The number of games was also a lot higher in each drop (and in total) IIRC and I remember it being far easier to notice the drop and request a game of interest back then. Now seemingly while there are less users in total, the fact the number of codes have shrunk AND the number of alert users have increased it's much easier to miss out entirely.

Indeed, and there was also the RIP Steam version. Wich in my opinion it's a shame it's gone...

That said, the problem that the same people are the first was already in place back then and I recall at least 3 users who were always in the first rows.

I was lucky enough to be in the first group from time to time. Nothing has changed on my end with how much I visit this forum but how late you can arrive to a drop before the popular fresh titles are all gone has lowered quite considerably.

As a recent recipient of a Starred game, I agree with this. The 3 month cooldown is already very generous for some of the games on offer. I'd be happy to wait an extra month for another request. Particularly to differentiate them from Standard offers. More time to sincerely participate in the forums and contribute.

As another user suggested, respectfully, this may be a lack of imagination on your part. A delayed draw empowers GOG contributors from all over the world to participate more meaningfully with the Giveaway -- the "perk", as noted by you and others, of being an active member of the community. Something that's nice being equally accessible to the whole international user base, I'm sure you'd agree.

I find it interesting that the mere idea of amending the rules provokes such a strong, negative response from a few members, based mostly on just maintaining existing continuity. The rules aren't Constitutional law after all. If they don't work for the current reality in some way, changing them seems perfectly in the purview of the current administrator and suggesting pejorative terms for an alternative giveaway thread doesn't seem very constructive.

I don't see how this obviously follows tbh, remains to be proven. However I suspect you underestimate the significant number of users sitting on the games list, refreshing at 9am EST on a Starred list draw date.

It seems a bit odd to put so much emphasis on a core principle that contradicts draws, while still running draws and treating them as just "some rules subject to change". Draws are already happening, and it didn’t require a separate thread.

I was mainly talking about normal and starred games. There’s no clear rule for which game belongs in which tier, and unlike games in the lower tiers, these usually don’t have plenty of copies. Both tiers can include games that interest multiple people, but that factor is only considered in one of them. There doesn't seem to be much consistency here.

Supposedly, draws were introduced for the starred tier to make things fairer. If we’re already benefiting from that increased fairness and didn’t need a separate thread when draws were introduced, why not keep going that way? Why bring up some core principle now if we’re already working like this?

I think I’d understand your point better if you were arguing to get rid of the starred games tier altogether, with no draws at all. Is that your take on it?

My point was to minimize the chance of draws with no participation, preventing it from happening due to poorly designed rules, when it should only happen if no one is actually interested in the game.

I suggested allowing each user to enter up to three draws at the same time. They decide how to use those entries, but we should assume they only enter games they’re interested in, because otherwise it just reduces the chance of getting the game they actually want (you can only win one at most). So whatever they end up getting from the draws they entered, if anything, it's fine.

"This is not a donation. It is a test"
Bah, I guess I need to update my giveaway sniper scripts with better, AI-powered keyword filters now. :-(

Ah HAH! I knew people were using BOTS! :-P

Yeah, it was kinda my poor attempt to see if anyone was using a bot to request games. Figured a robut wouldn't read the stuff in parenthesis.

"This is a donation. This is not a test."

Did I get it right?

Sure ;-)

I don't imagine people are using scripts for actual requests (how would it even work?) but perhaps for notifying when the post gets updated as editing post doesn't bump the thread.

"These pretzels are making me thirsty!"

I don't know why but I can't stop laughing reading this. XD

Ouch, we just had the first test failure; yet I don't think it's quite that clear a sign of a script...

Actually, we used to have. When no maintainer was assigned to giveaway, and we were working on how it should be organised.

I have started this very thread in order to save the tradition, when giveaway maintainer decided to move it from forums to Discord. One of my goals was to introduce and establish self-governance in our community, which could have encouraged users participation and make GOG forums a better place in general.

While failing to achieve that goal, at least I managed to save the giveaway in its traditional form, which all of us can enjoy nowadays.
When list is large, there are many other good games to choose from. Some of them were available for months for any eligible user to request, like after the previous Fight Club event. And personally, I don't recall any complaints.
Draws are a form of entertainment for those, who like gambling. Such people enter many draws and from time to time win high-demand games. I doubt, they would ever play these games.

While users, who are really interested in particular title, have very low chance to receive a "starred" game. How it could possibly be "fair" is beyond my understanding.
I would prefer no random distribution at all. And longer cool-downs for high-demand games.

Current mixed system is a result of a compromise.

I actually think this was a case of "Human Failure". Didn't read the full title.