richlind33: The point I'm concerned about is that making it easier to be a boycotter comes at the expense of how much impact it has, which has nothing to do with semantics. If this was an effective boycott GOG would have acknowledged it.
Results are the only thing that matters to me.
You are suggesting that GOG would acknowledge the boycott, if only everyone involved spent $0.00 rather than some people indeed spent $0.00 while others have spent a fraction of what they used to spend? This does not seem to track much to me. For one thing, it is grossly naïve to the general lack of communication most of us complain about on GOG's part. If anything, seems we need additional numbers and especially media/social coverage, not necessarily purity. Even then, given past Twitter controversy, we know GOG doesn't always acknowledge stuff even if it becomes big.
And, as has been offered as an example already, what if the people who reduced spending were much bigger spenders in the past? For instance, if a person is spending $0.00 now but previously spent $20 a year on GOG, doesn't it matter more to GOG that another person who spent $2,000 a year on GOG is now only spending $200? One would think it matters to GOG more what is on the balance sheet as a whole, instead of individual spending, no? (in other words, all else equal, it may be more effective if this boycott included
more "hypocrites" if they were bigger spenders).
As an aside, obviously GOG doesn't have access to our budgets. I concede that some people may be boycotting out of convenience (i.e. weren't able/going to spend here anyway, or, were going to spend less anyway). So all GOG can do is take us at our word. The fact that we have a long-running thread with nearly daily participation for over a year now, with people still adding to the boycott, is notable in and of itself. GOG can plainly see this thread is here. I would posit the reason they ignore our concerns is because they want to push further in their DRMed direction.
