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

×
avatar
tfishell: It seems obvious to me that GOG wants to become known in the marketplace as a "real" Steam competitor.
Which is laughable considering the state of it's website and client.

They ought to think real hard before they further dilute the significance of "DRM-free" -- but they won't.
high rated
avatar
KnightW0lf: you may and the other 20 people don't want a profile but the 1K+ people do
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/public_gog_profiles
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/galaxy/profiles
Again, we're raising issues about how the profiles and privacy settings are being implemented and how we're being informed about them.

The fact that some of us do not want profiles at all and find GOG's insistance on becoming a Steam clone undesireable or outright foolish is a separate matter. Even people who want those profiles should be able to see there are legit issues here, if only they gave a rats ass about anything beyond "yay I can show off achievements".

avatar
zeogold: and you're free to hate me all you want for it.
Hate you? No. I'm just very, very disappointed. Your entire argument boils down to "this is good for business". But no one here argues that. We just don't care. At least I don't. My privacy is far more important to me than GOG's profit margin. To see people argue in favor of a company over their own privacy is outright terrifying.

The fucked up dystopia is real.

At this point I'm done here. The battle obviously can't be won. We can't convince GOG to change anything when there's so many here who already love the Big Brother. At this point I can only lose time here and spoil my mood.
Post edited April 22, 2018 by Breja
high rated
This thread is booming! Which is great. Much pro-privacy confabulation going on which I endorse thoroughly. But whatever Gog have planned in regard to all this has been in the works for some time and it is unlikely they're gonna turn it all around for the vocal "protestant" minority (myself included) on this thread. Most Gog clientele rarely, if ever, use the forums and probably neither know nor care about their privacy settings. Unfortunately a growing percentage of people have no concept of privacy and would eagerly and enthusiastically volunteer to undergo an on the spot public proctological examination if they thought it would get them 5% off at the check-out or somehow give them more social credit. But just the same keep on the good fight, we might just turn this ship around yet!
high rated
avatar
tfishell: Just curious: if GOG goes ahead with their current plans, will that be the nail in the coffin for anyone posting angrily here?
Nah. Just remove everyone from my friendlist and stick to buying games that are completely available without any attached strings.
high rated
What really irks me is, that it coincides with the Facebook partnership.
Supporting the data mining overlords is even worse than DRM to me.
Facebook and Google collect every scrap of data they can about everyone to complete the psychological and worldly profiles they have of everyone. Now GOG participates.
With this they also see friend connections, play time, play time of friends, friends of friends, daytimes when people are playing, when they are online, preferences etc...
Post edited April 22, 2018 by Klumpen0815
high rated
avatar
zeogold: The reason I support them is the DRM-free, and that's all that matters to me in regards to the company. It's the reason I love the store and the reason I want to see it grow, for the DRM-free. Coming from this perspective, I think this move is for the best in a sick sort of ends-justifies-the-means manner.
Yet that end is being eaten by the snake's head. The issues of privacy violation and DRM aren't separate. They're part and parcel of the same structure that's in the process of being dismantled. All that social-media-integration, privacy-removal, statistics-collecting, network-forming is OF COURSE just another way for the publisher to secure and maintain his rights.

GOG is offering a new product to its business clients, and that product is you. That's literally a facebook thing to do.

And I really don't see the upside. As if we'd get more newer AAA games that way. Suuuure.

avatar
Breja: We can't convince GOG to change anything when there's so many here who already love the Big Brother.
And we can't convince GOG to become anything besides a senseless Steam clone when there's so many on GOG that allow Valve to set the abysmal standards they expect and demand here.
Post edited April 22, 2018 by Vainamoinen
avatar
zeogold: I already know I'm going to get a flood of downvotes for this, so let me just go ahead and save most of you the reading:
As much as it pains me to say this, I'm in favor of this decision.
You done? Good, now go ahead and just push the -1 button and move along. I already know about half of you would prefer to go off that alone, say I'm advocating for violations of privacy, and not bother reading what I'm actually saying, so get it out of your system. As for those of you who actually can be bothered reading walls of text, here's why:

First off, let me say that GOG, to me, is not the "friend" that I imagine it's felt like to most of you. As I'm sure I've said in an open letter or two before, I never had that feeling of "Wow, here's a company that finally caters to me!" like most of you have felt. The reason I support them is the DRM-free, and that's all that matters to me in regards to the company. It's the reason I love the store and the reason I want to see it grow, for the DRM-free. Coming from this perspective, I think this move is for the best in a sick sort of ends-justifies-the-means manner. Although I dislike the fact that it's removing privacy, this is something, as has already been pointed out, the majority of the customer base has been asking for, and for ages. It's something that will hugely boost the social aspect of GOG and, as a result, get more customers.

"But this is a violation of privacy!" you cry. "We should have everything private by default!" I disagree, and I think this action would be GOG shooting themselves in the foot if they did it. Having used Steam myself for a while, I know what it's like. Steam has had everything public about profiles by default for ages with no real complaints. In fact, now that the defaults recently changed, I've heard more dislike for the change to have things private by default, and I can actually see why. I'm against it myself, in fact. Normally on Steam, you can hit up people you meet in games, check out what kind of stuff they play, what kind of groups they're in, etc., and connect. If you want to keep hidden, it's fine, just change your settings. By hiding certain things by default (like libraries or wishlists), however, it removes a lot of that. When you'd normally check somebody out and see if they're worth adding as a friend, you instead see that it's all hidden and decide not to bother. Psychologically, it's a bit like ringing a doorbell where the lights are all off inside, you just don't want to annoy people. I imagine it would be a lot of the same way if GOG makes profiles private by default. While they'd be protecting privacy, they'd massively miss out on that social boost they're looking for. Consumers are usually stupid and, instead of exploring all the options, will just keep whatever default they're handed with and barely look into it. If everybody's private by default, the connections that GOG is looking for won't be made as rapidly. If everybody's public by default, it'll be way easier.

"Steam!" you cry, frothing at the mouth, immediately rushing to leave a nasty response in regards to "Steam is exactly what we DON'T want to be like!" (which will get "high rated" within 30 minutes or less) To which I say you're wrong. I always hear people complain about "Steamification" of GOG as some harbinger of doom, like it's the complete antithesis to everything GOG stands for. I disagree with this notion and think it's painting far too broad of a brush. I don't think there's anything wrong with looking more like Steam. Steam itself is great. It's a handy client with cool, useful stuff. It's got a solid social aspect. People love using it. What sucks about Steam is the DRM. The fact you NEED to use the client is why people hate it. GOG gives us the opportunity to say no to their client (>inb4 snarky comment about the offline Galaxy installers, I know, I hate them too, but I'm talking in general here), and is also giving us an opportunity to opt out of this as well by letting us change our privacy settings.

At this point, some of you have probably gone "But Zeo! These are two different things!" And yeah, I know. It's true, this isn't a matter of, like Steam, new people signing up and getting handed lack of privacy, it's more a matter of existing users getting hit with "Whoops, surprise, everybody can see your library now!" I get it, and agree it's bad. However, I suspect that the people who'll get hit with this kind of nasty surprise will be far and few between. Unlike the trickery with slipping Galaxy into the installers (which I'm still upset about to this day), I suspect, unless GOG somehow MASSIVELY screws this up, this is going to be a HUGE announcement. Heck, a couple of gaming journalism publications have already picked up on it, even. The vast majority of people will likely know all about this, and elcook has even been kind enough to tell us here on the forum (the population who'd care about this the most) in advance.

So, in summary, essentially I'm in favor of this because I believe this move will bring more customers to GOG, which they always desperately need. Again, remember that I see GOG as little more than "the #1 DRM-free store out there" and support them primarily from this point. I believe that this move will be popular enough that it'll boost the userbase considerably. Whenever the userbase of GOG is boosted, that's good news for DRM-free. That's more people who use (or even know about) DRM-free, and, in turn, more publishers who see DRM-free as a viable option. Again, I hate the fact that this means the privacy of existing users will potentially be compromised, but in my eyes, they've given enough warning and it's worth it. They've told us it's coming and it'll presumably be a big deal when it gets here rather than an on-the-sly secret. I'd rather have a few hundred disgruntled users if it means the store gets several thousand new buyers.

Now, understand that you may consider me biased to a degree. I'm younger than most of you. I use Steam a lot. I was never a "hardcore" GOG user to the point where I've considered myself to have great loyalty to the site (where my loyalty lies is in the promotion of DRM-free). I'm aware that there seem to be some European laws that potentially conflict with what's happening, which I'm not at all informed about, nor do I wish to argue about, I'm merely explaining how I feel about the matter. After a lot of back-and-forthing and being on the fence about how I feel about this choice, I've come to the conclusion that it's for the best. I'm giving my opinion on it just as the rest of you are, and you're free to hate me all you want for it.
You are making good points. If you hadn't used that condescending tone It would have been better.
I still disagree however. You cannot open privacy settings by default, those changes should always be opt-in. If is that important (I don't think it is) is GOG's task to properly advertise it and let customers know the benefit (if there are any) of it hoping they would opt-in. Forcing them is anti-consumer.
Personally I believe that the social part isn't that importante and I agree that DRM-free is what GOG stands out for. Actually GOG service is barely decent and they would probably be irrelevant if it wasn't for the DRM-free policy. In my opinion what GOG needs now is to start to work decently and produce good services and good releases and drop most of their anti-consumer policy they are know for. Steam is anti-consumer too, but can count on other points GOG hasn't.
A client is not one of them, in GOG case Galaxy is a huge mistake that to this day hasn't brought anything good to their store and in many case it brought inconvenience to their customers. Also, it still looks like if it is beta with a lot of needed feature missing.
GOG should improve other things, like for instance an update notification system, a better way to manage/update/backup games (Galaxy is not an answer to that) and provide information about when a file has been updated, better games filters, and fix the issue with games not properly recognized as owned if there's an upgrade or a deluxe edition involved.
Before going social GOG should became a decent store.
avatar
KnightW0lf: you may and the other 20 people don't want a profile but the 1K+ people do
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/public_gog_profiles
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/galaxy/profiles
you may had missed the pointhere...

we dont mind the thousands who want to have a public profile.. let them have it if they want... BUT we just want US to be left alone and aside of that, and we just want to be left the choice to NOT WANT this for us at least.

if you have your public profile and are happy with it... it's fine, ok ? then why would it bother you that i don't want the same thing as you ?

we just want CHOICE, so people can decide themselves what they want or not, if they want to dive in the "we are happy digital family friends" social swimming pool, or if they just want to come here to do shopping and not be included in that, and not be pushed into the swimming pool by force

is it that hard to understand ?

imagine the ratio was inverted, that YOU would like public profile but you were the minority. Would you like us to tell ya "hey, we are way many more than you and we dont want it, so you can't/won't have it, period and stfu !" ? I guess you wouldnt be very keen on such "argument"/"reasoning" if you were on the wrong side of the stick

especially when giving both side what they want aint that difficult, tech wise, it just requires gog to want to give both solutions and choice for both. sadly it appears clear what their goal and intent are.

also... GOG's database interfacing with FB's one ? frankly, they make such decision the very same week Zuckerberg goes to be heard in front of a jury of sort for using commercially and recklessly the data of its users.
basically, each and every website which already had made the choice for having a "connect here with your FB account instead" had practically handed over all their userbase (traditionnal accounts/login users included) to the claws and big mouth of the FB ogre... And GOG litteraly stated that they wanted that for users here ?
avatar
zeogold: ...snip...
i will answer you on discord on that.

to summarize: despite the fact i see "your" logic here, i still strongly disagree for many reasons.
avatar
richlind33: They ought to think real hard before they further dilute the significance of "DRM-free" -- but they won't.
well, i think they rather are actively thinking about how to push the idea of giving it up in a way we all will feel it's cool to forget about it and that most people will welcome it as a damn great magical trade off, except for a very vocal bitchin minority that stupidly will clutch to the whole obsolete idea of drm free at that time and will get mocked up.

and dont worry, hey are smart enough to manage to achieve just that: that people will give up by themselves, willingly. because "ooooh, shinyyyy !"

i'm just feeling nauseous by now
Post edited April 22, 2018 by Djaron
Horrified about the FB partnership stuff. Just closed FB account, and do none of the Google/social stuff. Concerned that Gog will be giving out all details/purchases, even if profile is blocking everything. Makes me not want to purchase further games, which has an upside, as the backlog is massive ... more than enough to play, but, if Gog are giving all info over to FB, I'd feel it's best to close my Gog account, as no company has any right to take or pass on data, especially to FB.
avatar
zeogold: and you're free to hate me all you want for it.
avatar
Breja: Hate you? No. I'm just very, very disappointed. Your entire argument boils down to "this is good for business". But no one here argues that. We just don't care. At least I don't. My privacy is far more important to me than GOG's profit margin. To see people argue in favor of a company over their own privacy is outright terrifying.

The fucked up dystopia is real.

At this point I'm done here. The battle obviously can't be won. We can't convince GOG to change anything when there's so many here who already love the Big Brother. At this point I can only lose time here and spoil my mood.
maybe Zeo suddenly purchased shares in GOG inc. and became a shareholder... Then sure, it makes sense to advocate for a company's interests instead of/higher than one's own personal interest...

i agree and join you on the rest of your posts so far, though...
avatar
initialpresence: Unfortunately a growing percentage of people have no concept of privacy and would eagerly and enthusiastically volunteer to undergo an on the spot public proctological examination if they thought it would get them 5% off at the check-out or somehow give them more social credit.
This one was pure gold and made me laugh a lot, thank you much...

then i also realized it wasnt even a sattyre/exxageration but was the exact real truth too... and i stopped laughin at that point :(
Post edited April 22, 2018 by Djaron
avatar
Djaron: all the old previous settings i had set to "no one/ me only" had been reverted to "everyone", afaic.... so understand my surprise and my upsetting in this one
avatar
elcook: None of the previous privacy settings were changed by us.
In that case you must have had a hiccup somewhere because mine were also changed.

Also, I only found this thread because I noticed that my wishlist setting was changed to "everybody". And I agree that defualt should be "only me"..
Post edited April 22, 2018 by Vater.Angebot
avatar
MIK0: In my opinion what GOG needs now is to start to work decently and produce good services and good releases and drop most of their anti-consumer policy they are know for. Steam is anti-consumer too, but can count on other points GOG hasn't.
A client is not one of them, in GOG case Galaxy is a huge mistake that to this day hasn't brought anything good to their store and in many case it brought inconvenience to their customers.
More likely then not there will be no good releases without move to social features and Galaxy is one of them. Little proof is needed as it is all before our eyes. Even Larian who are pro DRM-free were eager to delay the GOG release for months when GOG was not ready to support all the social features they wanted.

If we want good DRM-free releases then we need GOG to be competitive at least in the most common social features that Steam or Origin have.
avatar
MIK0: A client is not one of them, in GOG case Galaxy is a huge mistake that to this day hasn't brought anything good to their store and in many case it brought inconvenience to their customers. Also, it still looks like if it is beta with a lot of needed feature missing.
GOG should improve other things, like for instance an update notification system, a better way to manage/update/backup games (Galaxy is not an answer to that) and provide information about when a file has been updated, better games filters, and fix the issue with games not properly recognized as owned if there's an upgrade or a deluxe edition involved.
Before going social GOG should became a decent store.
I apologize for the tone, since I was anticipating the kind of responses I expected I'd get. I've only gotten a couple nasty messages so far, so I'm doing better than I thought.

However, this point I've quoted is where I strongly disagree with you. Galaxy is nowhere NEAR a mistake. In fact, it's one of the biggest successes they've ever implemented. Say what you want about how buggy it is or how much you/others dislike it, but it's been directly responsible for bringing both customers and publishers to the store. While it would be nice for GOG to fix some of the oodles of bugs they have here, as well as more useful features, chances are they're going to slip that pretty far down the list in priority in comparison to social aspects, and I can see why (although I don't like it). The social aspects will most definitely bring in far more customers and way more money (if done right). The amount of people who are looking for this/having this as the only thing keeping them on Steam is huge. I know personal anecdote likely doesn't count for much, but I can definitely say that whenever I invite somebody new to GOG, it's usually one of the first things they start looking for.

While it would be way better for them to improve aspects of the store (like the same bloody aspects we've been asking for since, oh, y'know, YEARS), they're likely going to focus on this first and foremost because it's the most effective thing to focus on.
avatar
Breja: Hate you? No. I'm just very, very disappointed. Your entire argument boils down to "this is good for business". But no one here argues that. We just don't care. At least I don't. My privacy is far more important to me than GOG's profit margin. To see people argue in favor of a company over their own privacy is outright terrifying.
It's less "this is good for business" and more "this is hopefully good for DRM-free". My personal hope for the store isn't for them to be the best store ever or tick X, Y, and Z boxes, it's for them to succeed in, as I said, exactly the sole reason I support this place: promotion of DRM-free and getting it to be more and more of a viable option that publishers and consumers alike opt for.

avatar
zeogold: The reason I support them is the DRM-free, and that's all that matters to me in regards to the company. It's the reason I love the store and the reason I want to see it grow, for the DRM-free. Coming from this perspective, I think this move is for the best in a sick sort of ends-justifies-the-means manner.
avatar
Vainamoinen: Yet that end is being eaten by the snake's head. The issues of privacy violation and DRM aren't separate. They're part and parcel of the same structure that's in the process of being dismantled. All that social-media-integration, privacy-removal, statistics-collecting, network-forming is OF COURSE just another way for the publisher to secure and maintain his rights.

GOG is offering a new product to its business clients, and that product is you. That's literally a facebook thing to do.

And I really don't see the upside. As if we'd get more newer AAA games that way. Suuuure.
A fair point, and I consider the Facebook integration to be a stupid move, but I really do think that this will help bring more users and publishers to the store. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but given how many seem to be clamoring for it, I think my prediction will ring true.
avatar
Olauron: If we want good DRM-free releases then we need GOG to be competitive at least in the most common social features that Steam or Origin have.
Basically this.
Post edited April 22, 2018 by zeogold
Just praying this isn't another step towards mandatory Galaxy. I can see that being the 10th anniversary announcement, and worse, I can see some of the people in this thread defending it..."come on it's not a big deal, come on you probably already share what you're playing on Facebook already what's the difference, come on the site needs to grow therefore it needs to antagonize its dedicated users and replace them with an audience of mouthbreathers".

NO TO HAVING TO USE A CLIENT TO GAME!

NO TO "GAMING AS A SERVICE"!

As has been articulated well in this thread and alluded to by multiple posters, this site is the last bastion for those of us who remember what gaming used to be. Before online play infested all angles of everything, before gamerscore and e-peen, before friendslist and streaming and overlays.

This apparent incoming lack of privacy features (I think my settings had been switched to more public as well) and the Steamization of this site doesn't affect those who already like all that modern garbage. What they don't understand is that this site is the very last bastion that some of us have, and yet they are willing to rip it away to be like all the rest. That is how to compete? By offering the exact same thing as the monopoly competitor? Give me a break!
Post edited April 22, 2018 by rjbuffchix