so basically, if i understood correctly, it is mandatory/required to have our users data handed up to FB (even for gog users who are not on FB...)

i mean, if GOG wants to get more DRM-Free games, they are "forced" to surrender all of their user database to FB ?

because if this is how it works.. then... ok i have a backlog and i'll play future games on console or on the steam quarantined pc only and that's it

being sold like slave/sheep to FB that i had been carefully avoided for decade, against my will, without me having a word to say in that matter, is too high a price.

i also wonder about the whole legality and legitimacy of opening database floodgates to a business partner like FB, regardless of just writing in the TOS/EULA that you will now do this so if you dont agree, just stfu because that's it.

And especially this time when FB is currently in some struggle with EU court for their abusive misuse of their own user datas. Feeding them with more data of unwilling people may not be a good solution if you ask me.

and the whole TOS/EULA of "you agree to that, period, or you just forfeit your account (and so, loose ownership/legitimate licence of using all your games library willingly if you disagree, without refund or compensation" also sounds both shady, rather against current EU consumer laws and such. Such kind of TOS were alreadyjudged as abusive and possible point of contract breaching (wilth full retribution to the plaintiff party) in similar cases.

so, GOG, what the hell are you doing ?

you want kiddies coming to your service with their FB account ? fine do that, you want anyone with a FB account to be automatically member/user of your gog social family of friends ? fine ! You want that new users/customers here will be shared/sold/signed up to FB automatically ? fine !

What you shouldnt do, or be allowed to do (and what i'm pretty much confident you currently are not legally allowed to do) is to apply such rules retroactively to users accounts existing BEFORE that.

Honnestly, if GOG had told upfront that they would sell me to FB when i joined a decade ago, i would just not have used gog at all, ever, nor created an account here. And i guess my shelves would bend under the weight of console games boxes, and my steam library would be way longer, but quarantined to one specific computer only, as it is now.

So i strongly suggest folks here who are unconfortable with all that to start seeking for legal counsel and information with customers associations/groups and such, and start thinking about simply quitting gog but not as a sorry homeless poor sap, rather by requiring full refund of the whole purchase history. More on that, it would then be even funnier to coordinate together for such thing so that the whole action takes place simultaneously , in order for GOG to see the financial impact, and weight, of those so called "bitching over sensitive minority" they SO DESPISE !

(because yeah, that was one of the first few PR lines on that matter: we who dont like being hit by anti privacy and anti consumers practices are just a despisable whining bitching minority - polite word was "over-sensitive" but yeah we got the idea)


before publishers forced devs to design SINGLE PLAYER games into having permanent connection required because "MUH ! social features in the game, always keep connected with your 274 friends you barely ever know or met, like a huge happy family"

because yes, those last years there had been way too many games which had some pointless and not very relevant (or not bringing much at all, to the gameplay and player experience) social features within single-player games, that therefore made the use of permanent online/internet connection "mandatory"

amazing how as a business becomes more and more successful, the more and more they suck

except amazon - they're seriously the 1 company that I've bought into over many years that has improved and improved
resharing this so more see it possibly -

MAX PRIVACY BY DEFAULT wishlist entry

The only reason I noticed this was because I changed something in my settings today and searched the forums afterwards.

I have 2 major complaints about this:
01) The defaults for all of these settings has to be "only me". Having your previously private information made public is something users would have to opt in for - not opt out of. Consent is nothing you ask for after the fact!
02) There should have been a news article on the front page. I hope there will be at least an email to all current users once this thing goes live.

Other than that: These have been options certain members of the community has asked for since forever{{Citation Needed}}, so good for them I guess. Personally I'll wait until I can manage those features on a per-user basis or at least by groups/circles until I consider using them. But this update will probably make as many people happy as it will make people angry. Overall it is much easier to post a simple "Than you GOG!" than to motivate yourself to read through hundreds of forum posts before you post a catalogue with your concerns, so I'd expect overwhelmingly positive feedback on the day this rolls out.

Oh, and on the day this is introduced, please consider checking the duplicate reports for the feature wishlist. Being able to skip the duplicates for at least these three options will make for easier reading on our end.

I hope a slave shits in your wedding gift.

I'm assuming drealmer7 was being ironic there...
Also language...

And yet people are evidently leaving the forum because of my posts. :P

I'm honestly getting kind of offended at the extremely patronizing tone some of these posts are taking.

Why yes I have looked at the overall situation and realized that I personally don't need to care that the world knows I own Space Quest or play Invisible Inc a lot, and that sharing my interests may well invite interesting conversations from other fellow fans of those various things. That doesn't make me brainwashed, it just means I looked at my life situation and made a decision about what I do or don't care about people knowing.

I am also aware that literally anything on the internet can potentially be made public or funneled into data collection, so in all honestly many privacy measures nowadays are like putting various thicknesses of bandaid on an arterial wound and it remains true that if there's something you absolutely positively don't want to be potentially seeable on the internet, the best move is to not put it there at all.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't use or ask for privacy measures, I should note. It just means that 1. there's always going to be a tradeoff between how offering your data can make your life better versus how it can make it worse, 2. someone placing that line in a different place than you does not make them "stupid" or a "sheep", 3. a company is not evil for offering that tradeoff to people who want to make it, 4, no privacy measure can bulletproof protect you, and so 5. that honestly we as a society are going to need to start coming up with attitudes towards privacy that aren't "if it's hidden it's off-limits and if you can read it it's fair game" since I think the genie is out of the bottle on being able to completely hide anything any more.

I feel disappointed how this thread went from justified complaints that GOG wasn't offering strong enough defaults or enough granularity, and calling for GOG's head for offering the options at all or being patronizing towards anyone who wants the options.

*waves*

you sent me a wedding gift?! but I think the institution of marriage is a oppressive archaic ridiculous tradition, and am not ever getting married

doubt it'll get shit in though, don't think that is an orderable feature on amazon, another reason they're +++ I guess!

Yes, a couple of people said earlier that Gog and Fb are in partnership since recently. I'd just left FB and am not risking the data still getting to them; they have no right.
I'd looked at the 'how to close account' just after posting earlier and was equally surprised.
I'm so fed up with the 'you're too sensitive' full-of-themselves crowd too ... no 'big picture' viewer built in, it seems, or basic respect.

Understood what, have I missed something? Where is this fresh hell coming from?

Near as I can tell: People coming up with apocalyptic assume-bad-faith conspiracy theories so they can paint GOG as baby-eating evil for implementing something... because many users specifically asked for it, in part because Steam already does it without any of the apocalyptic conspiracy theories having actually occurred.

(And then writing long screeds about how brainwashed we are whenever we point out they're turning molehills into giant planet-spanning mountains.)

You've completely gone mad with these conspiracy theories and wild spam on all news threads. XD

If from now on they don't warn us any more in advance of any changes I think we should thank you guys.

Exactly. The amount of disgruntled users that stem from the choice will be tiny in comparison to the amount of new interested users & potential new buyers to GOG because of this added feature. Gaming at it's core, even before the internet, has always been a shared experience. From LAN parties, to co-op, to sharing your achievements in-game (before what we now call achievements) was always a popular thing. The internet just expanded that and the majority of people love that and want to share their experiences.

It relative terms the amount of activity this thread has had has been minor. Most of the thread is the same people posting multiple times complaining, most of which are the same people who always complain when GOG makes a change.

As said before in this thread, most people said "oh cool" or " profiles meh" and either set everything to private or went on with their day. Only a few felt the need to complain for the community at large (like they speak for the entire community) about what they see as an injustice to user privacy (even though they can set their own privacy settings however they want). I mean GOG could have really done an injustice and rolled out a "profile" system with no privacy options, there are plenty of sites out there (even very popular ones) with no way to disable or hide the profile system. Reddit comes to mind here, the profile system is essential to how reddit functions and as far as I am aware you can't disable or hide it.

And speaking of Reddit, all popular gaming subs on Reddit (from /r/PCGaming, /r/Gaming, & /r/GOG itself) has this posted for users. So many many people were informed about it. Even PC Gamer & other media outlets wrote articles:

https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-is-getting-user-profiles-very-soon/

So add that to what GOG will do (site announcement, email probably and social media post) and you would be hard pressed to make the case that the vast majority of GOG users will not be aware of this change.

The hell does that even mean? DRM-free is not some cult we belong to and want to triumph at any means. We want DRM-free games because we want what's good for us as customers, because we want our rights respected. GOG infringing on their customers privacy in order to become a bigger business and bring in some AAA games is no victory.

Thanks for all that personal data, here have Assassin's Creed XIV: Shadow of Duty. Woohoo.