Alright then, I'm not boycotting GOG, I'm simply not spending money here because I feel that they have started including DRM in their games and been dishonest, how's that?
Edit: Reading the definition it seems I actually am boycotting anyway...

Not really free. Because it is necessary to create a gog account and of course given personal information in the account which is then resold. Nothing is really free you know that. And just to say that it's free, we can accept the aisle against the boycott. It is as if you are selling your own soul in some way. And so your political argument why you are for the boycott ultimately has no value because as soon as a free thing is offered, you rush to take it.So just one free game is enough for you to disregard your values.

I already had a GOG account and presumably had my information sold before I started the boycott so that's not really relevant.
If you think starting an account here is like seling your soul than surely you were crazy to do it!

I am not against boycotting gog in general. I respect some idea.

But I find it hypocritical that we say that we boycott gog but that in the end, the 1st free game available on gog. We go for it while forgetting the values that make us boycott gog, just because the game is free. As if the free is pass to right . And that afterwards we still say to ourselves that we boycott gog.

free = joker

Its makes me laugh and its also destroys the image of some for the boycott.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then :)

Not that I agree with your take on it, but let's assume for a moment that you're right about your assessment of what "boycott" means based on that dictionary description. Welp, congratulations, you proved "boycott" isn't the word for what we're doing. Whoop-de-doo.

Regardless, the point isn't to follow some dictionary definition. There's no real meaning to "legitimacy" here, except in terms of whether people's complaints are legitimate or not. Since we're paying customers with the freedom to choose what to spend money on, that legitimacy is self-evident.


I'm sure there are exceptions, but there are two basic general approaches taken here, regardless of what label you'd like to apply:
* Not paying money for games and services on GOG, so as not to support the direction GOG has been going lately
* Applying enough economic pressure on GOG to convince them that the best course of action is to change their strategy

These are highly compatible approaches as they imply the same essential rules of action / inaction. Both are set to resolve if / when GOG ever decides to change for the better. Neither of them is incompatible with accepting free stuff.

Oh, another semantics fanatic. (one who is wrong, but that's not important here)

I, for one, have no problem accepting free stuff from GOG. I won't use Galaxy to get free stuff and I won't subscribe to their newsletter. But I see no problem in accepting the occasional gift that doesn't come with strings attached. But I won't give GOG any money as long as they don't fix the DRM situation.

What about games with opt-in telemetry, or that at least ask on first start-up? (Fell Seal: Arbiter's Mark does this.)

I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just the ones that automatically do it and either don't tell you or try to hide it or make it difficult to opt-out.

I suppose it's a tribute to the longevity of this thread that we get the "naysayers" who either don't think there's a problem or concede there is a problem with GOG but don't want to do anything about it. If you think this is a waste of time and effort, that's your privilege but spending your time trying to convince us otherwise is even more so. Are you of so little significance in your own lives that you can only get self-justification through inflammatory posts here? If so, do yourselves a favour and go outside and enjoy some fresh air! Sunshine is supposed to be really good for trolls...at least according to Tolkein. ;)

The issue of signing up for free games seems a complete non-issue - I've picked two up (and asked GOG support to remove one since it was 64-bit only and not labelled as such) and don't consider my boycott breached at all. I'm not keeping exact score like Mrkgnao but, having spent $130 at GOG throughout 2020, can reasonably assume to have deprived GOG of $60+ income since.

If GOG continue ignoring posters here, that's their choice and it doesn't in any way diminish the arguments made in favour of a boycott - if anything it strengthens them (I've boycotted Sony products since their rootkit scandal in 2005 - they've not changed appreciably since so I'm happy to continue boycotting). This really needs be viewed as a long term measure with posters willing to withold hundreds of dollars each (which would then put the "DRM-cost" to GOG in the tens of thousands, probably still not significant enough) before change is likely to happen. And, as a fallback, to discuss other stores less likely to break their pledge in future (a tough one, given how even previously large players like Desura have vanished).

The goal though, should be clear. A better GOG where customers can pick any item without having to worry about current or future DRM being imposed. The "partial DRM" that some have touted here as their idea of acceptable, just means opening the floodgates - when GOG started regional pricing (breaking their Fair Price pledge), that "only" initially affected 3 games...

I come back here every once in a while with the hope that GOG would have rescinded their censorious spur, but alas, no luck.

I almost gave in the temptation to get Factorio, but resisted.

Hey everyone. Sorry, the past week was very busy for me and I was struggling to keep up with the thread. First post is now up to date.

Done (sorry for the delay). Although nobody is perfect and if you intend to maintain your boycott going forwards, I would still consider that a good effort. But it's up to you, obviously.

For what it's worth, I haven't accepted a single free game from GOG this year (not sure if I can prove it though). Hellpoint is on my wishlist, but I won't take it, and I also didn't take Brigador (also on my wishlist) a few months back. It's not so much because I would consider it breaking the boycott though. For starters, my backlog is already pretty big and I don't know if/when I will ever get round to playing all the games I have already bought. Secondly, I like to support smaller developers and getting the game for free doesn't help support them (as far as I am aware).

Although, actually, if me taking a free game would mean GOG would still pay the devs their share, then I would take them. Because then the devs would still get supported (this boycott isn't their fault, after all) and it would mean GOG having to pay someone else some money on my behalf, which is a net expense to GOG and in my view would be consistent with the goals of the boycott.

I don't consider someone taking a free game as breaking their boycott. They still aren't giving GOG any money, therefore they are not financially supporting the store. If other people want to take the free games, I wouldn't hold it against them. I'm not sure if you can prove either way whether individuals have taken them or not. Some people may have bought those games last year, before they were offered for free, for example.

Well, looks to me like GOG "lost" only $18 - not $126.5

What I'm wondering, is: why didn't you buy these other games on Humble and/or Indie Gala?
After all, you claim, you would definitely have bought them, so...?

-Operencia
-Way of the Samurai 4
-XCOM 2
-Cardaclysm
-Worms World Party Remastered
-Steel Rats OST (***)
-Hob
-Warhammer Quest Deluxe
-Warhammer Quest 2
-Sleeping Dogs
-Thief
-Fae Tactics
-Loop Hero
-Styx: Master of Shadows
-Hellpoint Supporter Pack (***)
-Samorost 2

...are all available on Humble/IG (well, not on sale, probably...but that's just more money NOT to give to GOG, yes?)

(***) Too bad, that GOG gave the main games to these OSTs away for free, huh?
Just imagine, how much more money you could have had withheld from them... ;)

He claims he'd buy DRM-free versions with offline installers sold by GOG, and at the current price. Not buying different versions elsewhere and for a different price does not translate to "he wouldn't actually buy here anyway". Following your logic one should assume I never bought anything here, since I never bought anything on Steam.

No. That's a singularily silly thing to say. If GOG sells a game for 10$, then that's what they lose when someone buys the game elsewhere, regardless of how much they spend on that game there. They can't lose more in sales than they could possibly make in those sales.