It's only been a little over 2 months. I'd have been surprised to see any major changes this early.

Yep. I guess GOG would like to get rid of the forum entirely. At least they are not willing to invest any resources into it's upkeep.

As for the boycott, as rjbuffchix said, yes, there are personal successes. Like saving money and being sure to do the right thing by standing up for my principles. I'm under no illusion that we were enough to make GOG change course. For that both our number and the loudness of the protest would have to be much bigger. Probably it would also be more noticeable for GOG if this protest and boycott discussion would happen in their social media channels and not in their abandoned forum. However, I'm not going to make a twatter account just to tell GOG that they suck.

That can have more impact when public, except GOG will just block dissenters from their Facebook Page and Twitter discussions. They blocked me on Twitter the other day, so I can't see their account or anything they post (and they won't see anything I say about them). I can still complain on Twitter - and when I do mention them anywhere it will certainly be much more negative now they are also adopting those cheap tactics - but in he end with tricks like that they are doing their best to stifle dissent, rather than listening.

Yes. It's really sad how GOG turned from a pro-customer company that valued open communication turned into a company that employs anti-customer methods and avoids and stifles communication wherever possible.

I don't use Twitter or FB either (I'm not a big fan of mass data harvesting). I like forums and this is how I choose to communicate. If GOG wants to ignore it, that's their problem.

For those not having issue/s with reddit there is also this: https://old.reddit.com/r/gog/
Some links to discord server/s here: https://old.reddit.com/r/gog/comments/lug6p1/moving_forward_with_rgog_part_2/
This is supposed to be their (new ~= old) policy: https://old.reddit.com/r/gog/comments/lug6p1/moving_forward_with_rgog_part_2/gp6b5k0/
Note that I dont know much about 'r/gog' though. So its for example possible (from my not-knowing-better POV) that their quoted policy is about as honest as GOGs communication policy in https://www.gog.com/about_gog

Perhaps we should take a page from the "many gamers" and e-mail them directly if we aren't already, then?

The many Gamers that actually use GOG and contact GOG they don't really listen to.

Emails will either be ignored or closed depending on where you send them.

Its the invisible "gamers" that will never use GOG and have no interest at all in GOG they listen to not us Gamers that actually use GOG.

I've said it before and I'll say it again GOG is not about the Gamers its about the "gamers".

I'll also add that I'm not boycotting them, however I am getting less and less from them.

Or LEGAL in some cases....yup, in some places a publicly traded company is bound to do it's best to maximize profits. Sad thing, huh?

=-=-=

Not a problem....I also liked reading them btw. :)
(you brought up some good points and echoed a few of my own feelings as well)

Sidenote: I second the recommendation to try zoom platform. It is just like GOG, albeit with a less "pretty" website and no forums.


You're likely being followed by the "fans"(trolls) of GOG. They down rate (to varying degrees, and via their own programs) anyone they notice who posts something in their list of dislikes/pet peeves(in your case it's likely because you heavily criticized GOG and especially concerning the devotion decision, which they seem to dislike).

My advice? Pay them no mind.....the worst they do is take away some worthless points, anyways.

=-=-=

The "many gamers" are likely not watching the forums much anymore, as it's an "old"(to the net, I mean) issue. As said above to Kdgog, it's more likely the forum trolls and their bots.

Well for boycotts like the one in the OP post, you don't need everyone onboard....just a decent number. Problem is, the majority here using the site(who don't even use the forums in many cases, btw) are the kind who like to use ONLY galaxy(no offline installers) and see no problem with gog not selling a game because of "many gamers requests"(i.e. trolls or ccp demands/pressure).

That said, I don't mind if some don't join such boycotts....as not everyone is in a situation or strong willed enough to follow through with such things, and I feel it should ultimately be up to them to choose whether to do so.
(free of social pressure and the like)

=-=-=

Dang....well said.

If the GOG DLer removal protest threads are any indicator, i'd (sadly) expect nothing to change even a year down the line....well not unless this movement can get a ton more support behind it**. :\
(**and in the "public sphere" more....i.e. social media and the like).

Sidenote: I am guessing this is at least partially why the staff have recently** cracked down on various threads and posts and their content on the forums.

(i.e. when it becomes a pain to post to a site, people tend to post less or move on, which empties out the forums and makes it easier for them[should they choose to do so] to close it)

(**over the past year or so, minus the time they were likely told to ignore the board during the devotion removal & 2077 problems)

A few talking heads on YT and the like made videos about it, and people posted on social media.....gog must REALLY want them chyna bux.

=====
=====

To all: Keep up the good "fyte" and all with this boycott, and also sorry for all the posts.

Did that, of course. But never go a reply.

The irony there is that 'do it's best to maximize profits' is an extremely vague term. Are we talking about short-term or long-term profits? How does someone judge whether a public company 'did it's best'? It's not like there is one specific formula for running a successful business. Everything looks different in hindsight and you can't turn back the clock and try something different, to see if it would have worked out better.

And then, there are some investors that invest for ethical reasons, not just purely based on profitability. I find the idea of trying to force a company to comply with some vague notion of 'maximizing profits' pretty dumb, tbh.

I believe it's called a vote of no confidence, and shareholders(maybe only the major ones or maybe any, I am not fully sure) in some countries can call them if they feel the company leadership isn't working in their interests and that of the company....and one of those ways is if a company "isn't making enough profit".

Now this isn't a problem(afaik) with private companies, but it is with public ones(at least in the countries that I am aware of).

Well the above is(afaik) in place to make sure a company's leadership doesn't run it into the ground, but it is imo too often used for greed based reasons.