It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionUPDATE: Introducing GOG Profiles(2385 posts)(2385 posts)
(2385 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
75
100
125
140
141
142
143
144
159
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 30, 2018
Activity Feed • Gameplay Stats • Personalization


UPDATE: We've added a new option to the Privacy settings in GOG Profiles - from now on you can turn off your profile on GOG entirely, so no one can see any kind of information that is shown on the profile page. This also means that when you turn off your profile, you won’t be visible on your friends’ friends lists, even if they decide to keep their profiles visible.
The option to enable/disable your GOG Profile can be found in your account „Privacy & Settings” options, under „Privacy” tab.



We just introduced a new feature on GOG.COM: User Profiles – a social way to share what you and your friends are up to. See what your friends on GOG are playing, achieving, and sharing across four sections – Feed, Profile, Games and Friends.

Your Feed is the centerpiece of your Profile. Here, you’ll see which games your friends have been playing, all sorts of achievements and milestones, as well as general thoughts, screenshots, and forum activity. You can dispense your approval at whim and share your own stuff as well!

Your Profile is all about you and your gaming accomplishments. It's a summary of your activity, like the time you've spent in your games , your latest achievements (and just how rare they are among other users), as well as a glimpse at what your most active friends have been up to.

If you want to know more about your Games, you need to hit the the third tab. It contains a list of all the games you own on GOG, together with stats like time spent in-game and your progress towards unlocking the achievements. Sort the list, compare stats with your friends, and get some healthy competition going.

Finally – your Friends: get a general summary of their achievements and hours played. Here you'll also see which games are the most popular among your friends right now, so you can join them in multiplayer or find something you might enjoy yourself.

Of course, your profile comes with some sweet personalization options, choose a wallpaper from your game collection and share a few words with the world.

User Profiles are available for all GOG.COM users. Your personal gameplay stats like achievements, time played and milestones depend on GOG Galaxy, but if you’re not using the optional client you can still use the feed, post in it and interact with your friends.

Launching profiles also means adding new privacy settings on our end. You'll find three new Privacy options in your account's „Privacy & settings” area. These settings allow you to set the visibility for your profile summary, your games, your friends, etc.
So what are you waiting for? There's so much room for activities!
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
I think people should have to opt-in to this by default. It was a mistake to publicly show the game collection of all your users without their permission. I partially understand how that mistake could have been made. Hopefully, in the future you will reach out and ask each member prior to enabling it.

Thanks for the fast response in allowing it to be disabled.
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
avatar
MIK0: Got the newsletter too [...]
avatar
HypersomniacLive: I assume you're also subscribed to promotional emails?
You assume right. I left all them enabled because communication from GOG is already scarce to begin with.
I guess this newsletter was shipped under the promotion category paired with a game sale, not as an announcement. Even worse.

avatar
MIK0: [...] I had no words when I received that, to think they are sending it now...
If their soft launch was indeed such a hard crash, they should at least better prepare a communication abou the feature while fixing the fact that the profiles are public by default. [...]
avatar
HypersomniacLive: But that's exactly my point. They'd have fixed the current status if they were sending out that sort of email, because they see what's wrong with all this. But they don't, so instead they're sending out a "Hey there, we set up your public profile <without asking you, or you agreeing>, yeah! Look at the image we include here; isn't it cool that we're broadcasting your data to everyone to see while you yourself were unaware of it? Yeah, high five! Oh, and since we did such a great job with this all, come purchase a game or two from our weekly sale."

And I just noticed that it even uses the exact wording they used on twitter. I guess they wanted to make sure that those not frequenting twitter, still join the hype train.
It's worrisome at least that they still don't think this is a mistake. They absolutely want this feature for its own gain.
Someone pointed out that they are listening more to social media than on their own forum. Maybe it's because they have a different visibility: on social media what they say is used as publicity as they have control over it while the forum is pretty hidden. Maybe that's the issue and the reasons why most GOG screw ups (which coincidentally match every GOG actions) never reach the news.
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
avatar
MIK0: Someone pointed out that they are listening more to social media than on their own forum. Maybe it's because they have a different visibility: on social media what they say is used as publicity as they have control over it while the forum is pretty hidden. Maybe that's the issue and the reasons why most GOG screw ups (which coincidentally match every GOG actions) never reach the news.
As someone who avoids social media I am obviously not too well informed, but I did venture onto Twitter for a bit yesterday and it's not like they're getting universal praise there, either, though.
Posted May 02, 2018
avatar
MIK0: Someone pointed out that they are listening more to social media than on their own forum. Maybe it's because they have a different visibility: on social media what they say is used as publicity as they have control over it while the forum is pretty hidden. Maybe that's the issue and the reasons why most GOG screw ups (which coincidentally match every GOG actions) never reach the news.
avatar
lolplatypus: As someone who avoids social media I am obviously not too well informed, but I did venture onto Twitter for a bit yesterday and it's not like they're getting universal praise there, either, though.
You.......TWIT:)
Sorry,I couldn't resist it.
Post edited May 02, 2018 by Tauto
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
avatar
Dalthnock: In other news, I checked a few GOG staff profiles, and they were all set to private.
This one is public: https://www.gog.com/u/elcook

But (for me) it doesnt add up properly:
GOG has this "We're a company of gamers" - quoted from https://www.gog.com/about_gog . But: real gamers actually play games.

elcook is the (self proclaimed) PR guy so it should be obvious for him to use Galaxy and GOG over other avenues - right?

Yet the profile shows 19h played?

So either the profile is "fake" or elcook isnt a proper gamer or elcook doesnt do a very good (in terms of PR) job?

Edit: Funny quote from https://www.gog.com/galaxy :

7. Does GOG Galaxy collect my personal information?
We respect your privacy, so does GOG Galaxy.
Post edited May 02, 2018 by Zrevnur
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
avatar
MIK0: while the forum is pretty hidden. Maybe that's the issue and the reasons why most GOG screw ups (which coincidentally match every GOG actions) never reach the news.
They've made 0 efforts when it comes to this forum for as long as I remember. I wouldn't be surprised if they never added the forum links to the store pages (a bloody no brainer) because they simply can't be bothered to deal with the forum in any significant sense.
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
avatar
kagimushi: Just adding my name to the list of people appalled that all their data has been publicly viewable, by default, without their knowledge, for the past week before GOG even bothered to send out an email to tell us our profiles exist. I shouldn't have to opt out of having everything GOG knows about me being spread out for all to see, especially with no prior warning. This is not bloody complicated. Profiles should have been set to maximum privacy by default, right from the start. That they still haven't fixed this shows exactly how much GOG values its users' privacy.
I still have to receive an official email from GOG to inform me about the implementation of this new feature.
Only by chance did I read the "pre-announcement"-thread by elcook...and then this thread, of course.

Very badly done.
Posted May 02, 2018
avatar
Dalthnock: In other news, I checked a few GOG staff profiles, and they were all set to private.
avatar
Zrevnur: This one is public: https://www.gog.com/u/elcook

But (for me) it doesnt add up properly:
GOG has this "We're a company of gamers" - quoted from https://www.gog.com/about_gog . But: real gamers actually play games.

elcook is the (self proclaimed) PR guy so it should be obvious for him to use Galaxy and GOG over other avenues - right?

Yet the profile shows 19h played?

So either the profile is "fake" or elcook isnt a proper gamer or elcook doesnt do a very good (in terms of PR) job?

Edit: Funny quote from https://www.gog.com/galaxy :

7. Does GOG Galaxy collect my personal information?
We respect your privacy, so does GOG Galaxy.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Elcook's profile was set to private yesterday.

I hesitate to attack someone personally, as I have no idea whether Mr. Elcocinero wrote the official response himself or if he was given it & ordered to post it "as is".

I can only "blame" him for not changing his avatar when he posted that, as his chosen picture next to the post makes the whole thing seem astoundingly smug (which it is). I'd've gone with an early Daffy Duck picture, no one can stay mad at early Daffy. A kitten or a puppy would be emotional manipulation, that's a bad thing.

Excuse me, I went off on a tangent. Any way, yeah, unless we have some kind of proof that the lowly employees that have to deal with the unwashed masses personally have the current GOG ideals, I'd say we shouldn't abuse them individually, but by all means, feel free to attack the monolithic entity known as GOG.

That Galaxy quote is hilarious indeed. Good thing I never believed that bullcrap for one second!*




*I believed that bullcrap and now I'm crying, but pretending everything is all right.
Posted May 02, 2018
avatar
Dalthnock: unless we have some kind of proof that the lowly employees that have to deal with the unwashed masses personally have the current GOG ideals, I'd say we shouldn't abuse them individually
we shouldn't abuse gog employees individually unless they have current gog ideals???

specially for you i checked code of conduct for forums and your one sentence suggests breaking 3 out of 5 main rules:

- Always treat others with kindness and respect, even if you don’t agree with them.
- Do not intentionally insult or offend others.
- We don’t tolerate hate speech, intimidation, harassment, sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs, and discrimination.
posts like yours establish a new low on this forum.
Posted May 02, 2018
avatar
Dalthnock: unless we have some kind of proof that the lowly employees that have to deal with the unwashed masses personally have the current GOG ideals, I'd say we shouldn't abuse them individually
avatar
d2t: we shouldn't abuse gog employees individually unless they have current gog ideals???

specially for you i checked code of conduct for forums and your one sentence suggests breaking 3 out of 5 main rules:

- Always treat others with kindness and respect, even if you don’t agree with them.
- Do not intentionally insult or offend others.
- We don’t tolerate hate speech, intimidation, harassment, sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs, and discrimination.
avatar
d2t: posts like yours establish a new low on this forum.
Thank you. <3

I don't get the 1st and 3rd line, though. They seems to be irrelevant to what I'm suggesting.

EDIT: Especially the 3rd line.

EDIT 2: You don't know what it's liiiiiiiiiiiiike!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU
Post edited May 02, 2018 by Dalthnock
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
On a tangential note, one thing that popped up regularly on this thread is how "evil" and "unfair" the rating system is.

I went back and looked at the posts that were down-voted and the ones that were up-voted. Almost all of the posts that were down-voted were personal attacks against someone. Practically every down-voted post called others "whiners", "losers", "tin foil hats". The rest downplayed other people's concerns as irrelevant. Only a couple that were marked "Below viewing treshold[sic]" were benign, but they came from people who had a stream of insulting ones before, so I can easily attribute that to exasperation. The correlation between disrespectful posts and low reputations is not insignificant.

Conversely, those that are marked "high rated" tend to be posts that are better articulated or researched than the ones around it, and they are generally formulated in a polite way. Again, there seems to be a significant correlation between respectful posts and high reputations.

So, personally, I'd say the reputation and post rating system is working exactly as it should and I'm glad it's there.
Posted May 02, 2018
high rated
I know this is being discussed ad nauseam, but why were profiles enabled by default, and why were they made public by default? Shouldn't these settings have been opt-in, rather than opt-out?

Just tossing my $0.02 on the fire.
Posted May 02, 2018
low rated
avatar
puviani: On a tangential note, one thing that popped up regularly on this thread is how "evil" and "unfair" the rating system is.

I went back and looked at the posts that were down-voted and the ones that were up-voted. Almost all of the posts that were down-voted were personal attacks against someone. Practically every down-voted post called others "whiners", "losers", "tin foil hats". The rest downplayed other people's concerns as irrelevant. Only a couple that were marked "Below viewing treshold[sic]" were benign, but they came from people who had a stream of insulting ones before, so I can easily attribute that to exasperation. The correlation between disrespectful posts and low reputations is not insignificant.

Conversely, those that are marked "high rated" tend to be posts that are better articulated or researched than the ones around it, and they are generally formulated in a polite way. Again, there seems to be a significant correlation between respectful posts and high reputations.

So, personally, I'd say the reputation and post rating system is working exactly as it should and I'm glad it's there.
Donald Trump did nothing wrong.
Posted May 02, 2018
avatar
puviani: On a tangential note, one thing that popped up regularly on this thread is how "evil" and "unfair" the rating system is.

I went back and looked at the posts that were down-voted and the ones that were up-voted. Almost all of the posts that were down-voted were personal attacks against someone. Practically every down-voted post called others "whiners", "losers", "tin foil hats". The rest downplayed other people's concerns as irrelevant. Only a couple that were marked "Below viewing treshold[sic]" were benign, but they came from people who had a stream of insulting ones before, so I can easily attribute that to exasperation. The correlation between disrespectful posts and low reputations is not insignificant.

Conversely, those that are marked "high rated" tend to be posts that are better articulated or researched than the ones around it, and they are generally formulated in a polite way. Again, there seems to be a significant correlation between respectful posts and high reputations.

So, personally, I'd say the reputation and post rating system is working exactly as it should and I'm glad it's there.
Yeah. That's usually my impression, too.
Of course there are some outliers here and there, but overall, it works the way, you described it.
avatar
freythman: why were profiles enabled by default, and why were they made public by default? ?
Short answer: because GOG.
Long answer: also because GOG.

;)
Post edited May 02, 2018 by BreOl72
Posted May 02, 2018
avatar
Tyronne: Are there any other future measures on GOG should I be made aware of that I wil be automatically joined with which later I have to opt out of as I did not want to be a member of in the first place as if there is then can I please opt out of them now save having to do it later?
Several days ago, someone suggested we might be required to provide DNA samples at some point, for purposes that are yet to be speculated upon. Meanwhile, I'm trying to take a picture of myself that doesn't look terrible and preparing a list of likes and dislikes, just in case GOG does something really strange, like adding eHarmony to its Trusted Partner list.
Pages:
1
25
50
75
100
125
140
141
142
143
144
159
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionUPDATE: Introducing GOG Profiles(2385 posts)(2385 posts)
(2385 posts)