Yes Sir. :D

Awesome earworm potential :D

For the purpose of keeping reviews honest, downloading the game is a better standard than purchasing it. It might not make a big difference when the majority of false reviews come from non-buyers, but it would help in cases where buyers assume incorrect things about GOG's version of a game based on other versions they played previously.

It's of limited relevance to me when it comes to old games. Chances are that I already know and love that game and played it to death decades ago. What I really want to know is if the GoG release is stable and contains everything that was in the original game. You can post a glowing review of your DVD copy of NWN, but if it turns out that the GoG version is missing music and the quests are broken, I'll be a little pissed. For example, the GoG copy of the original Rainbow Six is, as far as I know, broken to this day: terrorists and hostages are invisible in some missions, making them impossible to complete, and the music doesn't work. But 5/5 stars, say the reviewers! So you shouldn't be just reviewing the original game, you should review the version posted on this platform.

I wish you realized how extremely paranoid and ridiculous this sounds. Nobody in the world gives a damn that Joe Shmoe bought Postal on GoG. Not even "SJWs".
The only side-effect that retroactively marking reviews by non-GoG-copy-owners would have is that it would look weird on old games. So yeah, I agree that if they decide to start doing it, then it should probably happen going forward.

No, actually, they didn't. The FTC said nothing of the sort and has never mentioned GG. They said they have received many complaints. The issue of disclosure in online content was known to the FTC years before GG happened and they started drawing up new guidelines well before you guys suddenly became fond of the word "ethics".

Calm down. You're already given out tons of data by buying stuff online or even just googling. And no, the illuminati aren't going to use it against you.

https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153299495021534

https://archive.is/20160408054700/https://www.facebook.com/TheEdVerse/posts/10153299495021534%23

Ed Greenwood
Yesterday at 7:06pm

As the cut and thrust over Siege of Dragonspear continues, it seems to me that many posters on the matter have wildly (in some cases, perhaps willfully) misinterpreted what I've said.

I have NOT commented on how the game is written or plays, because (for years now) I have not been shown computer game licenses for my approval/lore input...including this one, so I CAN'T ethically comment on it (as I haven't seen it).
I posted what I did in response to online gamer comments that claimed a trans character, or lesbian or gay characters, weren't in keeping with the lore of the Realms, and that there was no canon basis for them. That is BS, because such characters have been in the setting since before D&D or ANY computer games existed (yes, I created the Realms in the mid 1960s, before any roleplaying games had been crafted).

So no one "misled" me, and no one is muzzling or directing what I say or can't say. I spoke out against some false arguments within my area of expertise (want "the" master of Realmslore? well, that'd be me), and went farther reacting to the hatred and vitriol expressed by some against people that in some cases they've never met and never will.

I have not defended the writing or coding of the game, because I can't, simply because I have not personally seen or played it. And, no, I'm not avoiding this or any computer game deliberately; I simply have no time in my life for playing computer games except as part of paid work: I have a wife to nurse and a day job to hold down; writing, game design, and publishing are all "second job" work for me. Yes, really.