Really glad the starred category will be removed. And lowering the maximum number of requests seems good, and four in a year in itself is probably fair when you take the number of donations into account, but making it directly per year may be a too long stretch of time. Not opposed to it, but I was suggesting one per three months before, which is the same thing in total and seems like a more manageable stretch of time.

*checks* For me, one in 2016 and 2017, two in 2015 (both from nominations), 2018, 2019 and 2022, three in 2020 and four in 2021, none this year.

While many people do support the starred category, there are still some that dislike it (Cavalary comes to mind). And now that I'm getting deeper into the whole Youtube thing, taking additional time for those random dice roll games is going to take up too much time to manage. The annual limit idea is a way to still keep some games on the list while still giving me some free time. And to answer your other question, I planned on having it be a calendar year but now I'm wondering if I should do something like what Cavalary said just now which would be one game per quarter.
Maybe quarterly may be a better solution because I was still struggling with the fact that by the end of the year people would use up all their requests before the new year. Quarterly just seems more manageable and can be easily seen in the OP to the thread. So instead of thinking of "how many requests do I have left in the year", it would just be simply replacing the once a month rule with once quarterly.

I'm still supporting idea of "starred games" and I appreciate modification proposed by DiffuseReflection, thought I would go even much further with limit to 2-3 games per calendar year.

If I saw a problem with anything, it would be GOG Giveaways with a short key validity period. Therefore, I would like to consider introducing the principle that this type of codes should be available to everyone from the beginning?
I don't support this solution, but it's reasonable.

If that's a criterion, then I don't expect you'll be implementing the four-a-year (or one-a-quarter) anytime soon, as people are already objecting to it, and I am sure more will do so.

I can only say that I am sad to see the starred category going away.

Personally, I agree with KillingMoon and mrkgnao. I'm in favor of the starred category staying and for the games one takes to be even less than 4 a calendar year. However, I can't decide, if we're talking about 3 per year, if it would be strictly 1 game in a quarter of the year, or someone can take the 3 games whenever within the year (with the limitation of 1 per month, of course). I can't figure which would be better.

However, I think this would be good to apply only on standard and starred categories of games. Games having an expiration date maybe shouldn't have this limitation, since they may go to waste.

I like the new rule and support it.

Also in favour. And regarding the starred category, would it be too much hassle to keep it and, for example, only allow one of the four games per year be a starred one? I've always liked how its concept shakes up the "first come, first served" basis of the giveaway, and how it might give some folks the chance to play a game they like without rushing to ask for it before anybody else does. But that's just how I see it, of course. How has it been working out so far?

I personally do not like the limit per year, but If people agree with that and BenKii thinks that it will be better, I will support the idea. I would like that the limitation was only for the "starred games" (as DiffuseReflection has proposed).

Last but not least, I like the "starred games" category but again, BenKii is the best person to take the correct measure.

I have mixed feelings about this change.

In theory it should improve people's chance to get a "better game" but on the other side I do not see "repeated names" month to month so I think it will not improve the situation too much.

Good games will still vanish in the blink of the eye and this system can worse the situation for the games which are still good but in need of specific gamer's taste. Some people will still be fast to grab and some people will still wait till the end of a set time period.

Your giveaway, your rules. But imo daggered games from gog giveaways should not count for the limit (4, 6 or whatever).

Whatever the Overlord wants, the Overlord gets.

New proposed rule seems fine to me :)

Oh I thought that was a given. Yeah, no limits for daggered keys.

Still mulling over whether I should do the annual limit or keep things the same for now. I'm reading everyone's comments and awaiting other folks opinions.

Doest matter what you do, various arseholes will always assume the rules do not apply to them (especially if they have donated), other arseholes will try and enforce their opinions as a better idea (ignoring all context and probably havent even run a single giveaway themselves / ever even donated anything that wasnt free).
Welcome to the hell of GAs. ;)

Hmm. I was leaning more towards a longer non-daggered cooldown rather than a bulk number of requests.

If it's 6 a year then you can only ask for 1 game every 2 months. If it's 4 a year, then it's 1 every 3 months.

Whatever you decide to do in the end, I'm sure it'll be fine.

Just an another idea to toss around and allow to show that some user really cares about receiving a specific game.

What about (instead of giving one game per month) giving every user some amount of "max redeem points" per year?

In this system every user can ask for a game and add some amount of points (from 1 to the current max) - the game will go to the first user who offers the highest amount of points.

This system will allow users to request and "pay" higher for highly requested games but also can allow to get "not so hot games" with easy.

Example: If we give 12 points/year to every user then this system will be similar to the current one but will also allow users to show some game is a priority for them (like it is/was in the starred games system).

This system can be started with a testing phase of 3 months and giving 3 points to every user.