no i dont

epic or steam key , but not much lately , i think i got 3 games in the last half year

I am only taking votes from those who were signed up on the list prior to the vote being announced (to prevent an army of opportunistic trolls from coming along suddenly and skewing the results). It is for those who were already part of the protest to decide its future.

I have already said that if option B passes, I will be stepping down as boycott thread facilitator. (You would know that if you had bothered to read any of the past 3 pages)

I agree and that is why, as I have said, I am deeply opposed to option B. It was not the original intention of the thread and I will be stepping down as facilitator, if it passes.

I have literally given your example of something fanciful that is unlikely to ever happen and thus unproductive to serious discussion. Unless you can find me 40 people boycotting GOG due to not enough DRM, in which case I agree that would cause problems (though, as stated, this is unlikely to happen, thus moot). Can you even find me ONE?

It's not piracy, gog themselves say you can back them up. Your logic is flawed.

Edit: Deleted, unnecessary.

it is
they remove your license then you shouldnt have any copies according to these laws
basically if you still keep them you are pirating them

Well, it does actually say on their main page “you buy it, you keep it”:
https://www.gog.com/about_gog

But there is also something to be said about wether publishers agree to that, considering the EULAs and such bundled with games.

End of the day though, if you have backed up your files there isn’t much they could do, anymore than if you brought physical. There is a lot of hot air about their (GOG or publisher) ownership over things, it outside of the US most people take all that copyright/ip etc. with a bit more salt. For instance there is no (as far as I am aware) testing of eulas in courts. And what would go in publisher favour in US probably wouldn’t fly in rest f world anyways.

That's what Time4Tea is, though. Due to how this forum works, nobody else has the ability to update the thread OP, unless we somehow manage to enlist the ongoing assistance of forum moderators (which, IMO, wouldn't really be fair).


I don't believe this thread has ever claimed to be one, though I'd argue that allowing people to vote on major changes to the OP and thread title rather than just making them is, in fact, rather democratic.


Those are two very separate things. I already explained about facilitation above. As far as I can tell Time4Tea is making it a point not to dictate the boycott, hence why there's currently a vote going.


We have a relatively up-to-date list of participants in the OP. We also have a relatively up-to-date list of sympathizers in the OP. There have also been a few clarifications made in the OP over time, based on the outcomes of various subjects brought up in the thread. Those are for the most part what he has been facilitating, as far as I can tell.


I don't see anyone stopping you from having an opinion. And nobody is stopping you from boycotting on your own for other reasons or organizing your own group of boycotters. If Time4Tea does decide to step down as the person handling the list upkeep for everyone else, it might even make sense to have you take over that role, since you clearly are quite motivated with regards to this subject. I'm not convinced there'd be anyone else willing to handle it to the extent Time4Tea has. I certainly couldn't in good conscience take on that job, since I know I'd be neglecting it way too much.

I believe the vote is about what to do with the thread with regards to those who already signed up, to ensure that the thread doesn't stray too far from what they signed up for. Makes perfect sense to me to limit the vote to those people.

If it turns out the majority of signups want a highly restricted thread, it would be a very unethical move to change the thread focus away from that.

If it turns out the majority want a minimum of restrictions, from what I understand Time4Tea will not feel motivated to go through posts and keep track of the lists for us anymore and so someone else will have to take over, which means we need a new OP that whoever takes over has access to change, which means we'll need a different thread. I think that's fair.

Hi Hexchild. Thanks for your detailed reply.
Certainly there are some points we could agree and others we would need to discuss-further / disagree.

What really matters to me is that you seem very focused on your next steps and the possible obstacles.

Good luck to you and all the boycotters: Despite if you support A) or B) and if you are listed in this thread or not.
We all share something in common: Customers hungry to defend our consumer rights.

Please remove me from the sympathetic list.

Thank you.

If A passes, those who voted for option B (whom didn't vote for your issues on A) are classified as supporting A unless they re-sign. This is your problem here, because you have a whole lot of people suddenly boycotting GoG because of issues they did not boycott over if A was to succeed. Does not matter if it was a majority or a minority (I did not ask it in a 'fair democratic way', my concern is the individual signer and what they signed for).

It has to be B, or the list must be restarted or dissolved, because if A passes, you have signers that never signed for point A in the first place (because redefining the petition already signed).

This goes both ways. With B, you have a total sum that merges quantities of people who don't necessarily support each others' demand. Building a false "pressure" for GOG to address points that much fewer people care about, or many boycotters would even stand against. Quantities that would be much more negligible for the individual issues.

Not that it matters much in practice, given how much GOG cares about this "boycott" already (or about the forum community in general). But their incentive is even tinier if they know demands aren't even homogeneously supported by this artificial group.

I understand the wish of some to hijack signatures for their causes, but I really doubt it fools anyone...

It doesn't matter what GOG is meant to do so much as what they will do. Regarding the sample issues you mention in your post I expect they will do little to nothing, with that trending further toward nothing the more such is presented as a demand. In any case, I expect 300 people are a rather small percentage of their customer base, making this entire boycott effort much ado by little for little to nothing.

This is why everybody should support this.
Even those who like gog in general agree gog store is worse each year, and there is little no incentive to make it better.

But "better" which way ? Better with more curation or with less curation ? With more achievements or with less galaxy ? With more ethical stances on world issues or with more detached economic decisions ? With more forum moderation or with less forum moderation ? "Better" means absolutely nothing by itself, especially when used by completely different people. It's like a government having to "change" in order to appease contestation from opposite sides of the spectrum. You can't simply addition them and build policies on that.

Just look at the Ukraine thingy. Adding the signatures of people who are outraged about it without removing the signatures of those who support it sends what message to GOG ? "People are unhappy !" (About ??)

The message it sends becomes "shrug, can't please everyone i guess, lolz". They boycott is already not considered representative of GOG's customers, and it even ceases to be representative of itself.