With fat fingers on the keyboard. :P

I'm hungry. Feed me.

What did you do to GR00T's long, slender fingers?!

I didn't. I haven't changed my views at all. I still stick to my guns on saying profiles should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but now that profiles are actually here and I see what they look like (remember that my first post on the subject was written before their arrival), I see that they screwed up and still give information (although arguably minor) even when you set everything to max privacy, which shouldn't be happening.

Your're not making any sense. Because of the opt-out profiles numerous users who did not want it had their entire profiles made public the moment they went live. The combination of GOG's lack of communication and default settings forced it upon those users. And even with better communication - we're not obligated to check our mail every day. Being out of contact is not tantamount to relinquishing our basic rights.

Your stance on this is entirely self contradictory. Either sharing someone's info without their concent is wrong, or not. It's outright absurd to say that it's wrong to share a minor part of my profile against my wishes, but it's ok to share someone elses entire profile without even asking. What's the logic here? "It's ok to violate someone's privacy as long as they don't know about it"?

I don't like the fact that everybody's getting forced into it, but as I already explained elsewhere, I think it's for the better in the end. I think that if profiles were opt-in, GOG would probably lose a lot of the impact they're looking to make with these things due to the majority of people just settling on the default. I think it's been communicated properly so far, since you'd have to be somehow blind to log into GOG and NOT realize you have a profile now (unlike what they did with Galaxy and the installers).

However, in being fine with this, I also want people to have the OPTION to opt out of profiles. Currently, that isn't the case. If you set your privacy settings to max, you still show info. This is a massive oversight and should have been an option from the get-go, to be able to just zip away everything and show nothing but a big "this profile is private" sign.

If we were to theoretically go with the best-case scenario, GOG would make profiles opt-out for new users and opt-in for existing ones, but the chances of them actually doing something smart like this would be about the same chance of them fixing rep finally.


I voted for the wishlist entry OP put up, but not the one gogtrial34987 put up. People should be able to easily make things private if they want to, but I think that the company will be shooting themselves in the foot if they make it all private by default.
(Note that I'm not addressing the GDPR here - that will determine what they HAVE to do, but I'm talking about what I think they SHOULD do.)

Just like the last time, you're not answering the point I made, you're explaining to me the reasons for GOG's decision that I know perfectly well. Explanation is not justification. Something being wrong but profitable doesn't make it right.


Spoiler alert: not everyone logs into GOG every day. Or every week. Or even month.

Almost... The right way would have been to

- disable profiles for every existing user not explicitly have consented to them
- send emails to all users asking for consent and checking their privacy options
- show a one time popup to all existing users first visiting after the change: "We've introduced new features, please check [OK] [Not now (=all private)]
- Walk new users through privacy options during account creation.

Hell, MS does that, Google does that... And those are certainly not companies known for data reduction and data economy...

I don't believe it's right, no. But I also don't believe that there's a way GOG is going to fix this that isn't one of two ways:
1. Hiding everything by default
2. Making everything open by default

As I already said, if it were to be done properly/the best way possible, it'd be opt-in for people already on GOG, opt-out for newbies, but given GOG's general competence level, chances are that this simply isn't going to happen, leaving us with the two options above. If given only those two to choose from (as I believe the situation really is), I'd rather go with option 2 than option 1.
That doesn't mean, however, that I somehow think you shouldn't be at least able to hide everything if you want to.
You're right about that, and it would be nice if GOG would send out emails or something about this change, but again, it's probably not going to happen.

Voted. Thanks for starting this.

I agree entirely with this. But again, as I've said already, given what we know about GOG and their general competence, it's a fat chance of this one ever coming true.

Well in Europe this is kind of... the law... and enforceable with fines that are not peanuts from 25th of May on...

Looking over profile options, there isn't enough customization or control to be usable in my opinion.

Too bad...

A little bit of a bump.