You haven't said anything yet, at least in terms of directly responding to what I am saying. Parroting my frustration at getting you to understand doesn't create dialogue, either.

I have very clearly laid out the issue from BOTH sides, the consumer and GOG. You are merely speaking in vagaries without going into any actual representation of how it operates, either in theory or in practice.

I'd suggest that if you don't have the wherewithal to support your arguments, you're better off staying out of the debate to begin with.

Done with this.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it than in the combined response I made to JMich and you. GOG puts $1 each into one million user accounts = either a $1 million expense, or a $1 million liability, with corresponding effect on GOG's corporate accounts and profit-loss statements for the current fiscal year. It doesn't matter that those customers can't withdraw the money and can't spend it on anything other than GOG products. The moment that $1 credit gets put into the user's wallet account, it's their money, not GOG's.

The wallet funds still expires?

So, both are kept in one place but there's not distinction if one has both. Cheers.

https://www.gog.com/wallet "Purchased funds will never expire."

This is an appeal to common practice:
You say negative-sum exchanges equal "being nice to each other" and imply that there's a point to them because people do it.

This is a longer discussion (I wrote a whole article about shitty gifting traditions last December), but, sigh, here goes.

It's not "nice" to be a dumbass. The reason you think it is is common practice: you've been brought up to believe it's "nice" and have the prescripted emotional response.

Non-reciprocal gifts that do not incur additional expenses on the part of the recipient are rationally speaking always welcome and "nice" (better than nothing -- although if you're buying on the free market***, you should be giving cash instead). It's the gift exchange that's stupid if and only if there's no net benefit, as in, if the recipient is more capable of buying what they need themselves. (Specialization and exchanges which do result in net benefit are the foundation of modern civilization.)

Suppose I'm poor and might want a new computer among other things, while my friend is rich and wants a new toothbrush. It is absolutely fucking stupid for us to exchange toothbrush for computer via, say, Amazon purchases; a vastly better alternative is them giving me money to spend as I need -- maybe on a computer, maybe on clothes, maybe on children's school supplies -- and buying a toothbrush themselves, unless there's a substantial capability imbalance. Maybe they don't have time to do domestic shopping. Maybe I'm lousy with computers and can be easily scammed. Maybe they can write off a computer at work and give it to me. (In fact, someone DID do exactly that. Thank you, awesome British person.)

Gift cards are literally the worst of both worlds. You show you don't know the person enough to get them what they want, you force them to do their own shopping, and you give them a shitty, less-liquid money surrogate. If you're going to buy something on the "free market" with your cash (whether a usable good or a gift card), just give cash instead. A person tends to know what the fuck it is that they want. Doing otherwise results in a shittier gift than it would've otherwise been. Once you're set on spending money to benefit a person, you should rationally find a use for said money that benefits them the most.

***Free market as in the micro model: equal prices, perfect knowledge.

I guess my previous posts made my stance clear on this subject.
I said I can't speak for everyone. I like that option, so I used it.
I understand there are people that don't, and I respect different opinions.
If I didn't respect your opinion, I wouldn't have said:
I'm sorry you find it useless, but keep in mind it's useful to other people. Send suggestions to the blues, maybe they will change it. It can't hurt, so might as well try it.

It is only fair that you also respect who likes this system. Which didn't seem like you were doing, when you said it was "completely bad".

In any case, I'm glad we can see the pros and cons of the system.
Have a good day PaterAlf.

Maybe we'll get an App Store to go with it? :)

Hmm so it's like the Steam Wallet, but if I can't go to a local store like Microcenter, Gamestop or Best Buy to buy one I probably won't use the system at all cause I'll just use my CC or Paypal at the time of purchase. I only buy steam wallet cards once in a while but I usually pay cash locally for them and that's the only reason I even use Steam Wallet.

That was much more concise than what I typed up. Lets go with that.

Except for this: "As long as your Wallet has contained Wallet Funds (bought directly as Wallet Funds) and hasn't hit zero Wallet balance, then there is no expiration date".

Even better, they both count as the No Timer version as long as you've bought some No Timer AND you haven't let the Wallet hit zero aftewards. FLOAT A PENNY (or your local equivalent)!

That's good. I wonder if funds you get from GOG when buying games won't expire from now on.

Just because some action does not bring material profit does not mean it is "irrational", "fucking stupid" or any other adjective you might think of.
You know, people have these little things called emotions, memories and feelings. Gifts have the same material and practical value as items you buy yourself, but they additionally have some connotation to people who give them to you - and yes, it does feel nice when you look at whatever you got and it brings you memories of someone, especially if they're no longer around. Be it a doll, a game, a movie, a book, a cup or anything else. I speak from experience when I say that being given money and buying something yourself can't compete in this regard.

But by your logic we would also have to consider giving someone flowers "fucking stupid", because, as you put it, "there's no net benefit" and "the recipient is capable of buying them themselves".

If you still don't get it, think of anything you can (and most likely do) buy that doesn't give you any material benefit. A cinema ticket? A Disneyland visit? A holiday? These are all things that, in the long run, are wasted money from a strictly materialistic point of view. It's the feelings, emotions and memories they give you that make them worthwhile.

I'm sorry, but your materialistic approach just screams edgy to me. You are, of course, free to neglect immaterial value of gifts, but be aware that people normally tend to value these things. It's simply nice, that's all there is to it, and you saying I only think so because this is common practice and "I've been brought up to believe it's nice" is not only highly insulting to me, it's an evidence you're missing the point entirely.

We're talking about contacting Support to remove the games, right? AFAIK there's no other way to remove them.

I've always detested that Humble makes it super-easy for a hacker to delete bought games (presumably to deter people from sharing their games pages). I find the possibility of accidental or malicious deletion very scary. :-( (This is possibly an indication that I face little real danger in my daily life... ^_^)

Is it possible to transfer funds back out of the wallet?