a feed.

Since you've already gone the half-measure to allow us to disable unwanted profile features, why not take the next step and ensure that doing so doesn't break your website. Set that link back to https://www.gog.com/account for those people who have profiles disabled, and https://ww.gog.com/feed for those people who have them enabled.

Thanks in advance.

Your gift is your curse. Your consumer friendly practices and lack of DRM has attracted an audience who really values that stuff, like me.

But it also means you'll get intense backlash if you are ever perceived to be acting against consumer interests, in this case privacy. If you had the ability to opt-out from the get go you could have side stepped most of the backlash.

It's funny how Valve's product Steam has had this forever and you really don't see people saying anything about it, but you guys got slammed.

Overall I'm glad you are adding this kind of functionality and I easily found the original privacy settings, which I tweaked to my preference.

You guys probably deserve more benefit of the doubt at this point but with the passionate users you have I don't think that's happening. Keep up the good work.

No analogy is bit-by-bit, or it'd not be an analogy. If you're not content after what you requested has been granted, then I wouldn't be surprised if at some point GOG just decided it's not worth the effort to care if you're ape-shit mad either way.

Or, if you have a good reason to continue throwing dung at GOG in this thread after they've done what everyone had wanted, then please enlighten me. I'm sure there still remains something grand you can achieve this way now.

Hi! Please add a way to redirect to a user's profile via their GOG User ID. This will allow developers using the Galaxy SDK to open profiles of players in lobbies in the browser.

What do you expect, GOG to put up a "hey guys, thanks for all the data, we sold it to Facebook and got a lot of money from it!" announcement?

Look at the whole thing. Facebook integration at the same time when a huge scandal erupts around it, but a month before GDPR puts greater restrictions on any "data-trading," at least for information of EU residents. Facebook does nothing for free, and they rely on data-mining stream to support their "free integration" code that also happens to be targeted trackers.

For that matter, two days ago there were some tweaks to GOG site I suddenly got the "log in with Facebook" blue image again. Normally it's something that is blocked in several ways by my computer, so I went and examined the code. The element was (temporarily - it disappeared in the next two hours when I came back) hosted on GOG subdomain, which would explain its sudden reappearance. The login had an associated "token" with it with a value that was a rather lengthy hash. Based on past experience with Facebook API, it was hardware/software fingerprints. Now, the question is whether or not the token value is only transmitted when user runs the login script, or if it is part of request obtaining the "log in with Facebook" element when they are hosted on FB's servers. Again, based on past experience I'd strongly suspect the latter - Facebook loves its data.

That anecdote aside, also consider the way GOG implemented profiles. Are they "opt-in" by design? No, rather the contrary. Is there any technological reason why that whole part of the "GOG experience" (I fucking hate the RP twists there) could not be completely disassociated with people who do not intentionally initiate it? Hell no.

Which means GOG has an invested interest in getting as much information that way as possible. Would they have that information without "profiles?" Yes, but implementation of that element also means actual need to store that data. Also, the implementation of profiles (and, for that matter, the facebook login) is a rather substantial investment of money. That means GOG expects a return on it somehow, and I really doubt it is intended to come from some GabeN fanboi going "Oh, hey, profiles, I'll start shopping on GOG instead!"

Then there is the Privacy Policy, where GOG has been steadily and cheerfully ignoring requests to tighten it up against data mining (and trading) since even before the previous version of it actually went into effect. I know because I was a part of that "conversation."

The timing, the implementation approach, the lack of limitations in Privacy Policy (and rather contrary, the clause allowing GOG to "trusted partner" ANYBODY without limitations and subsequently quite legally exchange any and all information with that entity in a legal way)... all point that way.

Remember that GOG is a for-profit company, limited only by legal agreements (first and foremost), and occasionally the potential for bad PR as a result of some actions (which seems rather easy to counter without veering of the intended course anyway). If there is no legal protection against data mining and trading (and you can bet your ass the "small" changes to the Privacy Policy a few days ago were subject of intense scrutiny by specialist lawyers precisely to leave the policy as broad as possible while complying with the phrasing of the provisions of GDPR), it will happen. Such information is in too high of a demand, and too profitable.

Especially when there is a strong signaling from at least a portion of customers that they do not care either way.

Steam does it. Humble Bundle does it. Uplay and Origin damn sure do it...

The fucking ironic part is that GOG could use protection of users' privacy exactly in the same way they did DRM-free stance - to bolster their market presence by offering a much more appealing choice to the general public.

Instead they prefer to run with the herd for short-term gains.
"Publicity" not privacy.

That data is still collated and stored, to better to sell it when convenient (if it hasn't happened already).

Perhaps the anger comes from the fact that anybody "educated" about "social networks" would hardly be in favor of their presence as currently implemented.

You have heard about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, haven't you? We are long past the point where the weaponization of social media is just a speculation.