From the profile page: Well, a number of things are disappointing and worrisome, but not all that surprising; this is GOG, after all.

So we have a New Account System déjà vu - make a non-distinct thread a few days prior, leave our questions unanswered, thanks us for feedback that you're just throwing away, then proceed with your original plan on Monday without prior adequate communication to your users, leaking personal data of even people that had gotten wind of the unofficial thread and changes their settings to the full privacy. GOG never changes, nor learns, eh?

Good that some people are happy about it. I wouldn't care about this profile business if GOG had implemented it right. But. Where to start...

@GOG:

1. I have to wonder - which part of "only me" don't you understand? When one chooses that setting for their profile, all it should say to whoever clicks on that link is that said profile is private. You know private, as not share anything with anyone, period? The sort of info is irrelevant, if one's choice is to share nothing. Even Steam does a better job at this.

2. Care to explain why when one has chosen "only me" for every single one of these social settings, and has also chosen to not be visible they're still included in the list of five friends in people's public profiles?
See my second attachment. Three of the listed people are on my friends list, and I can't access any of their info, their friends list included (except, of course, the info you broadcast regardless of one's settings, not only when visiting their own profiles, but also when they land on that five friends list on public profiles). Yet, you happily let everyone and their cat logged in to GOG see that they're friends with so and so.
Care to explain how this respects their choice to remain private?
I asked this very question a few days ago in the pre-release thread of this one and, surprise surprise, got no answer. Perhaps you'd be so gracious as to grant me one here? Or do I need to submit a ticket only to be offered an apology for the inconvenience?

3. I get that you want people to have access to the non-common friends of one's friends, but could you explain why those lists include people that have chosen not to be visible? I've spotted at least one I know has that visibility box unticked, yet I can see they're friends with a couple of my friends. Is that setting even doing anything, or is it there just to create the illusion of having a choice?

You're forcing people to unfriend people due to the way you've implemented this; so much for the big happy GOG family, eh?

To sum it up - I get why you want this to take off and be adopted by as many people possible, and great for those who want these social features, but you really need to respect the choices of those that don't, and just want to go their merry private way. When you call these settings privacy ones you need to treat them as such - "only me" means "only me", not "only you, unless I, GOG, decide, it doesn't". This is what makes this whole thing disappointing and frustrating, that you, as an online store, offer different privacy levels only to turn around and disrespect people's choices.

On a different note - one can't right-click on the links in friends drop-down menus. We said it in the new notification system, I'll repeat here as well - not everybody uses Galaxy, and multiple tabs have been a thing in browsers for ages now. Your focus may be the Galaxy client, but you still have a site, and it's time you code accordingly when intorducing features that are not Galaxy exclusive.

And please offer an option to disable notifications for the activity feed - having that purple dot blink on the nav-bar is starting to get annoying. But I forgot, we asked the same about the other notifications, and got nothing; cheers.



Emm... no. A non-distinct thread where not even the OP was pinned on every page doesn't cut it.



As you can see from my comments, It's worse than that.



Nope, I have games not sold here anymore and the count matches for me. It's just another case of random bugs randomly hitting random users; nothing new on GOG.



Leaking people's info that have set these settings to "only me" through the public profiles of their friends is considered innovation? One learns something everyday...



Until now, I couldn't see my friends' friends lists, let alone peek on a dynamically changing subset of friends of people that aren't my friends. Until now I didn't know how many games my friends had unless they told me of their own free volition, let alone peek on the info of people that aren't my friends. Until now I didn't know anything about people's achievements and playtimes if I weren't using Galaxy myself. No, not all of that info has always been there accessible to others.

IIRC, it was you that made at least one comment about being disappointed by the patronising tone of the other camp; I'd think you'd be one to refrain from doing the same.



If you have any friends with public profiles, your relation to them can be, and is already being broadcasted to everyone logged in, which is only a facebook account away.

Even if a profile is set to "only me", anyone can see their number of "Games", "Achievements" and "Hours played". Is that so?

You should be able to comment on post in the activity feed. Just a small suggestion.

I also agree as posted in the other thread that private should be private, even if I think largly it's not a huge deal. No need to display info like number of games, etc. People asking for this small addition aren't asking for to much imo.

And please for the love of god, push the footer to the bottom of the screen on the website. Looks horrible to have the footer half way up the screen because a profile is set to private and there isn't enough content to push it down.

you are clearly wrong

i dont mind YOU having whatever feature you want
i am against being dragged into it without full choice to willingly either use them too or completely stay out of it as if it never existed afaic, preferably whenever itrelates to some legislation and i want to be allowed to use up my rights as intended.

but hey, you like it, fine, glad for you frankly. just i want to be completely left out of it but right now, i miss some settings to achieve that and it is not ok

Correct, you - 461 Games 0 Achievements 0 Hours played.

I suspect this change was rolled out now instead of post-May 25 when GDPR officially becomes enforceable.

Is it just me or are profile backgrounds no longer working?

"I don't like this, I need some help" as in famous video. When Steam went into this type of social jerking in 2012 it started to be worse and worse each year. I really don't want the only competitor to race to the bottom of quality and privacy tbh. And like buttons in 2018, ugh… And facebook integration… Was gog paid by NSA to do it? Nobody wants this. Let's be honest, if people want to communicate they will choose different platforms.