It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
What I would like to know is how does cutting off Russian gamers from Gog stop Putin?

Putin is not a gamer. Putin is not a customer of Gog. So why would Putin care?

Would it not make more sense to accept the business from Russian gamers and then donate 100% of the proceeds generated from Russian gamers directly to the Red Cross?

That would be a genuis demonstration of poetic justice.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Gog is a Video Game retailer; not a political platform. Gog seriously needs to knock off the useless political virtue-signalling and stick to what it does best... sell video games.
low rated
avatar
GogWarrior71: What I would like to know is how does cutting off Russian gamers from Gog stop Putin?

Putin is not a gamer. Putin is not a customer of Gog. So why would Putin care?

Would it not make more sense to accept the business from Russian gamers and then donate 100% of the proceeds generated from Russian gamers directly to the Red Cross?

That would be a genuis demonstration of poetic justice.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Gog is a Video Game retailer; not a political platform. Gog seriously needs to knock off the useless political virtue-signalling and stick to what it does best... sell video games.
Oh, that's really the point! I would like to do this! Red Cross and/or army of Ukraine. It would be really a good idea.

avatar
Skuatoi: Of all the bullshit GOG has pulled in recent years, this is what pisses me off the most. Most Russians are good people and have no control over what their rulers do. 40% of Russians don't even support the war, and the rest are being fed propaganda. Why haven't ordinary Americans faced any consequences for the devastation that our government caused in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen? Why is the world full of such hypocrites?

avatar
kalirion: It's not a low blow to give them incentives to make actions which ARE in their control. Such as deposing their Glorious Leader.
avatar
Skuatoi: Easy for you to say. You don't have to fear being arrested, beaten, and shot.
Besides, when has that ever worked? It didn't work in Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Why do you expect it to work now? We should learn from history instead of repeating it.
God, you can't remotely imagine with how much appreciation I read the comments like this. Thank you, just thank you. Especially for the second part. Some people somehow thinks it is so easy to depose someone.
Post edited March 04, 2022 by Krejgan
low rated
avatar
kalirion: It's not a low blow to give them incentives to make actions which ARE in their control. Such as deposing their Glorious Leader.
avatar
Krejgan: Okay, okay, battle boy. Go ahead, tell me, how should I do this. But before you begin, I recommend you to read about Belarus and Kazahstan attempts to depose their leaders. If you don't want to (and I am sure you really don't want to), I say it shortly.

Belarus' people've been beaten. BRUTALLY beaten. And no one in Europe didn't say a word. Nobody did nothing.

Kazahstan? Oh, it is intersting. Russian army has stopped this. Army. Fucking army. Our army is loyal to Kremlin. They have, you know, guns?

So, tell me, what is your plan? What should we do?
I migth be an idealist

Most armys consist of ordinary people
II really doubt that a single person or even 10 can be able to control a contry full of people
somone will always know somone either in the military or high in the hirachy that dont quite like things are runned now
and i donnt think a army commander woud like that his son ended up in Jail or in a torture camp just because his son had another opinion than his leader has

Alot of revolutions have started with just a few persons
its not like they who started the revolutions had the whole contry behind them at the start
The french reveloution for example
But i agree it can be hard and in most cases it will cost blood and tears

In beleraus case though
it will be harder because some people fear the russian show of force
so here changes to how things are runned probably only will change after the regime in kremlin is changed
Either that or do as the ukrainian have done and face the military force of russia
Post edited March 04, 2022 by Lodium
low rated
avatar
Lodium: Alot of revolutions have started with just a few persons
And ended with dictators being in charge.
low rated
avatar
Lodium: Alot of revolutions have started with just a few persons
avatar
LootHunter: And ended with dictators being in charge.
Yes, its a possibility
But the revolution in Usa didnt end up like that
There they deposed the king because of too high tax and no dictaror showed up
Post edited March 04, 2022 by Lodium
avatar
Krejgan: Okay, okay, battle boy. Go ahead, tell me, how should I do this. But before you begin, I recommend you to read about Belarus and Kazahstan attempts to depose their leaders. If you don't want to (and I am sure you really don't want to), I say it shortly.

Belarus' people've been beaten. BRUTALLY beaten. And no one in Europe didn't say a word. Nobody did nothing.

Kazahstan? Oh, it is intersting. Russian army has stopped this. Army. Fucking army. Our army is loyal to Kremlin. They have, you know, guns?

So, tell me, what is your plan? What should we do?
avatar
Lodium: I migth be an idealist

Most armys consist of ordinary people
II really doubt that a single person or even 10 can be able to control a contry full of people
somone will always know somone either in the military or high in the hirachy that dont quite like things are runned now
and i donnt think a army commander woud like that his son ended up in Jail or in a torture camp just because his son had another opinion than his leader has

Alot of revolutions have started with just a few persons
its not like they who started the revolutions had the whole contry behind them at the start
The french reveloution for example
But i agree it can be hard and in most cases it will cost blood and tears

In beleraus case though
it will be harder because some people fear the russian show of force
so here changes to how things are runned probably only will change after the regime in kremlin is changed
Either that or do as the ukrainian have done and face the military force of russia
It's easy to be an idealist and revolutionary when you don't have to fight and die. Imagine live with the fear that every action can have consequences for you and your loved ones. It's not easy task.
low rated
avatar
Krejgan: Okay, okay, battle boy. Go ahead, tell me, how should I do this. But before you begin, I recommend you to read about Belarus and Kazahstan attempts to depose their leaders. If you don't want to (and I am sure you really don't want to), I say it shortly.

Belarus' people've been beaten. BRUTALLY beaten. And no one in Europe didn't say a word. Nobody did nothing.

Kazahstan? Oh, it is intersting. Russian army has stopped this. Army. Fucking army. Our army is loyal to Kremlin. They have, you know, guns?

So, tell me, what is your plan? What should we do?
avatar
Lodium: I migth be an idealist

Most armys consist of ordinary people
II really doubt that a single person or even 10 can be able to control a contry full of people
somone will always know somone either in the military or high in the hirachy that dont quite like things are runned now
and i donnt think a army commander woud like that his son ended up in Jail or in a torture camp just because his son had another opinion than his leader has

Alot of revolutions have started with just a few persons
its not like they who started the revolutions had the whole contry behind them at the start
The french reveloution for example
But i agree it can be hard and in most cases it will cost blood and tears
Well, you are. As you can see at the left, I am Russian, and I can surely say - most of the army support Russian government. Especially if we'll look at the regular army who signed the contract. For example you can look at Kazahstan, Georgia and Ukraine.

Then, about police officers. Here, in Russia, we joke about our officers - "call us when you'll get killed". They work for their own good, not for the people. Surely, not every police officer is bad, but there are a lot of them. God, our prison workers and police officers even use literal tortures!

So, yeah. Army consists mostly of loyal people. THIS is the people, who consume a lot of propaganda. And it works. Blame America and Europe, it'll work, lol.

And what about revolutions - sure. It started with few persons. With few persons which had a power and/or charisma. All revolts in our history has been supported by people who already has much power. It was Lenin, who has been charismatic and had enough power to make terroristic acts without being arrested, and Yeltsin, who had the army's loyalty.

And again - nobody in Belarus has succeed. Lukashenko is still a president. Blood for nothing? Not a good result.
low rated
avatar
ValentB: Cry more.

Your russia also bombed Aleppo and Syria same was as Ukraine now.
avatar
David9855: You bombed pearl harbor and we fucked you six different ways from Sunday nip.
You racist piece of dog shit.
low rated
avatar
Lodium: I migth be an idealist

Most armys consist of ordinary people
II really doubt that a single person or even 10 can be able to control a contry full of people
somone will always know somone either in the military or high in the hirachy that dont quite like things are runned now
and i donnt think a army commander woud like that his son ended up in Jail or in a torture camp just because his son had another opinion than his leader has

Alot of revolutions have started with just a few persons
its not like they who started the revolutions had the whole contry behind them at the start
The french reveloution for example
But i agree it can be hard and in most cases it will cost blood and tears
avatar
Krejgan: Well, you are. As you can see at the left, I am Russian, and I can surely say - most of the army support Russian government. Especially if we'll look at the regular army who signed the contract. For example you can look at Kazahstan, Georgia and Ukraine.

Then, about police officers. Here, in Russia, we joke about our officers - "call us when you'll get killed". They work for their own good, not for the people. Surely, not every police officer is bad, but there are a lot of them. God, our prison workers and police officers even use literal tortures!

So, yeah. Army consists mostly of loyal people. THIS is the people, who consume a lot of propaganda. And it works. Blame America and Europe, it'll work, lol.

And what about revolutions - sure. It started with few persons. With few persons which had a power and/or charisma. All revolts in our history has been supported by people who already has much power. It was Lenin, who has been charismatic and had enough power to make terroristic acts without being arrested, and Yeltsin, who had the army's loyalty.

And again - nobody in Belarus has succeed. Lukashenko is still a president. Blood for nothing? Not a good result.
I dont think civillians with no weapons can change anything in most cases
in belarus there was protest and no armed conflict to try to change regime if my memeory serves me
I also think you russians tend to forget there was an incident where the regime in Kreml was changed in the past
After all you had Boris Jeltsin
Also a Contract doesnt mean shit if the person strongly disagrees with how things are runned
low rated
avatar
Krejgan: Well, you are. As you can see at the left, I am Russian, and I can surely say - most of the army support Russian government. Especially if we'll look at the regular army who signed the contract. For example you can look at Kazahstan, Georgia and Ukraine.

Then, about police officers. Here, in Russia, we joke about our officers - "call us when you'll get killed". They work for their own good, not for the people. Surely, not every police officer is bad, but there are a lot of them. God, our prison workers and police officers even use literal tortures!

So, yeah. Army consists mostly of loyal people. THIS is the people, who consume a lot of propaganda. And it works. Blame America and Europe, it'll work, lol.

And what about revolutions - sure. It started with few persons. With few persons which had a power and/or charisma. All revolts in our history has been supported by people who already has much power. It was Lenin, who has been charismatic and had enough power to make terroristic acts without being arrested, and Yeltsin, who had the army's loyalty.

And again - nobody in Belarus has succeed. Lukashenko is still a president. Blood for nothing? Not a good result.
avatar
Lodium: I dont think civillians with no weapons can change anything in most cases
in belarus there was protest and no armed conflict to try to change regime if my memeory serves me
I also think you russians tend to forget there was an incident where the regime in Kreml was changed in the past
After all you had Boris Jeltsin
Also a Contract doesnt mean shit if the person strongly disagrees with how things are runned
Boris Yeltsin had an army and a power on his side. Now things are different. Power and army on Putin's side.

And yes, you remember well. There was a protest. Fucking massive protest. A month-long (+-week). And army supported the president, not the people. THIS is why it called "a protest, but not an armed comflict". We have no guns.

At the end, the question is who does army support.
low rated
avatar
ValentB: GOG's move is more PR one since russia/belarus wouldn't be able to buy anyway due to heavy bans on digital payment. Unlike Steam, GOG keys aren't widespread and only available for few games.

avatar
TheNamelessOne_PL: Disagreed. Their country has been invading other countries for centuries. They hardly deserve pity.
avatar
ValentB: Agreed. Russia should've been kicked from civilization 100 years ago already.
Japan had to be flooded back in the 12th century so that there would be no detachment 731 in the history of China and Korea
avatar
KetobaK: My previous thread was censored.
I stood up for our Russian Users friend, those who take part in the forum for years, people that help many other users and always were kind with everybody. Think is not fair to punish them because the simple fact that this users are not part of the war, they are just splitting our community for not reason, that excuse that taxes revenue will go to war is not true, after SWIFT Bank restrictions most users couldn't purchase games anyway, so what is the point of divide our community? Of discriminate users that were part of this community for years? Let's not make GOG Community part of the war!
Thanks. There are no bad nations in the world, there are bad people.
Post edited March 04, 2022 by IntKlz-Hando
low rated
avatar
Lodium: I dont think civillians with no weapons can change anything in most cases
in belarus there was protest and no armed conflict to try to change regime if my memeory serves me
I also think you russians tend to forget there was an incident where the regime in Kreml was changed in the past
After all you had Boris Jeltsin
Also a Contract doesnt mean shit if the person strongly disagrees with how things are runned
avatar
Krejgan: Boris Yeltsin had an army and a power on his side. Now things are different. Power and army on Putin's side.

And yes, you remember well. There was a protest. Fucking massive protest. A month-long (+-week). And army supported the president, not the people. THIS is why it called "a protest, but not an armed comflict". We have no guns.

At the end, the question is who does army support.
Two men who stood shoulder to shoulder with Boris Yeltsin to defy the attempted hardline coup in Moscow in 1991 look back on the critical hours when Russian democracy was saved - and share their disappointment with the society that has emerged.

It is one of the abiding images of modern Russian history, the famous picture of Boris Yeltsin speaking on a tank outside the parliament in Moscow on 19 August 1991.

It was a moment when the future of the Soviet Union hung in the balance.

That morning a group of communist hardliners had staged a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms. The Soviet leader was trapped in Crimea, and troops and tanks were on the streets of Moscow.

It seemed like the era of glasnost and perestroika was at an end.

But a determined group of democrats had gathered at the Russian parliament, which became the rallying point over the next three days. It is an imposing building on a bend in the Moscow River, and that August it became known as the "White House."

Boris Yeltsin, the new President of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic, was about to have his finest hour.

Moral dilemma
Also in the White House that morning was Mikhail Arutyunov. He is a scientist who had developed an interest in human rights in the 1980s. Like many people in those heady years he had then somehow fallen into politics, and was now a deputy in the Russian parliament.

Mikhail Arutyunov is quiet but steely, with an uncompromising view of right and wrong, and to this day he still looks like a slightly scatty professor.

"I was near Yeltsin in the White House that morning," he remembers. "He decided to go out and meet the tanks. He beckoned to me and said "Let's go!", and we went down. He climbed up onto a tank and he made the famous speech."

Although it was unclear to many at the time how things were going to turn out he insists that fear was not a factor that morning.

"We weren't afraid. We were certain that we were going to win - that we were right and we were going to win."

In the photographs and television pictures from the day Mikhail Arutyunov can be seen standing on the tank behind Boris Yeltsin looking slightly bemused, one of a motley collection of bodyguards, politicians and protesters who dared to believe they could beat the system that had run Russia since 1917.

At that moment one of the commanders of the same squadron of tanks was wrestling with the kind of moral dilemma that no military officer ever wants to face - whether to obey his orders, or go against them and do what he believed to be right.

Sergey Yevdokimov had been woken at his barracks soon after midnight, and was ordered to lead his tanks into Moscow. Unaware of exactly what was going on, he nonetheless made himself a secret promise as he rolled down the wide avenue into the capital to hurt no-one.

He parked his tanks on the river just across from the White House, and was then ordered to drive them over the bridge and position them outside the parliament itself.

Once there he struck up a conversation with one of the demonstrators, a businessman called Sergey Bratchikov.

"He scrambled up on to my tank and asked me this question. 'Are you going to shoot at us? Or maybe you'd rather come over to our side and start defending the parliament?'"

Anger
Sergey Yevdokimov was worried that the businessman might be from the KGB, but was persuaded to go into the White House and talk to some of the senior deputies inside.

When he came down he ordered his men to encircle the parliament, and turn their tanks round so that the guns were pointing out, away from the building and towards any potential attack.

The coup took two more days to peter out, but it was those dramatic gestures on the first day that took the wind out of the sails of the hardliners.

After the Soviet Union split up Boris Yeltsin went on to become the president of the new Russian Federation.

Mikhail Arutyunov only stayed in politics for a few more years after 1991. He strongly opposed the first Chechen War, and became utterly disillusioned with the new Russia he had helped to build. He watched, helpless, as oligarchs and corrupt officials replaced Communist Party members as the country's new elite.

"What we have ended up with is what we were fighting against at the time," he says. "The population is separating into the extremely poor and the extremely rich. Unfortunately our people have always been very passive except at critical moments."

He predicts that Russia's days of revolution are not yet over, "I think that what is happening now will eventually lead to another wave of anger."

The tank commander, Sergey Yevdokimov, left the army just as Russia's financial crisis of the 1990s started to bite. Over the next few years he worked his way through a series of low-paid, dead-end security jobs, just managing to keep his head above water.

He has watched the country that he helped give birth to become immeasurably richer on the back of economic liberalisation and high prices for oil and commodities. But he has also seen the ideals that he risked everything for become slowly eroded.

Twenty years on Russia is a democracy of sorts, but the system is deeply flawed, unaccountable and corrupt.

"What I was hoping for back in 1991 didn't ever quite materialise. And that's a shame," he says.
low rated
avatar
Krejgan: Boris Yeltsin had an army and a power on his side. Now things are different. Power and army on Putin's side.

And yes, you remember well. There was a protest. Fucking massive protest. A month-long (+-week). And army supported the president, not the people. THIS is why it called "a protest, but not an armed comflict". We have no guns.

At the end, the question is who does army support.
avatar
Lodium: Two men who stood shoulder to shoulder with Boris Yeltsin to defy the attempted hardline coup in Moscow in 1991 look back on the critical hours when Russian democracy was saved - and share their disappointment with the society that has emerged.

It is one of the abiding images of modern Russian history, the famous picture of Boris Yeltsin speaking on a tank outside the parliament in Moscow on 19 August 1991.

It was a moment when the future of the Soviet Union hung in the balance.

That morning a group of communist hardliners had staged a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms. The Soviet leader was trapped in Crimea, and troops and tanks were on the streets of Moscow.

It seemed like the era of glasnost and perestroika was at an end.

But a determined group of democrats had gathered at the Russian parliament, which became the rallying point over the next three days. It is an imposing building on a bend in the Moscow River, and that August it became known as the "White House."

Boris Yeltsin, the new President of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic, was about to have his finest hour.

Moral dilemma
Also in the White House that morning was Mikhail Arutyunov. He is a scientist who had developed an interest in human rights in the 1980s. Like many people in those heady years he had then somehow fallen into politics, and was now a deputy in the Russian parliament.

Mikhail Arutyunov is quiet but steely, with an uncompromising view of right and wrong, and to this day he still looks like a slightly scatty professor.

"I was near Yeltsin in the White House that morning," he remembers. "He decided to go out and meet the tanks. He beckoned to me and said "Let's go!", and we went down. He climbed up onto a tank and he made the famous speech."

Although it was unclear to many at the time how things were going to turn out he insists that fear was not a factor that morning.

"We weren't afraid. We were certain that we were going to win - that we were right and we were going to win."

In the photographs and television pictures from the day Mikhail Arutyunov can be seen standing on the tank behind Boris Yeltsin looking slightly bemused, one of a motley collection of bodyguards, politicians and protesters who dared to believe they could beat the system that had run Russia since 1917.

At that moment one of the commanders of the same squadron of tanks was wrestling with the kind of moral dilemma that no military officer ever wants to face - whether to obey his orders, or go against them and do what he believed to be right.

Sergey Yevdokimov had been woken at his barracks soon after midnight, and was ordered to lead his tanks into Moscow. Unaware of exactly what was going on, he nonetheless made himself a secret promise as he rolled down the wide avenue into the capital to hurt no-one.

He parked his tanks on the river just across from the White House, and was then ordered to drive them over the bridge and position them outside the parliament itself.

Once there he struck up a conversation with one of the demonstrators, a businessman called Sergey Bratchikov.

"He scrambled up on to my tank and asked me this question. 'Are you going to shoot at us? Or maybe you'd rather come over to our side and start defending the parliament?'"

Anger
Sergey Yevdokimov was worried that the businessman might be from the KGB, but was persuaded to go into the White House and talk to some of the senior deputies inside.

When he came down he ordered his men to encircle the parliament, and turn their tanks round so that the guns were pointing out, away from the building and towards any potential attack.

The coup took two more days to peter out, but it was those dramatic gestures on the first day that took the wind out of the sails of the hardliners.

After the Soviet Union split up Boris Yeltsin went on to become the president of the new Russian Federation.

Mikhail Arutyunov only stayed in politics for a few more years after 1991. He strongly opposed the first Chechen War, and became utterly disillusioned with the new Russia he had helped to build. He watched, helpless, as oligarchs and corrupt officials replaced Communist Party members as the country's new elite.

"What we have ended up with is what we were fighting against at the time," he says. "The population is separating into the extremely poor and the extremely rich. Unfortunately our people have always been very passive except at critical moments."

He predicts that Russia's days of revolution are not yet over, "I think that what is happening now will eventually lead to another wave of anger."

The tank commander, Sergey Yevdokimov, left the army just as Russia's financial crisis of the 1990s started to bite. Over the next few years he worked his way through a series of low-paid, dead-end security jobs, just managing to keep his head above water.

He has watched the country that he helped give birth to become immeasurably richer on the back of economic liberalisation and high prices for oil and commodities. But he has also seen the ideals that he risked everything for become slowly eroded.

Twenty years on Russia is a democracy of sorts, but the system is deeply flawed, unaccountable and corrupt.

"What I was hoping for back in 1991 didn't ever quite materialise. And that's a shame," he says.
First - copy-paste is just a bad tone.
Second - so, basically, Yeltsin had tanks? Do we have ones?

I repeat - Yeltsin had an army support. We do not.
low rated
avatar
KetobaK: My previous thread was censored.
I stood up for our Russian Users friend, those who take part in the forum for years, people that help many other users and always were kind with everybody. Think is not fair to punish them because the simple fact that this users are not part of the war, they are just splitting our community for not reason, that excuse that taxes revenue will go to war is not true, after SWIFT Bank restrictions most users couldn't purchase games anyway, so what is the point of divide our community? Of discriminate users that were part of this community for years? Let's not make GOG Community part of the war!
avatar
_Line: I'm with you in this. There's no rational reason behind this ban.
Russian GOG users aren't to blame for what is happening.

People will make wrong decisions everywhere, Russia, Ukraine, US, India, Latin America, because there are stupid people choosing the wrong thing everywhere in the world.
As somebody form Argentina, I know and live in my flesh what is to deal with the stupid decisions of a goverment, hope that CDPR reconsider it's position and everything back to normal, but it will be difficult, they already burn a bridge for nothing.
low rated
avatar
LootHunter: And ended with dictators being in charge.
avatar
Lodium: Yes, its a possibility
But the revolution in Usa didnt end up like that
There they deposed the king
No, they didn't "deposed" him. They declared independence. There is a difference - after American "Revolution" (or rather War for Independence), Thirteen Colonies still had their government(s). There was no power vacuum that normal Revolutions create and thus no opportunity for would-be tyrant.