I disagree; I find it to be extremely obnoxious when a website does this. There is a reason the HTTP 404 status codes exist.

One example where a redirect is extremely frustrating: Suppose a user is manually typing in the URL of a user's profile (which, let's assume, is public), and makes a typo. a 404 error, the user can just check the URL, fix the typo, and press enter. With a redirect, however, the user must retype the URL entirely from scratch.

There's also the fact that a redirect in this case can be confusing, whereas a 404 error code clearly indicates that the URL was wrong. Redirects really should only be used in cases where the content actually exists at a different location; if it does not, an error code and page should be returned, so that it's obvious that there's an error.

I really wish gog.com would return errors instead of redirecting to the homepage when sent an invalid game page URL.

Well, agree to disagree on that point, but yes, I overall agree with your sentiment that the profile option should just be grayed out for people who have disabled theirs.

At least they changed it for your own account, that when you click on your username, you are again taken to your library if your profile is disabled, like it was before the profiles were introduced.

It was annoying to always get that 404...

This would also work but the issue is it's not just the forum we are talking about. Profiles are far more integrated and intertwined in Galaxy and probably will be more intertwined in the future. Trying to accommodate that would quickly become more work..
This has nothing to do with privacy at all. 404 pages are used for missing content and broken links. This is neither. This was a feature that was disabled by choice.

No it doesn't. It lets others know that, "Hey this person decided not to use feature xyz" rather than what is currently does "Erm, something appears wrong here you clicked this link and we have no idea what you are looking for". This is standard web practice when giving users the ability to disable a feature that can impact other users. The former informs users exactly what is happening the later makes users think something is broken.

Pretty much any site that allows profiles to be disabled has a default "disabled profile" message for the benefit of others, not the person who by choice disabled their profile.

It's one thing this to let people have a bit of choice in what they display for privacy reasons, it another to ignore basic web practices because some people are over sensitive about it.

What does their choice to disable the profile have to do with that it does indeed protect their privacy in a greater degree. Much like a doctor can't even discuss if he/she is seeing a particular patient, much less the specifics of the case, the 404 error doesn't tell just anyone who happens to use that url that this account actually exists on GOG.

No the other features tell us you have an account like when you come online which is reported on the forum (and a number of other places on the site) and this isn't like talking to a doctor who is legally required not to disclose stuff. When you make an account for an online service you agree to a TOS / Privacy Policy that signifies your account name and status will be used for certain purposes and that it may even be shared with others. If you don't agree to those terms you are free not to make an account. See "Privacy Policy" ie 10. DATA SHARING.

The only time a profile or a link to any account should end up in a 404 is when that content or account really doesn't exist & has been deleted (or the link was wrong from the start). You may not like it, but that is the way these things typically work.

Great idea :)

It was an example of how it is similar. Say someone makes an account and doesn't use the forum, and someone makes a software that trolls GOGs profiles with random username combinations. The 404 error means that someone looking with that method isn't going to know that user actually exists. I don't see how this is even an argument, as it certainly does protect the privacy of users in a specific manner. It's not necessarily designed that way, I'm not arguing this is an intentional feature. I'm just arguing that it does indeed function as a feature. Which it undeniably does.

But that's kind of my point. Sure, there is a benefit in the way you described but it's certainly not a feature designed out of security concerns. It's simply a current byproduct of bad site design.

One that's not worth keeping for, as I said before, people who "are over sensitive about it". You can't please everyone. The very nature of "online" accounts means your account name is used in a manor that allows others to know you have an account. That is the entire point of online accounts and online ecosystems, which GOG covers via a privacy policy. That is why this isn't a privacy issue, because you know that by using GOG your account name may be made public for certain reasons. If someone objects to that, they shouldn't have an account here (or probably anywhere else for that matter).

So I get what you are saying, but in my opinion it's not a valid reason to leave bad site design as bad site design. It not only leads to confusion for new users who think a feature is broken but it also negatively reflects on the professionalism of the site.

And you're right. I was never really arguing anything other than it did have a benefit. I think we just kind of missed each other in passing here.

I agree,good choice.

Only because there's been so much weeaboo content. :P

As someone that doesn't follow any of the stuff... weeaboo sounds really really weird.

How about displaying a message like this: "The profile either does not exist or it is not set as public"

I think that would also be an acceptable compromise.