Many of the low raters seem to be "shill"/"fanboy" types who think GOG is perfect, and will put silly red marks on all posts in any thread that heavily criticizes GOG.

When I think they'll take care of it and many of the other forum bugs+issues

Hey thanks man. Appreciate it.

That is certainly a fair perspective. I know I have mentioned it on the forum but I am concerned at the (lack of) speed at which Z-P are releasing games. They had a nice salvo towards the end of the year. But if according to what people say about the Discord, there are all these releases in the pipeline, where are they? I am not expecting a release every week per se but having a designated day once a month (and making it clear so people aren't just left wondering if there will ever be future releases) would help. If there are games in the pipeline, I don't see why they couldn't do this already and have it earmarked like "Okay in March we will release X game, in April we will release Y game, etc."

I may have been unclear. Thank you for that, though what I was trying to describe was separate. I am saying the topic itself displayed last reply as being 14 hours ago, which was incorrect as I had replied to the 14 hours ago comment with my own follow-up comment just a few hours ago at that time. I haven't had a chance to see if it is still an ongoing issue so I assume it might've just been a forum glitch. *shrugs*

*nods* No biggie

From what I heard, Z-P had(at the time I checked a few months back) enough games to double their current catalog and then some......I have no doubt they'll be released in time.

As for doing so according to some set schedule and whatnot: eh, I sorta like it as it
is now....keeps me on the edge of my seat wondering what will drop and when :)

Given that this forum is likely held together by little more than digital duct tape at this point, it probably is yet another "feature" of the forums.

yeah yeah your irrelevant mr.troll

whether someone blanket boycotts from $100 or simply reduces spending is rather a moot point; the fact is solidarity is the uncomfortable anchor GOG will have to deal with and what no doubt hurts them more is the visibility of the metaphorical picket line driving away new customers.

How many new games do you have to buy on comparison to someone who is new to the platform?

So long as GOG tries to remain ignorant the more that anchors gonna bite into the seabed and hamper them.
Then you just wait for their corporate desperation to get them into such hot water that they start getting lawsuits and class actions against them.

Thanks for proving my statement about you as an absolute fact.

Thanks for waiting on baited breath to try and get in the last word loser lol what a desperate F&%tard

No point getting angry, just ignore him. He's frequently wrong and very repetitive.


And just in case someone is planning to ask, total games bought on GOG by me this year: zero.

So what do people think about GOG selling games that depict rape?

I have to say that it bothers me that they aren't willing to state this upfront. What they do say is this...

This Game may contain content not appropriate for all ages or may not be appropriate for viewing at work.

May?

So if depicting rape is OK, why not depictions of pedophilia? Or snuff?

Then what you have is really a protest, not a boycott - which is a weaker position for three reasons:
* Lower level of commitment by participants makes it easier for GOG to counter with partial or illusory concessions;
* Reduced financial impact on GOG (even 10% of previous activity is better than 0%);
* Lower visibility with the general public ("if they don't really care, why should I?").

And there is still the "slippery slope" argument - if it is up to individuals to choose their level of "non-participation", when what's to stop someone saying that they will continue buying but only games on sale? That's not a boycott (or protest) at all - just canny consumerism!
Then I'll bite - User 2 will affect GOG more now, but user 1 will affect GOG more in the future. Why? Because user 2 will own a larger proportion of GOG's catalogue and (excluding gifting) will be closer to the stage where they own everything (or at least, everything they'd consider buying) and therefore not deal with GOG any further.

User 1, with a smaller selection of purchases, presents more potential business to GOG. Which is very likely why GOG has been happy to spend more time and effort catering to the "new user" crowd (with Galaxy, Epic games and DRMed content) than those who backed them from the very start. "Old timers" who own all they're likely to purchase from GOG offer continued expense (downloads, support requests, etc) rather than income.
Yes, this thread has persisted longer than others. But since Time4Tea's olive branch post we've had:
* two requests for complete removal from the boycott list;
* two for moving to sympathetic (including mine);
* one removal from sympathetic;
* one post listing boycott exemptions.

And in contrast over the same period:
* two additions to full boycott;
* two additions to sympathetic.

So currently, this thread is standing still numbers-wise over the last month, compared to the 115 active and 39 sympathetic it racked up in the previous year. Yes, there are caveats about drawing conclusions over just one month's activity compared to a year, but it is nonetheless worth asking how many participants (and potential joiners) were thinking "If the original poster isn't 100% committed, why should I be?".
This is more a case of trying to avoid "Do as I say, not as I do". Accusing GOG of inconsistency begins to ring hollow if we show inconsistency ourselves.
GOG does have its exclusives, but when there is a choice, would it still not be better for other stores to get the business? And we are talking about games, not food, energy or another essential. Even where GOG does have a "must-have", wouldn't it make more sense to ask people to at least wait until it goes on sale and spend the money saved elsewhere?
There are certainly those here who have been boycotting long before this thread started along with others who have joined more recently (welcome aboard to them BTW). But to be successful, there needs to be a clearly-defined goal and an equally well-defined plan to achieve that goal.

Basically what I am saying is that people taking part should be asked to aim for a "net zero" target. If they can't quite manage it, then as long at they did their best - fine. But having a nebulous "do what you want" target dilutes the message as well as the impact of any campaign, and that seems to be the danger here.

Completely spot on with all points, especially the last one.

I don't understand how 'do as I say, not as I do' is not a complete undermining of the whole operation, A nebulous, lackadaisical message just isn't good enough to invoke change in a company like GOG, there needs to be clearly defined rules and a solid plan to achieve it, and I personally feel the creator should be leading by example.

I hope you also hate depictions of murder and killing in video games which are mostly done by yourself.

I disagree. Some reasons why I think it would be a bad idea to insist that people take a hardline approach to boycotting GOG:

1) We are not checking/verifying anything for people that sign up to the list. There is no way we can verify one way or another to what degree someone is boycotting or doing what they say they are doing.

2) What matters is the financial impact that the boycott is having on GOG. Imo, the distinction between a 'full boycotter' and someone who is reducing spending is rather meaningless because, as has been discussed before, someone who was spending $1000 per year and who has reduced by 70% is clearly having a larger impact on GOG's bottom line than someone boycotting 100%, who was only spending $50 per year. This is also why I think it would be pointless to try to split the list between those who are 'full boycotting' and those that aren't - because the distinction really doesn't mean anything in terms of actual impact.

3) Sometimes, taking an absolutist, hardline stance can drive people away, rather than attract more. There's no way you can know if taking a more 'hardline' approach would encourage more people to sign up or more people to leave (who weren't signed up for hardline). If we were to lose the support of those aforementioned 'big spenders' who are significantly reducing, imo that would be counterproductive.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Requiring a 'lower level' of financial commitment means that we should be including more people on the list. If we lost 30 participants, because they weren't on board with a hardline stance, imo that would weaken our position more.

We haven't seen any sign thus far of GOG trying to 'counter' with anything - they haven't acknowledged the boycott in any way.

I don't agree with this assumption. The impact of those who are reducing their spending matters - it all adds up. If we were to lose many people from the list who have reduced spending by 70+%, then the sum total impact of those 'on the list' could easily be less overall.

I don't think it's about people 'not caring'. Again, if someone is reducing their spending by 70%, to me that is not a sign that they 'don't care'. This seems to be a sign of black-or-white thinking - either someone cares (to the extent they are invested 100%) or they don't. You're pushing out any room for shades of grey.

We've been standing still more or less, numbers wise, for most of the past 4-5 months. The vast majority of people on the list joined within the first 3-4. So nothing has really changed there - we've been on a plateau with a slow trickle of new people signing up for quite some time now.

Ultimately, it was never a goal of this thread to try to prescribe anything or tell people what they should or shouldn't do. The intention of the list was to gather a list in one place of people who are reducing their spending (possibly by varying degrees), because they are unhappy at specific decisions GOG has made or the general direction the store is heading in. And I am arguing that the contributions of those who are 'reducing spending' by a certain % add up and can have an impact, and that impact should be captured on the list.

If all GOG users reduced their spending by 20%, that would have a huge impact on GOG's bottom line and would practically force them to listen and respond. It is not necessary to insist that everyone ha to boycott 100% to have a positive impact.

To be fair, there is a difference in that depictions of rape can have a traumatizing effect on victims of rape, whereas victims of murder usually don't have that problem. Of course that doesn't mean GOG should or shouldn't sell a specific game, but a clear trigger warning instead of a generic "not appropriate for all ages" would be nice, if that was indeed the case.

Translation: "I am trying to justify my actions in buying games from GoG while "boycotting" GoG. This is in the hope that I won't be seen as a hypocrite for my actions in being a fair weather individual."

That sums up your diatribe quite nicely.