Posted October 13, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e043/9e043515e6c5cd76660ae00adc708da1a659923d" alt="TerriblePurpose"
TerriblePurpose
Kwisatz Haderach
Registered: Sep 2008
From Canada
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fd38/4fd38c33a8e372ecfaaaf7e752a5a574884a2d3f" alt="JMich"
JMich
A Horrible Human Person. If you need me, chat.
Registered: Apr 2011
From Greece
Posted October 13, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fa09f/fa09f05fc71b3871e99562c0ca8cae39bbb01f29" alt="avatar"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6bc0a/6bc0a2611a5e53d328431fcaaf5961d31ac8c065" alt="avatar"
Fair warning, I will be posting any I find back in the thread.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5e186/5e186392920bed0f8f7458ec4f66665a061a3c6b" alt="adaliabooks"
adaliabooks
"Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?"
Registered: Jun 2013
From United Kingdom
Posted October 14, 2017
high rated
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6bc0a/6bc0a2611a5e53d328431fcaaf5961d31ac8c065" alt="avatar"
So, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I could say I invited Steven Hawking, Beyonce and Dave Grohl to my birthday party I don't see how that is in anyway an invasion of their privacy.
Yes, GOG is a business, but in this instance they are not inviting their customers, they are inviting their community, their fans (and from what has been said their opponents too). The two overlap, but if they had invited a group of game developers to come to their offices I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to say who they invited or why.
Sure if they were to give out real names, addresses, telephone numbers or emails that would be a breach of data protection if they didn't have our consent but all they provided (by the sound of things) was a username (which is publicly available anyway).
Most of the people who may or may not have been invited can probably be worked out with relative ease. For example I'm in no way surprised JMich and BKGaming were invited, they were among the first two names to come to mind when I received my email. As I'm sure no one was too surprised to know I was invited.
I did not consider my communication with GOG about this to be so private that they should require my consent to discuss it with anyone else.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6705/f6705536d16d9af8f4bb85c4afec17557583db81" alt="Pawel1995"
Pawel1995
Polish Hussar
Registered: Jun 2013
From Poland
Posted October 14, 2017
>by uniquely identifiable names.
Only things that were published: *GOG username
That's for sure against privacy laws.
.... enough internet for today ....
Only things that were published: *GOG username
That's for sure against privacy laws.
.... enough internet for today ....
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/02cc9/02cc940ec9df7330cb29663fa1dd1cadb1bf7a11" alt="RWarehall"
RWarehall
Ja'loja!
Registered: Jan 2012
From United States
Posted October 14, 2017
I see HSL's point.
It's poor business etiquette to reveal client information without express permission. And users are clients.
If people had entered a contest, the Terms usually include acknowledgement that the winners names become public.
Those who agreed to go might have given up the right in whatever contract they signed, but those who did not take the opportunity did not give up any such right.
In short, it's fine if those who got invited acknowledge it themselves, but it isn't ok for GoG to name the names of those who did not take up the opportunity without their permission. That never should have happened.
It's poor business etiquette to reveal client information without express permission. And users are clients.
If people had entered a contest, the Terms usually include acknowledgement that the winners names become public.
Those who agreed to go might have given up the right in whatever contract they signed, but those who did not take the opportunity did not give up any such right.
In short, it's fine if those who got invited acknowledge it themselves, but it isn't ok for GoG to name the names of those who did not take up the opportunity without their permission. That never should have happened.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe93a/fe93ad641253a94dac7100c13ca18f213d0d06fe" alt="skeletonbow"
skeletonbow
Galaxy 3 when?
Registered: Dec 2009
From Canada
Posted October 14, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ec57/3ec57d76d30e393ec602d2abc876cb8c24b2ca4a" alt="avatar"
However there is one tiny little point I still would like to disagree and that is the statement that customers are WILLING to pay the price that is set through regional pricing. Because (if my English is not mistaken) willing is basically meaning that they want to and I for sure don't want to pay that price but because of missing alternatives (if I still want to play that game) I have no real choice. "Want to" sounds as if I would actually like to pay that price.
I think it is fair to say that this is true for any product or service that one spends money on which is not absolutely necessary to survive or sustain life. (all joking aside)
I don't know if they mentioned I was invited, but for the record I don't have any issue with that if they did.
Post edited October 14, 2017 by skeletonbow
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/045c6/045c6eba99797ce99e966fda2694220f9fe70df2" alt="MarkoH01"
MarkoH01
The goose rules!
Registered: Jun 2009
From Germany
Posted October 14, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ec57/3ec57d76d30e393ec602d2abc876cb8c24b2ca4a" alt="avatar"
However there is one tiny little point I still would like to disagree and that is the statement that customers are WILLING to pay the price that is set through regional pricing. Because (if my English is not mistaken) willing is basically meaning that they want to and I for sure don't want to pay that price but because of missing alternatives (if I still want to play that game) I have no real choice. "Want to" sounds as if I would actually like to pay that price.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bc549/bc5498cb2049b59029f0dc4ac8dcbfc75c3f2336" alt="avatar"
I think it is fair to say that this is true for any product or service that one spends money on which is not absolutely necessary to survive or sustain life. (all joking aside)
Post edited October 14, 2017 by MarkoH01
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fe93a/fe93ad641253a94dac7100c13ca18f213d0d06fe" alt="skeletonbow"
skeletonbow
Galaxy 3 when?
Registered: Dec 2009
From Canada
Posted October 14, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ec57/3ec57d76d30e393ec602d2abc876cb8c24b2ca4a" alt="avatar"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/045c6/045c6eba99797ce99e966fda2694220f9fe70df2" alt="MarkoH01"
MarkoH01
The goose rules!
Registered: Jun 2009
From Germany
Posted October 14, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ec57/3ec57d76d30e393ec602d2abc876cb8c24b2ca4a" alt="avatar"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bc549/bc5498cb2049b59029f0dc4ac8dcbfc75c3f2336" alt="avatar"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/69da9/69da9404e0b3b1dc37fb92a0c8957bff06d58ffa" alt="RadiantRainy"
RadiantRainy
New User
Registered: Dec 2016
From Pakistan
Posted October 14, 2017
No Pictures.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/045c6/045c6eba99797ce99e966fda2694220f9fe70df2" alt="MarkoH01"
MarkoH01
The goose rules!
Registered: Jun 2009
From Germany
Posted October 14, 2017
You can find a lot of pictures browsing through this thread (if this post should be a request for pictures or a complaint about misisng pictures).
RWarehall: I see HSL's point.
It's poor business etiquette to reveal client information without express permission. And users are clients.
If people had entered a contest, the Terms usually include acknowledgement that the winners names become public.
Those who agreed to go might have given up the right in whatever contract they signed, but those who did not take the opportunity did not give up any such right.
In short, it's fine if those who got invited acknowledge it themselves, but it isn't ok for GoG to name the names of those who did not take up the opportunity without their permission. That never should have happened. So again. What is the problem here? Is it the fact that we now know that a sepcific nickname is on the list of people invited or is it the fact that we now know that he could not make it for whatever reasons? I just fail to see the harm that is done here. We are no politicians so it should be possible for us to explain this not just in terms of "normally that is a thing you should not do" but instead saying "this is a problem because it means..." imo. Also a little addition: the only "contract" I signed was to no tell about future buisiness plans, partners of GOG ect. that is not public knowledge.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7918/d791895dca5016486e6aa46bd3cc8fc2bd407116" alt="avatar"
It's poor business etiquette to reveal client information without express permission. And users are clients.
If people had entered a contest, the Terms usually include acknowledgement that the winners names become public.
Those who agreed to go might have given up the right in whatever contract they signed, but those who did not take the opportunity did not give up any such right.
In short, it's fine if those who got invited acknowledge it themselves, but it isn't ok for GoG to name the names of those who did not take up the opportunity without their permission. That never should have happened.
Post edited October 14, 2017 by MarkoH01
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/02cc9/02cc940ec9df7330cb29663fa1dd1cadb1bf7a11" alt="RWarehall"
RWarehall
Ja'loja!
Registered: Jan 2012
From United States
Posted October 14, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ec57/3ec57d76d30e393ec602d2abc876cb8c24b2ca4a" alt="avatar"
Seems to me the GoG travel bribe worked as intended. Pick influential forum members. Give them a free trip, and now they only see the bright side of everything GoG does...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fd38/4fd38c33a8e372ecfaaaf7e752a5a574884a2d3f" alt="JMich"
JMich
A Horrible Human Person. If you need me, chat.
Registered: Apr 2011
From Greece
Posted October 14, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7918/d791895dca5016486e6aa46bd3cc8fc2bd407116" alt="avatar"
So no, GOG didn't share any private information with outsiders. They shared information with partners.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/74561/745615c0f452e61b5c7c162d605459f49f002cf4" alt="plagren"
plagren
Grumpy Old Git
Registered: May 2011
From Other
Posted October 14, 2017
Post edited October 14, 2017 by plagren
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/045c6/045c6eba99797ce99e966fda2694220f9fe70df2" alt="MarkoH01"
MarkoH01
The goose rules!
Registered: Jun 2009
From Germany
Posted October 14, 2017
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7918/d791895dca5016486e6aa46bd3cc8fc2bd407116" alt="avatar"
Calling me influential just shows how you don't know me so it's probably better not to discuss this with you but no, I don't only see the bright side of GOG now - never did and never will. But if people are complaining at least there should be a logical explanation for it that I do understand. I ask for the same explanation when GOG made decisions I did not like in the past.
Post edited October 14, 2017 by MarkoH01