Thank you for your tireless work in keeping the giveaway running and also thanks to mchack for donating the game.

You do know that zeo is an android right?

Ask him if you don't believe me.

I would love to start off 2018 with a request for The Testament of Sherlock Holmes. I hope everyone has a healthy and happy 2018.

Is King's Bounty: Dark Side still available?

May I have Seven Kingdoms 2?

If it's ok 2 give my 2 cents on the nomination issue, i do feel that hving unlimited nominations on the 1st day of the month may seem a little unfair if the games r reserved 4 them.

So i think a gd & simple way is 2 limit the no of nominations per pax as well as nominations 2 the games 2 the 3rd day of the month. As 4 how many nominations r allowed, this is entirely up 2 zeogold 2 decide of cos.

This wld solve all the potential unhappiness that may hv arise & other ppl wld still hv a couple of days 2 ask 4 games b4 nominations starts. ;)

P.S: Was actually thinking of asking 4 a Sherlock game as a new yr game gift 4 myself, haha. But since TT_TT_TT_TT was nominated 4 it already i think it's only right that he gets the chance 2 get (or refused) the game 1st.
Anyway, happy NY 2 all. Hope 2018 will be a better 4 u all than 2017, cheers! ^_^

It's called diplomacy. Maybe people should start trying this instead of just ranting and complaining every day. And just to make it perfectly clear: in opposite to many of the people with complaints here I still do see the good things GOG is doing so it was not even a lie when I cogratulated them.

It's called NDA and it's called business practice. The alternative was to not even be able to talk openly to them at all. But like I said - maybe we should have just kept our mouth shut completely instead of telling people what we were allowed to say. We wanted to help the community buy giving a little more information but obviously this community - or at least part of it - prefers it to be kept in the dark completely. I never did take any side (no matter of what you accusing me) I only see facts, complaints and possibilitys.

How could they show you evidence of that? Do you really expect them to show you a copy of their contract talks? I hate to break it to you but it is GOG's obligation to sell you a game they offer to you. Telling you everything other than that about their business (which in most big companys is confidental) is not usual at all.

Which is not here because of GOG - proven by the fact that they are paying the difference out of their pocket.

Agreed though it woould still be kind of funny if a CDPR game would not be on their own store. They must have known that people would react this way but I don't expect them to remove their own game. Still it is ONE game out of over 2000 - I don't see any trend here.

Tha''s nothing new at all and it's not GOG's fault alone. Just think a moment about the things GOG could do here. Spoiler: not much without jeopardizing future partnerships.

And you REALLY think that this certain "anyone" would do it different just to please his customers and end up without a store at all ... ? I don't think so. So how about bringing actual solutions to the table instead of simply saying "all they did is wrong"? I mean solutions that actually are managable.

With that being said: That's all I wil say to this. You obviously are not able or willing to look at this in a pure logical and economical way. In business you sometimes will have to make a compromise just to to survive and every busines needs to grow to be able to survive. That is a simple economic fact.

Even as someone prone to tangents, I think this particularly line of conversation is best had elsewhere to avoid derailing, since the GA is about the community of users rather than GOG policy or as a company.



On the matter of nominations, particularly as someone who recently benefited, I totally appreciate where Benkii is coming from, and I hope he's not taking this response from folks as a poke at his effort and thoughtfulness.

I guess my POV is similar to the fairest of all foxens, in that if I were ruler of GOGworld I'd just cap nominations at 1-3 per week or per month or whatever is easiest for zeo to administer/track/enforce. That way people are still free to nominate in cases they feel strongly about, yet without blowing out the supply of in-demand games in a moment en masse.

It also reduces the number of people the mod has to chase down (harder with default chat settings) to see if they're interested vs. people who have directly indicated interest.

Personally I think noms are an important part of drawing new people (and bringing back people who had wandered off), but balance/ease/fairness are considerations too.

Also keep in mind that we want TGCA to be not-so-much for zeo to manage. He's already doing a lot and to increase his workload on how to manage the GA is not cool. Him having to keep track of how many games a user nominated and when or whatever else is a bunch of stuff that should be avoided as much as possible. I don't think there needs to be a rule. Common sense, dialogue discussion, and simply "working things out" makes sense (which is how it seems to have gone and I think is great! That's how good community works!)

I like the idea of people who want to nominate someone simply sending those people a PM and notifying them a game they think they might want is available (I like this the best.) I like the idea of not being able to make nominations for the 1st week of a new month. I like the idea of # of nominations being limited in a month (to like 3 or 5?) I like the idea of being able to nominate someone but that nomination doesn't reserve the game or trigger zeo PMing the nominee about it. To elaborate on that last idea:

perhaps the nominations could only be something that get "resolved" after the month is over. I nominate someone for whatever game on the 10th of the month but zeo doesn't TELL them about it with a PM saying "hey do you want this game?!" until the 1st of the next month and then if they accept it gets counted towards their taken game for the NEW month (which would have a bunch of, I think, positive reverberations.) that allows them to come to asking for the game on their own, or someone else who actively wants the game to get preference for it

but that adds more work for zeo to keep track of things, and I also see the point about how that could become grudgy in a way, BUT, I don't think that necessary means it shouldn't be done. That could allow people to learn how to be happy for others despite what they didn't get for themselves. *shrug*

deleted

Erm, i wld be honored but perhaps u can start by adding me as friends 1st? Lol.

You have a fair point, although my idea was just for this one particular time as an exception since it was a big list at the beginning of a new month.

As for your suggestions, it doesn't sound too complicated. It seems to basically boil down to "let Zeo determine what nomination does and doesn't work", which could work, I'd just have to be particularly careful about how I think it through.

I have seen a couple of these nomination list drops now in this thread and think they should be discouraged. They don't appear to be compatible with the good spirit of this community giveaway.

It's maybe not necessarily the amount of nominations, but the way they are done.
The way people are creative when asking for a game they want or when nominating others and the way they are grateful when receiving them, for me is one of the most enjoyable things about this thread.
Please put some effort in your nomination. Tell us more about that awesome super nice, poor, helpful, funny, colourful, unique, creative, hard working... person you know and why you think they would be happy about or would want a particular game.

For Example: I Nominate zeogold For BIT.TRIP FATE. Rumour has it, that it is on his wish list. Although he might have no time to play it, for maintaining this thread seems to take up quite a bit of his free time, it's a nice gesture of appreciation for the work of his nonetheless.

The nominator could perhaps be encouraged by thread rule/guideline to make such a case for the nominated, just like anyone would normally do when asking for a game here for themselves.
This way a monthly nomination limit might not be necessary.

Happy New Year everyone! :)

I don't believe anybody wishes for you to refrain from nominations in general. People still appreciate it and it's obvious you put a good amount of effort into looking up peoples' wishlists and seeing what might suit them. The only thing that anyone's worried about is nominating such a large number of people right on the very first day of a new month.
Hey, at least I'm not an iPhone.
You make a pretty good point.

Also, to all the people who nominated me for BIT.TRIP., I suppose it'd be a bit rude of me not to respond (albeit late), but I avoid taking games from here since people are usually spending money specifically for the giveaway. Maybe I'll bite if a good while passes, nobody seems interested in it, and the donor's ok with it.