Are you mentally special?

GOG: We're gonna do a thing.
Community optimists: Please don't fuck up our privacy.
Communiy realists: You're gonna fuck up our privacy.
GOG: *does a thing, fucks up our privacy*
Optimists: wat.
Realists: duh.

This is exactly the opposite of crying wolf: people made predictions and they were right.


We kind of can, haha. Whatever GOG b2b product the dev uses instead of Steam to provide multiplayer, GOG can license for bundled release with the GOG version of the game.

But it may be assumed. Actually it is assumed as it is the very reason for the additional work to implement something new. There is no use of doing extra work for the existing customers especially the ones that are known to reject everything new coming from this business.

With that attitude I doubt that gog would have ever adopted its anti-drm stance. Without a stubborn and substantial minority of gamers who flat out refuse to purchase drm infested merchandise, there wouldn't be a "no drm" market to tap into. Similarly, if enough people make it clear that they value their privacy then it will make content providers aware that there is indeed a market to fulfil, even if that market is a minority.

You know what? Thank you.

It's really refreshing to be called a realist, rather than "you're just being negative" for once.

Ok, now you're overgeneralizing. I've never rejected anything from Gog, and I'm pretty sure most of the people who have taken the time to post in here haven't either. You know how I can tell? They're still here. :) How do people "reject everything new"? Wouldn't the fact that they rejected once mean they're no longer customers? Seriously; I'm not comprehending the logic here.

And what extra work? There is no extra work involved here; it literally involved more work for them to set up profiles the way they did (three pull down menus and a radio button) then it would have to just make an opt-in option. See, this is where I struggle, because again: You seem to think it's an either / or situation. None of us (with the exception of one post) are asking for that. Just hide our profile, that's it. Why is it so necessary for you and others in here to try to shame us into compliance with your wishes? In what way does my wanting privacy affect you? As far as I can tell, it doesn't, so what's really the issue here? Power? Being "right"? I'm genuinely curious, because I haven't bashed anyone for wanting profiles, and I've seen very few others who have (if any), so why this continued attempt to get people who simply want their privacy protected to sit down, shut up, and be good little sheeples? It's just bizarre to me.

(If you reply, I have to step out for the next hour or so; I'm not ignoring you. Peace.)

EDIT to add: Also, "There is no use of doing extra work for the existing customers" isn't a sustainable business model. It's FAR easier to keep existing customers than it is to acquire new ones. It's cheaper, too.

I'm going to somewhat echo SpiderFighter here: This sounds to be more about your preconceived notions than about what is actually observable in this thread.

I can, of course, only speak for myself: I have not rejected anything GOG introduced outright in the past. In fact, there are some features I would not miss for the world, like the wallet - because it lets me buy without having to give out any information about my bank account. I even found Galaxy useful, especially because it actually lets you opt out of pretty much everything, unlike Steam: Playtime tracking? You can shut that off. Achievement tracking? Gone if you do not want it. As a bonus, it keeps my games up to date. I appreciate Galaxy for that.

But the current issue has little to do with "it's just people rejecting new things". This is not about New Stuff, this is about starting on a course that I do not want to follow.

I mean, I'm not opposed to profiles: I can see why some people want them, and I would not dream of wanting those taken away from them.
But they have to be completely optional, and the data that accumulates on GOG about us has to be handled responsibly (so default has to be opt-in, and if we're opted out completely, that should actually translate into complete invisibility of the profile to third parties). And those are my points of critique about the change. Not that it's new.

It might not be the most desirable thing, but it's cute and works. And the most important thng: it's optional.

Um, I'd like to turn all that crap off please? Absolutely zero interest in achievements or social media nonsense. That's why I completely avoid Twitface and the like already, and look what's happening with those lately!

I'll never been interested in Galaxy for the same reasons (lack of a "client" or drm is why I choose GOG over Steam whenever I can in the first place, too); IMO, just a bunch of stat-tracking and social stuff I don't care about; I just want to play games, thanks.

This, so very much. Seriously couldn't care less what others are playing or about intangible achievements (remember when you used to unlock in-game bonus stuff instead of just getting bleep-bloop popups? Now they sell those unlocks, I guess).

It's almost amusing that so much "advertising" about great "features" these days for all sorts of things has the actually reverse effect on me. "Oh, all things I don't want or hate? Thanks?".

Interesting. People went and deliberately downvoted my every goddamn post in this thread, regardless of it's content. More proof about toxicity to people with unpopular opinions.

just to add to the weird stalk-factor, the bits you can see also tell randoms that you're on/offline.

good going, gog.

You could already see this on the forum (mousing over the author on the left of the post will show "Online" at the bottom).

while true, this also makes that situation somewhat worse. at least you were just hanging out in the forums then and it was someone maybe who wanted to ask you something about what you were talking about.

now, just randomly, some person can click on you, discover you're online and harass you for no reason at all. [of course, they could have done that before, too, but...]

Well, I don't try to colour the full 100% of those who want the change of privacy settings for profiles, but it is my genuine impression of the active and most visible part community gained from the last few years of reading these forums. People reject everything not because they leave but because they are "why did you done it, GOG, no one wants it", "another waisted time on not needed feature" and even "this game is too new, why bring it here?". And every so often there is "this is the last straw, I'm done". But you know, I think that business can also endure so much complains from this or that user and has its own "last straw" after which it will not care about said user at all.

By extra work I mean profiles themselves, not changes for the "three numbers privacy". But I have no illusion that profiles are made to get more users, new users. Profiles are not made for the existing users as those are either indifferent (they are already here without profiles) or don't need profiles at all.
As for opt-in, not that I really care, but I would prefer "friends only" as default (Steam has it this way if it matters). The reasons were given numerous times so I'll just say that users who don't care don't look into the settings and for the feature to be worth it should be used.
I'm not shaming you for the opinion or for wanting a change of profiles visibility. I'm shaming those who can't behave civil and express the opinion without using pitchforks and fires. And the thing is that this is worse with each update. Why would I care? Because this is damaging the GOG community. And if it's damaging the GOG community then it is damaging the DRM-free movement. And this is really bad outcome.
So, I don't want to you or anyone else who has complains to shut up. I want you to express your concern without overreaction and without "this is the last betrayal" attitude. And to make it clear, I'm absolutely not against an option to hide those three numbers (as well as I'm not against an option to make profile visible to non-GOG Internet users).

(It is OK. And I'm not fast at writing a wall of text.)

Regarding edit: usually it is. Not sure it is easier with the rather common "we don't need new games, we don't need anything social, we want old games... maybe... if those are good, not bought on other platform, within our price expectations, with (or without) regional prices". Not all of existing users on GOG share those thoughts but they are clearly visible. Keeping existing customers is cheaper if they are buying something. So I guess it is impossible to GOG to obtain even old games using the revenue from existing customers. If not now, then it will be later, when existing customers will buy everything they want (it is only an assumption but I think that every other old game added to the store needs much more efforts and thus much more money).

deleted

Read again what i wrote earlier, please. I wrote exactly what you wrote in your reply :)