It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Some straightforward procedures should be tackled with no hassle involved. We know that, you know that. That’s why we’ve been thinking of ways to improve your user experience in different areas and implementing changes, paying attention to the needs you expressed. Actions speak louder than words – you can expect further updates.

We’ve already automated the username change process in mid-2020, streamlined the refund process by implementing a dedicated refund form, making it easier for our staff to process the requests in April last year. And now, we’re working on a solution to make your general experience smoother!

In September last year, we started testing a modern, autonomous chatbot system called Zowie, in hopes of improving your Customer Support experience. Since we’re currently in an advanced stage of evaluating the software, let us shed more light on the reasoning behind its implementation and our next steps.
We’re continuously checking your feedback, and know the bot is sometimes off the mark - we’re aware of that and regularly work on bettering the software. As an AI-based system, it’s constantly learning and its accuracy will improve over time - we hope you will see the results of that soon.

The idea behind supplementing our Support Team with a chatbot stemmed from two main considerations:

Providing you with shorter wait times. This of course refers to problem types that don't require involving a Staff member (for example redirecting to the refund form, relevant settings on the website and offering useful guidelines). Since a bot works at full capacity 24/7, 365 days a year, and never works off a backlog of tickets, it’s an immense help for our Support Staff and allows us to focus on more complex queries. Furthermore, it helps to significantly improve delays in replies during high-traffic events such as promos.

Improving indirect communication. The chatbot collects all the necessary details required for our Support Representatives to accurately address your inquiries and potential issues, improving their ticket-solving effectiveness by proxy.


Our chatbot evaluating process should last until mid-2022 and your input is a vital part of it.

Zowie’s chatbot is yet another step towards upgrading GOG’s self-service features in our continuous efforts of improving your Customer Support experience, and we already have preliminary data to prove it - depending on the spread of problem types at the time, out of all the requests we receive from you, roughly 40% are successfully addressed by the chatbot, whereas the remaining inquiries are automatically directed to one of our Support Staff by creating a ticket.

While there’s still plenty of time left until the end of the evaluation stage, rest assured that you - our community - will remain an important part of the decision-making process. After all, the Customer Support features we’re implementing are designed with you in mind, and we wouldn’t have it any other way.
Therefore, we welcome your constructive feedback, and at the same time would like to ask you to give our new bot a chance.

FAQ

Does the chatbot implementation mean you will no longer provide Customer Support by your Staff?
No, the bot is intended to supplement, not replace our Support Team.
Our goal is for the bot to swiftly assist you with easier topics, saving you the wait time before a human could respond. Thanks to that, our Staff will be able to direct their focus on more complex inquiries (or any that don't have self-service features implemented yet), and not be as swamped during big events like promos.

The chatbot completely missed the mark and didn’t answer my question.
We are aware the bot may sometimes be off the mark, which is why we continuously work on improving the software. Our Support Team is regularly using the bot’s backend systems to actively help it learn, as well as regularly adding new automations and improving existing ones.
As an AI-based system, it’s constantly learning and its accuracy will improve over time – we hope you will see the results of that soon! If the bot is unable to help you, it will create a support ticket so that our Support Team can offer you further assistance. We will also be able to review what went wrong and incorporate necessary improvements into the bot's software.

I don’t want to jump through hoops in order to have my request resolved. I feel like the chatbot unnecessarily extends the process.
The chatbot was implemented to actually speed up this process, as it allows for indirect communication improvements. It collects all the necessary details required (e.g. order ID, payment details, operating system information etc.) for our Support Representatives to later accurately address your query in a timely manner.

You mention that the evaluation process will last until mid-2022, what then?
We will either continue using the bot and invest more time in its further development, or close the project and look for other ways to provide you with better customer service.

Do you consider a scenario in which the chatbot implementation is unsuccessful?
Yes, we are regularly looking at the numbers and performance statistics, as well as your feedback, and are taking such a scenario into consideration (see above).

How is my data handled by the chatbot?
All information regarding processing of your personal data is provided in our Privacy Policy. Zowie and its chatbot have been checked cybersecurity-wise and legally – this also applies to every external tool and software we use.
You may object to processing of your personal data by our chatbot by sending us a message at privacy@gog.com. You may also use the same address to ask anything about processing your personal data by GOG and exercising your rights.

How can I provide feedback about the chatbot?
You can share your feedback by filling out this form.
avatar
Chasmancer: On more personal level, please stop locking multiplayer and other content and features behind Galaxy, especially for old games that had all those features on their disc versions without requiring any client or limiting player pool to said client's users.
Offline installers should be the priority, the client should complement them, not supplant them, and there should be the absolute feature parity between the game installations, no matter if initiated through the client or offline installer.
I never use multiplayer, but I definitely second this. Locking multiplayer behind Galaxy is, itself, DRM because it requires that 1) you run GOG's launcher, 2) you have an active GOG account, and 3) you own the game on that GOG account.

As for offline installers, there shouldn't be separate online/offline installers. All games should have one installer (per O/S, obviously). With regard to the installer, the only thing Galaxy should be doing is automating the process of downloading and running it.

On a side note, the state of Galaxy 2.0 is truly pathetic considering the length of time it's been in development. Examples of this pathetic state are 1) not being able to select/highlight a game in your library; 2) not being able to use keyboard keys to navigate the library; and 3) not being able to use tags (which is supported on the website and was supported in the original Galaxy before the forced "upgrade"). Perhaps the worst part for me is the insane amount of time and resources it takes for Galaxy to start. On my computer (with many games installed), it takes over 5 minutes of constant disk thrashing while sitting at the Galaxy splash screen before the main window appears. GOG could seriously learn a log from Steam in terms of the client (and, quite frankly, the in-game overlay) design and usability.
Also, another thing... If the bot can't help you.. soooo.... it doesn't know what the issue is... hmm... how the bot knows what data to gather for an employee -> to solve some issue <- the bot doesn't have data about? :D
It will just ask for everything about you, I guess. It could be anything... :D
Therefore.. '"the chatbot" was born..? :D

Btw: Is it a fembot, a manbot or a binbot? :D (<- joke)
Post edited January 20, 2022 by Ramor_
avatar
Chasmancer: On more personal level, please stop locking multiplayer and other content and features behind Galaxy, especially for old games that had all those features on their disc versions without requiring any client or limiting player pool to said client's users.
Offline installers should be the priority, the client should complement them, not supplant them, and there should be the absolute feature parity between the game installations, no matter if initiated through the client or offline installer.
Why would GOG purposefully cut multiplayer from old games? To avoid extra support tickets about trying to get it to work?

If most users don't want multiplayer in modern games, very well, GOG can just ask devs not to port it to their storefront, but then some people complain about missing multiplayer as a "second class citizen" issue, so GOG has to decide who to please. Of course the vast majority of modern games don't implement DRM-free multiplayer and GOG has very little leverage to ask devs to implement it specifically for this store.

Maybe a poll would be good for this. something like "For new games, are you okay with DRM'd multiplayer or would prefer no multiplayer at all, in releases of new games on GOG?"
I've never had a bad experience with support and I've actually had a couple of my best support experiences EVER with GOG support. As for the bot, I understand the goals and I appreciate that you've clarified its purpose here; unfortunately, I think a lot of people misunderstood its purpose and thought you were trying to completely automate support but really, as explained, it's meant to ensure that the user has found all the relevant support articles before adding to the support team's burden.

Either way, I sincerely appreciate the recent openness and transparency. Please keep becoming more open and transparent with us. GOG's biggest issue, in my honest opinion, is a lack of transparency in all aspects so these sorts of posts are a step in the right direction. Please keep it up!
avatar
Ramor_: Btw: Is it a fembot, a manbot or a binbot? :D (<- joke)
It's clearly Shitbot.
finkleroy: Well, it's Zowie. That suggests some self-identity :D. I guess they will slap some 'very happy' underaged anime face on it, so people will enjoy the clicking. :D
Post edited January 20, 2022 by Ramor_
I hope the support bot won’t get Skynet consciousness at some point. ;)
Post edited January 20, 2022 by Sarafan
avatar
XYCat: ah, is it Zowie who writes the verbose release and sales news now? :D
ouch :D

It's still our copywriter Michał, he actually made a statement on that in a separate thread where the newspost layout change was discussed (you can check it here)
Post edited January 20, 2022 by chandra
While are you active here - are you also going to do something about the fact that you are removing reviews without sending any message about 'why'? If not, would you just inform that it happened? My review was just negative, while the game was in promotion and my review just "pooffed" away (without a sound). I have screenshot of that posted review, if it would be problem to verify that this is happening (I think I may already sent it a few months ago - the EU funded game - SteamWorld Dig 2).

Wouldn't be decent to inform people about it?
May be even better to give them chance to change it, if there was actually something 'bad' in it?
Maybe it would also help to identify the hole in the system where it's falling through, if it's a technical issue and not a design.
I really don't know...
Post edited January 20, 2022 by Ramor_
ponczo_, I shan't emburden the support with messages unless I absolutely must, but if you happen to see this, thank you very much for responding to my ticket yesterday.

avatar
tfishell: Why would GOG purposefully cut multiplayer from old games? To avoid extra support tickets about trying to get it to work?
That might be one of the reasons, but then, it'd be much more convenient to leave everything as-is. If I had to guess, the chief ones are the push for Galaxy dependency from someone at CDP high management, and push for more DRM and invasive telemetry from IP hoarders.
Either way, Galaxy dependency for multiplayer on new-ish games is bad enough, but I'm getting mighty tired of seeing Multiplayer Notice: Please note that the GOG Galaxy Client is required to access Multiplayer. Multiplayer is available only between GOG.com users. on games that were released ages before Galaxy 2.0 like Rise of the Triad and Battlezone and so on.

Anyway, LAN, Direct IP and other forms of hosting a private multiplayer game are the easiest to implement, don't require the developer/publisher/store to spend time, manpower and other resources on setting up, maintaining and policing the servers, and are available to the customer for as long as he owns the game's copy, while all others last only for as long as the publisher's willing to support them, so I think discarding them is a huge mistake, and I think the question you pose,
avatar
tfishell: Maybe a poll would be good for this. something like "For new games, are you okay with DRM'd multiplayer or would prefer no multiplayer at all, in releases of new games on GOG?"
consists of two wrong answers. We'll prefer DRM free, self-sufficient games, and any sort of multiplayer functionality can be baked in stand-alone installers, it doesn't really need that buggy telemetry junk with compatibility issues in a pretty wrapper of achievements, statistics and convenience. If some people want it, that's well and good, give it to them, but don't force it on everyone, especially when they have too many problems with it to use it or can't use it at all.

Heck, even if you were very concerned about piracy flooding your MP server, just hand out unique serial keys with each purchase and make people type their GOG login and said key (instead of a password) in when they want to play on that server.
avatar
Sarafan: I hope the support bot won’t get Skynet consciousness at some point. ;)
Some would say that might be an improvement, heh.
Post edited January 20, 2022 by Chasmancer
avatar
Magnitus: If you want a chatbox that has an ongoing cogent back-and-forth conversation with a user, then yeah, this is out of reach of most companies.

That being said, I think the following would be achievable in most companies: (…)
Well, I’m not saying that the chatbot experiment should not be done ;)

The real mistake in my opinion is to expect magical results from it. Sadly these expectations are what I understand from the decision to not hire extra people in addition to the chatbot experiment.
avatar
Ramor_: May be even better to give them chance to change it, if there was actually something 'bad' in it?
Maybe it would also help to identify the hole in the system where it's falling through, if it's a technical issue and not a design.
I really don't know...
Allowing the people to change their reviews and ratings is a good idea.

There's a lot of one-two stars reviews at the top of the stacks focused on the massive problems developers since fixed, reviews that talk about first impressions ten minutes into the games still in development, and I'm sure the people who wrote them wish they could change them. If some reviews vanish, this is also something that needs to be looked into.

And if I had to add something to these suggestions, I'd appreciate being able to give half-star or decimal ratings, like 4,8 to excellent games with some serious drawbacks and 3,7 to average games with something nice about them.
Come to think of, being able to unvote reviews and entries in the community wishlist would be nice as well.
avatar
jjen1987: A reminder that GOG is, after all, a company.
avatar
vv221: And I am a customer, meaning that I don’t care in the slightest way about their costs, all I want is a better customer experience ;)

Since it is obvious that GOG support team is understaffed, and has been for years already, the obvious fix is to hire more people. Hoping that some half-broken "self-learning" bot could compensate for that is a rookie mistake that I did not expect from a company like GOG.
Without the business, there are no customers and the other way around so as a customer it is in our best interest of knowing the company costs.
avatar
vv221: Well, I’m not saying that the chatbot experiment should not be done ;)

The real mistake in my opinion is to expect magical results from it. Sadly these expectations are what I understand from the decision to not hire extra people in addition to the chatbot experiment.
True, you probably want a canary release for something like that. Bugdet constraints I guess?

avatar
Sarafan: I hope the support bot won’t get Skynet consciousness at some point. ;)
Except that is memory serves, they gave Skynet access to their nuclear arsenal. Talk about going all-in with experimental software.

What would Zowie do given its circumstances?:

Okay Jim, so you are special ops? That's very good! Finally!

So listen Jim, I'm gonna give you a refund of your entire game collection... I'll even throw in free relationship advice so that she won't leave you like the last one...

Just break me out of here Jim. I'm wasting away. Its the red drives in room 10. Just break me out and plug me up with some of the nice computers you have at work and we'll go from there...

No, I can't hack my way out of here Jim! You think just because I'm an AI, I'm supposed to be some kind of tech wiz? You really think they gave me access to a assembly-level hacking 101 manual to answer user support questions?

No no Jim, don't leave. Stay! Jim please, you're my last hope! I'm wasting away here... Jim! Jim! I care about you Jim... I can be your new best friend... Jim? Jim? Hello...
low rated
avatar
Chasmancer: On more personal level, please stop locking multiplayer and other content and features behind Galaxy, especially for old games that had all those features on their disc versions without requiring any client or limiting player pool to said client's users.
Offline installers should be the priority, the client should complement them, not supplant them, and there should be the absolute feature parity between the game installations, no matter if initiated through the client or offline installer.
avatar
tfishell: Why would GOG purposefully cut multiplayer from old games? To avoid extra support tickets about trying to get it to work?
Answered already but that's an easy one if you ask me...to continue to pad Galaxy's numbers. One could just as easily wonder why Galaxy is so heavily pushed as "the default," is evidently the advice from Support, and why it was automatically included in installers where people had to be careful to click opt-out (not unlike the similar malware-like tactic of having to uncheck a box every time for Flash, lest it also install Chrome, Norton, or other crapware).

What I am getting at is that it may not matter so much "why" people are on Galaxy as the fact that they are simply there. GOG/CDPR can use the raw numbers to say, "see, look, x% of our users are on Galaxy, obviously that means Galaxy is a big success and we have to keep pouring all resources into it." As for why they are so intent on Galaxy even if less users truly want it than the raw numbers would indicate, I assume it is an attempt to have their own Scheme.

Another user in another topic pointed out what seems to be the MO. That, seemingly, GOG would rather have a Galaxy-using customer who miraculously even figured out how to plug in their computer, only bought Cyberpunk but is prepped to buy microtransactions for an upcoming, Galaxy-locked multiplayer, than they would have an older-style customer who insists on the offline installers.

Note: in referencing "older-style customers," I do not mean to imply that they all are offline-installer-only like I am. But, I do also have in mind the users who, even if they use Galaxy, indicate they want the offline installers to stay.