Thanks

Also, for links.....just put the url(in url tags) between generic quote tags, like this(using your url as an example): That user's 'latin name' would likely be shillimus trollicus .......i.e. not worth the time to reply. Just a head's up :)

Neither is your fake boycott. By the way, you keep not answering my question, so I'll ask it again. How many games did you buy during GoG's sale last week? Over or under 5? Of course you won't answer, because it continues to prove that you are a hypocrite with your stance.

Actually i bought zero & not because of 'what you may think of me' dumbass.


Oh and if I wanted to support a developer despite not wanting to support GOG as a free consumer, with my own free will I can tell you to go kiss my arse.

Kromagnon is using negrep countermeasures. Wot a fauxny! lol

The Steam Deck may change this. It's an Arch linux based system. Dead is relative as well. It's not the primary desktop OS, but its also not sold as the standard OS on most retail computers, but IoT and handhelds, it is.

Your defensiveness and insults proves that your words are not totally truthful.

Yawn troll gotta troll, but noones listenning to you so buck off wayne kerr

Now you're engaging in projection. Typical. Anyways, you've proven that you've lost this argument.

This guy is so obviously friend with some mod(s) here, it's ridiculous. Or at least they are backing him up (if it's not some mod itself). I think lots of people here understand that already (I know that some people have the same opinion). Anyone else would be "out" ages ago for a spam.

On the other hand, he is at least active here. :D

Another reason why I think that - Krogan32 is sometimes working weirdly in tandem with some mods (by activity). You know - mod active, he active (sometimes). Coincidence? Maybe. There is a lot of coincidences on GOG all the time.

But.. mod came into a conversation, lied about my post (and my intentions), edited it for absolutely no reason (except) to highlight part of my text (not edited one around it) to put it right under Krogan32's post for a "contrast effect" to make me look like I lie or something. The mod literally replied to Krogan32's with that "moderation". So, the whole reason why mod did that was to cooperate with Krogan32 and to state some opinion I don't care about (because the mod took it out of the context anyway) and to ruin my post for no reason in the process. He had absolutely no right to edit my post and to remove information from it (in this case) and people can't see it was not a lie or what it was, since it's removed. He also made my post confusing by it to discredit me and told me to not create "conspiracy theories". I was just talking about my experiences. The mod on the other hand was obviously just trying to find something to delete right between those 2-3 sentences (around the text he wanted to highlight) and to spin it.

Don't let me start on people using the "conspiracy theorist" as a smear. First of all, I was just talking about my experiences.. and if it was a theory, why is it bad? Theories are literally how we make a science, but if it's theory about a "conspiracy" it's always a lie..? I am not aware of that physical law. :D This is so obvious, I never understood how people are not pointing that out.

It's just vocabulary of certain kinds of people to try to discredit other people's notions, ideas, opinions and experiences, because they don't want them around for their own purposes.
To call someone a conspiracy theorist without trying to explain anything is just a defense mechanism to be able to not try to explain anything at all. If somebody calls me that, I am more "sure" that they are covering something (or just don't want to hear it).
You always see people calling others conspiracy theorists only while they don't explain anything and want to hide something and belittle the other side. I am frankly sick of that shallow and childish tactic that became popular especially in the media. It's very hard to make a theory without any bases for it. Because people want/search for answers, not theories.

While mods are removing here posts. I saw some posts of people here just dissapear a little while after I refreshed the page. I am talking posts that were negative to GOG, but didn't seem to break any guidelines (even posts I don't agree with).
Also make some math - look at the pages, number of visible posts and 'numbers' of actual posts.

I never understood why mods (generally) are just "some people" doing that work for a company. Company should always have their own employees for that.
I never saw a person to go to help some company by going there for free to work, so they can make more money. I never liked this. It also seems like a legal/public opinion dodge as well - to separate moderation activities of the public interactions from the actions of companies itself.

And most of the time people taking active roles in these positions are ideological activists (profiles many times "confirm" that). Also, people having time for that tend to be that way. And that is why it doesn't work.
I understand it's maybe better to have a forum that not at all.. for some people, but there should be at least one paid employee moderating mods. If there is not.

Sorry about this delayed post but it took me a few days to catch up on this thread. A belated Happy New Year (and with the Year of the Tiger a Kung Hei Fat Choy) to all boycotters!
This stance, in my view, creates three problems:

It creates a slippery slope
If it is OK to spend $20, then why not $40, $100 or more? The point of a boycott is that you withhold business completely - once you start diluting this, or allowing others to dilute it, the relevance of this campaign drops significantly.

It appears like a double-standard
The main objection of most people here has been with GOG's failure to adhere to "100%" DRM-free. Advocating a "less than 100%" boycott in such a case starts to look ironic, if not hypocritical.

It reduces support for other stores
If anyone boycotting wants to purchase a game, surely it would be better than they get it from another DRM-free provider than use their "boycott allowance" to buy it from GOG?

As such, I would suggest this policy be reconsidered - at least those participating should be aiming for a 100% boycott, since lack of commitment here is likely to result in lack of reaction from GOG. In particular, Time4Tea, as thread originator and list maintainer, others here will look to you to set the example - so any perceived backsliding on your part could have a magnified effect.

And just to show my true colours (and allow the neighbourhood Uruk-hai to shout out "Hypocrite"!) I did also fall for temptation and purchased $23.13 of games in the recent New Year Sale. Now I could say that I'm a mere camp follower on this thread and was sidetracked by Time4Tea's olive-branch stall, but the reality is that I should accept it was a moment of weakness (one of the purchases is for research to see if I can get it running under WinXP) and, as such, I should be removed from the boycott list for the time being (maybe shifted to "sympathetic") and only re-instated after a period of time (say 3 months?) without any further orders.

For the record, while my purchases this year have come to $23.13, last year the total was $9.74, in 2020 (pre boycott) it was $131.71 and in 2019 it was $233.15. On that basis, I'd say my almost-total boycott has been worth about $2-300 in lost sales to GOG.
In fairness, the hiding of low-rated posts is most likely an anti-spam measure (there was a severe spam flood a couple of days ago) and every post in this thread is being downvoted, including those supportive of GOG and moderator posts.

I would argue that it is okay to spend those amounts if the person deems it okay and if it is reduced from what they would have otherwise spent had they been fully satisfied with GOG. By the way, your point about the amount being spent cuts another way too and I do not think I have seen anyone respond to the counterexample that I and others have offered earlier in the topic. Perhaps you would care to try? Namely, take two users: User 1 used to spend $20 a year but now spends $0. User 2 used to spend $2000 a year but now spends $200.

Clearly, User 2 in that example is impacting GOG's business more by their boycott. Thus, it is not possible to conclude that boycotters must be "pure" to your own standards as, in fact, the "impure" boycotters may be more valuable to the boycotting cause if they were bigger spenders and all else is equal. As an aside, it has been clear from the outset of this topic that the definition of this boycotting includes "less than full cessation of spending" so they are "pure" anyway with respect to the standards actually set out in this topic.

This campaign is plenty relevant and has persisted for over a year (obviously). Literally the only people saying it is diluted or irrelevant are the ones who insist on playing these grammarian games, 100% crossover, wow what a coincidence. You have offered some thoughtful points though which I respect.

Well, as you imply, not everyone boycotting is necessarily concerned with GOG being completely DRM-free, so those folks are excluded and perfectly valid in their "less than 100% boycott" until proven otherwise. Beyond that, hypocrisy is a weak charge. Focus on the ideas, not the people. Beyond that, the outcomes are not equal. If some of us here use a definition of boycott that the grammar guardians don't like, the main result is them getting upset and continuing to try to bog the thread down with these endless grammar games. If GOG does not maintain DRM-free, DRM-free gaming as a whole is on a death knell and there are broader implications for ownership in general too.

It would be better but as you may be aware, that is typically not possible. I would love to buy more on Zoom-Platform. I would love to buy games direct from developer sites DRM-free. Most of the time this is not possible. Also in some cases if someone has any slim hope for GOG to eventually turn around, there is an argument for buying select releases here in hopes of more such games being brought here in the future.

More backwards understanding. This is not some cult who looks up to a leader for instruction. Time4Tea has done a great job maintaining the thread but it is not "his" own cause. Also, as I have already addressed to another user, the reaction from GOG is solely on their end of things. We only have so much influence. Given that historically they have been criticized for communication with users, and given the imo inadequate responses to Hitman GOTY release and Devotion non-release that are "communications" we did get, I don't see why people buying games here and there would change matters one way or the other in terms of getting communication responses.


Edit: wrong quote tags, lol.

I now see what people were talking about with the idea of "shadowbans."

When browsing this forum without being logged in, in looking for this Boycotting Topic I had to go multiple pages in because the forum read that the discussion's last post was "14 hours ago" even though I had subsequently responded to that post just a few hours ago. Curiously, my response wasn't even "low-rated" (yet).

Edit: tried to attach screenshots showing this and am unable to do so; it just takes me to my post as if nothing was attached. Maybe it is a temporary glitch in the forum? I certainly hope so.

Edit again: Now it shows the last post was a minute ago, meaning my comment is not "shadowbanned." I can't make sense of any of this, can anyone else?

I've seen it happen with various threads and most recently today. I'm guessing it's just a bug. I will try to keep an eye on it, because it seems to occur often lately.

Edit: Downvoted in less than 15 minutes. Interesting.
When are you going to take action, GOG?

What slippery slope? The OP said from the beginning that people could "boycott" as they chose(that includes reduced spending or temp/conditional boycotts of varying duration).

I think impact matters more than relevance.

Take one of OP's examples: which has more impact on GOG's bottom line? A person spending $100/year who boycotts completely, or a person who spends $1000/year who cuts that down to under $100/year?

Sadly, stores like zoom-platform and others don't carry every game. So for some games, if one wants a copy DRM free it's either buy from GOG or don't buy at all.

=-=-=-=-=

Aaaaaaand it seems RJ beat me to my reply and wrote an even better one than I did......I tip my hat to you, fellow gogger *GR tips cap*

=-=-=-=-=

Also many saying such are virtue signaling(even if they don't see it or mean to do so) as well......i.e. "i'm more pure/principled because of x/y/z".

I disagree......I think some sites like zoom-platform could and likely would pick up the slack given enough time.
(not necessarily just/mainly because of moralistic reasons.....but because there is profit to be had)

When one is logged in, their favorited threads are at the top of the first page....whereas there are no favorites when one is logged out. My guess is you have this thread favorited while logged in? If so, that's likely why it's not at the top of page 1 when you're logged out.