I can't say this about everyone but if a game pops up that I want that is in the Amazon codes (one month cooldown), then I request the game while it's still in that section and pay the cooldown price.

I feel that people that wait until a game lands in the daggered section don't care either way. They can't be too upset if the number of keys available runs out before they get a copy even if they request it because that could easily happen even before it hits the daggered section. This is why I'm opposed to any changes to how the daggered section is handled that I think would create extra work for BenKii.

Now that Amazon Prime GOG games are past, it really don't make much sense to further burden Benkii. Daggered keys section may not have as much "assortment" as they did in the past years.

Is it worth to implement some changes at this time?

They don't appear to be: https://www.amazongamestudios.com/en-us/news/articles/luna-june-2026

I do so whenever I prefer one enough over the others; I'm generally interested in more games than would be available with a "one per calendar month" rule applied, since they'd expire in the meantime. The situation has changed dramatically "since Amazon"…

In my case, it's also to do with me using Linux, where there are still more unpleasynt surprises to be taken into account. A game that is installed and used to run in december doesn't any more since some OS updates, I could try using the Windows release instead: would it run best with Proton, "Standard Wine", or GE? Having more games to choose from helps a bit, I don't want to "play" exclusively: "How do I get it to run?" while refusing to use Windows for good reasons (I think). So I've a tendency to request what I can get, while being also aware that the distribution chances should not be different for different people, depending on things they cannot change.

In order to "step back" from a request by "personal responsibility" you must first see the problem (i.e. effectively do part of the work BenKii is already doing on your own – just to find such situations where youv'e already received X keys in the last weeks, but someone else having asked after you not a single one). This is why "rule based" measures work better even if people are aware of the problem and act accordingly.

If you frown upon "strategic waiting for becoming daggered", then you question that category as a whole, I think. I see it as a means to avoid expiration by having a "staged process" beginning with a "cooldown time tier", then something "in between", where the goal is still to make sure that (other than how it is now) there's a tendency of the quickest with most spare time succeeding the most, and as soon as expiration (at least of some keys) is to be "expected": "free for everyone".

The alternative: force people to choose by making games "not cheap", and then, on expiration date, feed a bunch of leftover keys to bots lurking in the Ninja thread?
That "undue extra work" is the key here, I think: BenKii should choose what works best.
– More complicated rules -> people won't read properly -> more to explain
– "unnecessary time stretching effect" -> more work?
– Rules that look like "unnecessary restrictions" -> less acceptance

The latter might not look like a real problem, because people will follow the rules nonetheless, otherwise they won't get something, but nobody wants to hear: "We made less complicated rules with a few unnecessary rerstrictions to reach our goals, because we think you're too stupid to understand more complicated rules." If it even sounds or looks a tiny bit like this, there's more potential for discussions = effectively more work.

"Simplicity" is only a value on its own, I think, when fighting complexity – since rules don't "overwrite" or heavily influence each other, there's no such danger here.

I stand by everything I said previously, especially the part you didn't include when you quoted me -

If you wait until a game drops into the daggered section to request it, you risked the number of copies available running out before it hits the daggered section. You shouldn't be bothered if the number of keys runs out while it is daggered before you get a copy.

I believe you misunderstood me; I did not quote the other part of your comment, because I didn't intend to comment on it. I'm in fact not bothered to not get a game that somebody else wants. I just wanted to explain possible motives for "speculation" and "strategic requesting" – this "must" happen if "demand > supply".

Example:
Games FOO & BAR, 20 copies each in "normal section", interested in both of them, but strongly preferring FOO, I request FOO first, obviously not entitled to get BAR until it moves on to †.
What happens afterwards?
1) 15 copies each left, expiration in 3 weeks, go to †.
Outcome: 10 claimed, 5 last until "!!!NO FORUM ACTIVITY REQUIRED!!!" (OK)
2) 6 copies each left, expiration in 3 weeks, go to †.
Outcome: 10 people interested, 6 of them get 2 games each, 4 people get nothing (NOT OK)
3) 6 copies each left, Ben waits until expiration today, go to †, "!!!NO FORUM ACTIVITY REQUIRED!!!".
Outcome: 10 people interested, 3 of them have time to see it, rest goes to Ninjas (NOT OK)

The goal of the proposition is more "justice" for case 2). Case 3) is probably not what the donors wanted, as they could have given their codes to the Ninjas directly instead.

Then you are trying to debate with me when I replied to someone else and said that I don't wait until things drop to the daggered section. Some of us are cool with the cooldown.

Are you trying to imply that I'm doing something wrong by being cool with the cooldown?
Or perhaps you are just trying to make this not about you?

Because I just double-checked the giveaway thread and saw that you were one of the people that was part of the clusterfuck. In Post #16711, you were approved for Neo Cab, but you didn't get Rebel Galaxy Outlaw as the number of copies available ran out.

Meanwhile, the last time that I even asked for anything was in February according to my order history, which I will attach a copy of in image format.... so please don't try to deflect and act like this is somehow about me, when it really isn't. If you're not sure, go look at #16711... you won't find my name in the post anywhere.


Or maybe you just don't understand my position on changes. They're fine unless they create more work for BenKii. The only thing I'm opposed to is changes that would make managing this project become laborious for whoever is doing it. I think that you're going to find is that most (if not all) of the people here that were likewise not part of the clusterfuck involving Rebel Galaxy Outlaw (and The Pale Beyond) are going to hold a similar position.

So you're asking for a rule change to offer you a better chance to get a non-daggered game and one or more daggered games while reducing the chance of others to get multiple daggered games. Interesting...

Otherwise, my stance remains, and will remain, the same as always. The Community GA should be fully first-come-first-served and I firmly oppose any attempts to make it otherwise, from the "starred" category to whatever this is now. If somebody is eligible, that should be all there is to it. and no, do not and will not see anything wrong if eligible users who are able and willing to check the GA more often are "favored" for being able to see what gets posted sooner. Now if there's any evidence that someone uses automated means to do that, it should definitely be cause for a permanent ban, but other than that...
Of course, I keep saying that the eligibility criteria must be way stricter than they are. Which, incidentally, will significantly reduce the possible pool of recipients and do the opposite of spreading things around.

And, again, my take on the daggered category is that it's for titles that need to be taken asap, so it shouldn't matter who gets them or how spread out they are. As long as an actual user takes them, before BenKii needs to resort to dumping them in the ninja thread for a last chance to avoid them going to waste, it's all good.
As an alternate idea though, maybe if such keys are placed there somewhat earlier than actually necessary, maybe one or two could be kept in the 1-month cooldown list until closer to expiration, in case someone who's not on cooldown would really want that game, being willing to take the cooldown for it, and look later.

Getting back to eligibility, now that rule changes are brought up again, keep thinking to suggest some specific changes there.
One: Need to be a member and post for at least a year. Should do away with new members asking when or how they become eligible right away. And membership is easy to check, listed under name, and someone making a first request could need to include a link to a post from at least a year before.
More contentious, two: Have members making first requests need a user of high standing to vouch for them. If BenKii knows they're sufficiently active, he can automatically approve, technically vouching for them. But the burden of verifying won't all fall on him anymore and the users themselves also won't be able to send links to their recent posts (and in some cases spam BenKii with them) in an attempt to prove eligibility. Request is made and if there's any doubt about eligibility, put the requested game on hold a little and ask for someone to vouch for that user. Granted, some may get the support of friends way more readily, and some users may be all too willing to vouch for others too easily, but it takes a fair bit of that part of the burden off BenKii and moves it to, well, the community.
Oh, and three: Users who ask more than once when/how they can become eligible and/or obviously make low-effort posts just in the attempt to appear active get temporary bans, which may become permanent if the behavior repeats after the temporary ones are lifted. Granted, the one-year minimum should do away with plenty of those who want to hurry things up, but some will remain.

My opinion is that there’s nothing wrong with the rules altogether. Draws/no Draws, Starred/no Starred, Daggered/no Daggered, Eligible/not Eligible, Amazon and whatever. The only real problem (the start of all bad things) is the users’ behavior. Rules have been made and changing, all to alleviate users’ wrong behavior (I mean also rules and laws of the worlds’ countries were made to battle people’s wrong behavior, right?). And the wrong behavior here is wanting everything!

For example, let’s assume 50 games are in my wishlist. One of them appears in the Community Giveaway, and comes with a cooldown. I’m fine with it, I requested, it is given to me (draw/no draw, no matter) and the cooldown period is running (let’s assume, for example’s sake, it’s a 2-month cooldown).

A week later four more games of my wishlist come in the CG. I see them, but I can’t do anything about them, because I’m still on cooldown.

Two more weeks later, three of them become daggered, and I’m the first to see it. So, I ask for one (to be taken out of my wishlist and be ready to play it)? For two? For all three?!!

Three days later, the fourth (still in my wishlist) becomes daggered. Should I ask for it too, just because I saw it first and there’s no cooldown?!!

And, be careful, in the example I mention only games in my wishlist which I want to play. Not taking games purely for collective reasons (which would be totally unacceptable as a reason, for me, to take something and have it sitting in my library, while another person would start it rightaway!).

That’s the problem: Too much “wanting”, not thinking about others.

I think almost everyone who's fallen into this category has been registered for well over a year, but the requirement to be actively posting for a full year might improve things a slight bit. I think it's a pretty marginal issue right now with very few people trying to qualify for the giveaway, rather than trying to become active community members with the giveaway then being a bonus - but those few are there, so I support this proposal.

I don't think the other two suggestions are currently necessary at all, but are good ideas to circle back to if that ever changes.

Now, wonder if I was dreaming or high cause I was pretty sure they stopped not too long ago?

Well, could also be earlier signs of dementia. Better take the red pill then...

It's kinda murky exactly what they said will happen, since nothing official I could find DIRECTLY says "those free games we give out will no-longer be happening". And indeed, the line-up for GOG, Epic (and Legacy?) games continues every week this month, which is beyond the June 10 deadline which affects "A-La-Carte purchases from outside platforms".

It would seem to me personally that it's possible the freebies may continue, but the playability (and purchase) of third-party platform games on Luna will end. In other words, no inter-linking to make playing possible on their streaming service. But the freebies? They might be continuing.

I'd love someone to point to me if the freebie question was definitively answered, though.

They released an extremely unclear message about stopping something - and since there's about half a dozen different services all lumped together under the "Luna" umbrella, it was extremely unclear what they're actually stopping with. I'm not an Amazon customer, so my knowledge is very limited here, but as I understand it, they primarily have stopped integrating with other stores for their paid cloud gaming service. Freebies for prime members look like they'll continue as before, consisting of freebies for other stores as a way to attract interest, and then freebies for their own service as a way to draw people toward that paid service?

(Happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge.)