Not sure what OP meant.

But why wouldn't it make sense? As per my post above.

Because then GOG would be pretty much promoting buying games (also) on other, competing, stores. Like "Don't fret if you buy games from other stores too, we will make sure you'd never buy the same game from GOG.".

It would just promote the idea that GOG is not The Place to go for buying games, but only as a secondary or thirdary option. First buy from other stores, then only check GOG for games you don't see (or have) on other stores.

If you think it is such a shit hot idea, why haven't other stores implemented it as well? I think it is so obvious why not, I am surprised you really think it would somehow benefit the store doing it.

I have much more games on GOG than e.g. on Steam, and yes it would be useful to me if Steam had a feature that it would grey-out those games I already have on GOG. But I can easily understand why Valve wouldn't implement such a feature, even if it would benefit me.

Also, I don't really see how that would make me buy more games on Steam. I don't shun (buying from) Steam due to lack of such feature, but for other reasons.

With the Galaxy installers, they didn't listen to wishes or complaints but to an ongoing shitstorm. And apparently reluctantly only, as they're still trying to hide the independent offline downloaders.

Anyway, Steam allows to sort by price easily, and has done so for ages. This is not some weird preference of some individuals but something that almost every other stores does, because it makes sense.

Why so? This is to hide (not grey-out!; these games should not appear at all so the space can be used to display other games) games you already bought. You already have them. GOG is not telling you "buy the games somewhere else first" since you already have them. Instead with the space free from the clutter of games you're not buying anyway, GOG is telling you to buy games you're interested in.

I come to the GOG page during sale. See a game and think "This might be interesting" and check it out and maybe buy it. If this game is hidden on page 5 I often don't bother going there (It's like Google. Nobody checks page 3).
It's easier to spot a game you might be potentially interested in if there is less clutter of unwanted games.

There are lots of things other stores don't implement as well. Like DRM-free. This is not even an argument.

Every single shit hot idea in the history of mankind wasn't implemented in other places before it was implemented first.

Say a user doesn't have game X. According to you:

Currently: "I might buy X from GOG. It's The Place to go for buying games."
(If GOG hides games you own; X unaffected since user doesn't own it): "I'm NOT buying X from GOG! Clearly they want me to buy it somewhere else first! They're only secondary or teritary option."

This just doesn't make sense.

First of all I don't care if any other stores have the hide option or not. I want to buy the games from GOG.

Now to the rest.
1. That's why I am saying having it as an OOOOOPPPPPPPTTTTTIIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
Don't have it the default setting. Having it as an option. As a tick, as something ffs!
If you want to see games on sale that you already own, you can have the list appear in that way. It would be an
OPTION.
2. If it's your job to design, build and maintain a site, it's not difficult. I don't have the recent knowledge (last time I dealt
with sites was about 17 years ago), but if this is your job, I am pretty sure it is easy. The store/site already makes
checks to see if you have the game and ("in library"). That's the hard part.

3. I am glad you know better than I know what I buy or not and why. There were times when I was just too bored to go
through the list of the games on sale because many of them I already own. Perhaps you are different, I don't know
you or care. But I do know what I do and how I have avoided buying games for that reason alone.

Again since it is clearly too hard for some people to understand this. I am not asking to force any such change to all. I want the OPTION. *sigh*

Since other stores wouldn't have the same functionality but GOG would, GOG would basically be telling you "You know, you should first buy your games from the other stores, and only the leftovers from GOG because unlike the other stores, here you can track what you already have elsewhere.".

GOG would basically be making it easier for people to buy primarily and first from other stores.

Is this same lack of feature preventing you from buying from other stores, like Steam, Origin, UPlay etc.? If not, why not? They don't tell you either if you already have the game on some other store or service, including consoles.

And how about other services like Steam, Origin, Humble Bundle etc.? Are you reluctant to buy anything from them because you can't easily check if you already have the game on some other service?

I presume you buy from those other services as well, as otherwise such feature would be mostly useless to you.

So you don't buy games from other stores or services then?

Since different people had a different idea what exactly you were requesting, which was it then?

a) You want GOG to hide games that you already own in the GOG service itself? Currently they mark those games with the "in your account" icon (just like Steam seems to do), but not actually hide the games.

b) You want GOG to hide games that you also own on any other services or systems (I presume you mean manually marking games as "owned" and hiding them, as there is no meaningful way for GOG to track what you own on Steam, Origin, UPlay, retail CDs, Windows Store, PS4, XBox One etc.).

The first one GOG is tracking for you even if they don't actually hide such games from the lists or the main page.

The second one, it is not in GOG's best interests to offer such a feature. A feature to make it easier for people to NOT to buy games from GOG? Yeah, makes sense, almost. That must be why no other store has AND WILL NOT implement such a feature, ever, neverevereverEVAH!

I just skip those games which are marked as owned, and check the games which don't have that icon. I don't have to try to remember which I own on GOG already or not.

I think GOG are conducting a sort of social experiment to determine how much a company can alienate its customers while remaining in business.

I am done wasting my time with you.

Sorry, but no. Imagine a bookshop (physical brick and mortar) and someone comes to buy a book. Do you want to show him books he already has or ones he's likely to buy?

A customer comes and says: "Show me what crime novels you have on sale. But not Agatha Christie ones, I already have them." Do you still want to show him everything? How does not showing him Agatha Christie novels means you're making it easier for him to buy primarily from other stores?

No. I never said lack of feature is "preventing me from buying" or making me "reluctant to buy". If I have a particular game in mind to buy then it doesn't matter: I buy the game.

What the lack of this feature does is make me less likely to buy a game I wan't looking for in particular. I bought a few games where I just spotted them on the front page during a sale, read on about, and found them interesting to try. I probably would have spotted more such games if the front page wasn't cluttered with games I'm not interested in.

Exactly.

You didn't reply to my question as to why you stated your accusation.Oh,it's okay just ignore and down vote.Of course,why didn't I think of that one.Go offline:)

I think the over-reaction of the OP misrepresents what he's actually trying to say, which is that if you have a game, gog would make more money showing you games that you might want, not games that you already have. Do people more often buy games for themselves or for others during a sale?

But, hey, wishlists seem to remove a game once you bought them, so they kinda get it.

I think the real argument, though with most of GOG's library it doesn't make sense (like it does with steam), the strongest advertiser for any given product is a customer. Why is it that all the games like minecraft both before and after minecraft do horribly in comparison to minecraft? Because when you want to play with your friends or share their experience, you play minecraft. Why did everyone leave myspace for facebook instead of some other site? 'Cause the people who tried facebook advertised it to all the people who were sick of myspace's autoplay songs, noisy/invasive advertisements, HTML hijacking, etc. Why do companies pay the most annoying shmucks (like pewdiepie) to stream games instead of buying a TV ad? "If you want to be cool like roosterteeth, you need to play my game."

Frankly, gog just isn't doing this, so the strategy doesn't make sense for gog, and it seems they're just doing it 'cause that's what everyone else does (kind of like how they're handling galaxy instead of making it an open-source community project). They can show them owned, so why not just use the same thing that shows them as owned and change it so that it hides the entry? Easier said than done, but it's something. This is well within GOG's limits, especially when they already do regional blocking.

Too bad because now no one will know whether you were demanding that GOG should hide games people have on GOG already, or also those they may have on other services (like Steam).

Already now some people are talking about the former, while some (like ZFR) seem to be talking about the latter. They are two completely separate discussions.

You seem to be avoiding answering to me directly, so once again:

Is this a problem to you also on other services, like Steam, Origin etc.? A simple yes or no is enough.

You guys keep presenting this as something that is unthinkable omission on GOG, and some kind of proof that GOG hates its customers and never listens and all other kinds of silly hyperbole and over-reacting you guys come up with...

yet no other gaming store seem to have such feature either. Imagine that.