As I've already said, it's understandable that GOG wants profiles to be displayed by default. I feel a MUCH better solution, which I've already mentioned, too, would be a one-time pop-up window asking the user to make their decision on privacy settings. These could still default to max privacy, but only until the first login (since the feature's introduction), at which point every user would have to make their mind on the issue.

This way we can avoid the "What should be the settings for undecided users?" question, because there would be no undecided users.

And to make things even for defaulting to max privacy until then, the suggested option in that pop-up window could be making the profiles public. ;)

THIS.

If your customers want to expose parts of their profiles, it has to be their choice not yours. Value your customers and they will reflect it back.

I once saw GOG as a company that stood out among the rest of the bunch, it had all the unique traits, the only remaining trait left I see nowadays is the DRM-Free.

Except it's only the DRM-free policy that GOG advertised as a feature.

The lack of social features never seemed to be something GOG was proud of, so you can't really expect them to stay in place and not develop their platform to match modern standards.

It's also curious that people would rather have these settings default to full privacy than being asked to decide (given that I've not yet seen a response to the idea I've suggested, I assume this is the case).

Defaulting to full privacy will be detrimental to those who'd want to make use of these social features and are not aware of them, in much the same way defaulting to no privacy settings is detrimental to those who don't want to use them.

So I'd be interested in hearing why exactly defaulting to one option or another is better than forcing users to make their mind on the issue themselves.

Totally agree with Breja's summary, and Taro94's pop-up idea is great too. Gog can't go wrong if they implement everything suggested, putting respecting privacy first.

Sorry I missed that part, your suggestion is definitely a very good one and would most probably provide a good balance, Maybe they could implement a feature where it automatically shows you new / important site info, similar to the current notification system that is already present for forum and friends messages.

I have been waiting a long time for this update. The ability to hide specific games in one's profile would have been much appreciated though.

Having a pop up window like that would very good idea to make sure everyone is informed, as long as the default setting is max privacy so your info isn't made public without your knowledge just becuase you don't log in for a period of time.

We do? Where? If you're talking about some Galaxy feature, GOG ≠ Galaxy.

You have an account, not a profile. The upcoming profile is a page that will let others see your game library and list of friends, for example.

I don't want maximum privacy. Privacy is not a right. That's just double-speak.

Privacy is the baseline. Privacy is the line drawn in the sand that a person dares to cross as an individual. Privacy is not an action, is not the effort.

GOG, those are not privacy settings. Those are "Publicity Settings".

Publicity is an effort, and reputation is earned. Fame is lost without the effort of publicity. It is normal and familiar for publicity to be an effort. The "Publicity Settings" should start at the most minimum publicity level.

I expect minimum publicity because that is what I already have in real life. That lack of publicity is the same for everyone walking around. That is reality. I didn't hire GOG to be my public relations agent. I simply bought a game, and that should not make me a celebrity.

If GOG is going to assume the role of being my public relations agent and promote a public image GOG designed from what little it has observed of me without even getting to know me in person, then I am likely going to disengage from being used as a profiled object.

If GOG is going to add "Publicity Settings" and at the most minimum publicity level, then I am likely to feel respected for letting me make my own decisions about whether GOG is a useful source for my public image.

As for profiles, those are usually made for criminals, serial killers, or online dating. Not necessarily exclusively. Profiles tend to be helpful to law enforcement, marketers, and stalkers. As for profiles being useful for multiplayer game playing, I might want to play a specific game with some people but not with others, so for me it likely would bring unwanted extra attention.

It also makes more sense to me that I reveal information about myself per individual, especially within the context of an understood conversation. Forums stretch that concept a bit, but the forum medium still works much better for discovery and filtering than a mere half-dozen checkboxes or superficial categories like "friends, nemeses, everyone". Consider: either meet in a public place, or someone stands outside your window watching you and then taps on the glass to get your attention? Perhaps if I lived in zoo, the latter experience would feel normal.

Let's get real. They are "Publicity Settings", and they should require engagement rather than being turned on by default, like what is familiar in real life. Privacy should not be relegated as a feature to be discovered by accident after it has been lost.

Or so it seems to me. I'm not trying to sound like I'm declaring universal truths. It's just the sense I've made of the world around me, and what I appreciate and consider respectful. I'm not making demands. I'm just pointing out where I've drawn the line for myself in my life at this point in time.

I'll probably be criticized for this, but I'm just being honest. I fail to see how this is giving personal information by default? Personal information would be your real name, email, or home address. Anything that can allow one to identify who you are in real life. As far as I am aware, GOG has not stated any of this info will be visible on profile pages.

Your GOG account name or account activity or even game list is not personal information and as I said before these are public accounts.

Even GOG's Privacy Policy even states: And they even tell you how they use information linked to your account like the following: They also make it clear these are public profiles and things you do on them may be made publicly available. So it seems to me GOG is clear about their intent, and that some people actually have issues with GOG's overall privacy policy (in which those people should maybe not even use GOG) rather than this particular change.

GOG is even clear that if you don't agree with the privacy policy or any changes they make to it that you should cease using GOG after being notified of said changes: Do people actually read these?

This is a good and long waited for move, GOG. It means that I could finally see whether a friend of mine has a game I'm going to gift or not.

There may be made some improvements or clarifications, though:
1. Describe "activities". Is it buying a game? Is it playing a game? Is it making a forum post? Is it writing a review?
2. The "visibility" checkbox needs rewording. Maybe you should just remove the "nobody can find me" phrase. Let it be "Others can find me etc." with a checkbox, it will be obvious (true and false state). The "nobody can find" with a false state is confusing.

P.S. Just out of curiosity: will you connect GOGcards with Gwent or not?

"Privacy by default" isn't just something meaningless that people shout. It's a specifically meaningful term from the GDPR, which will be required for everything for all EU citizens, come May 25th: The things gog intends to publish on the profile page, such as your "activity" and your "active friends" are both personal data for the purposes of the GDPR.

As BKGaming has pointed out, no personal information is going to be made available to public. That's what I mean by saying that people are overreacting drastically.

Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, but I'm pretty sure your "active friends" and "activity" are not regarded as personal data for the purposes of the GDPR (I admit I'm not wholy knowledgable on this subject, but I'm skeptical about the idea of GOG not being aware of what is and what is not allowed to be displayed without explicit user's consent).