We will be talking about it in the official announcement of the feature on the main page, when it goes live. This is just a heads up for you, the most dedicated ones, who hang out here in the forums. You guys and gals are also the most sensitive for such changes, hence the forum post to let you know earlier.
Depending on what you mean by "when it goes live", that may be too little too late. In my opinion, much as several others have said in the thread, the proper workflow for this feature is:
- Add the new knobs to user account settings page. At this point, the knobs save settings to the database, but none of the features that the knobs control are user-accessible, so users have exactly as much or as little privacy as they did before the knobs were added. For example, users cannot list anyone's game library at this stage, because that's a new feature.
- Post on the main page
an announcement that the knobs exist, and link to documentation on how it works. Linking to a forum thread in the announcement is fine. However, as others have said, this thread is not particularly discoverable without a separate news announcement. It's not a STICKY. It's not a NEWS post. Aside from the fact that the opening poster has a trailing blue (GOG), it's not particularly notable in any way. I only caught it because there are so many unhappy users posting in it that it's staying fairly close to the top of the recently active threads list. (A broadcast e-mail would also be good at this stage. The key point is that every user who monitors his/her account at all will have days to consider how to handle the new knobs.)
- Include in the announcement a specific future date (at least 1 week, but several weeks would be better) on which the new features will go live.
- When that announced date arrives, only then will users be able to use the new features (such as listing other people's libraries) on the then-unsecured accounts.
This flow gives everyone, not just lucky forum readers, the opportunity to know about the change and deliberate on their options for several days before a decision is due. As is, anyone who misses this forum thread (which, as above, is easy to miss) will only discover the settings after their information is already made visible. This is rude and, in some cases, may backfire. I imagine some people will see the announcement, decide they disagree with the everything-public-by-default design that GOG adopted, and rush over to make their data maximally private without taking the time to evaluate the options in detail. As a result, such users will share less than they might have if they'd had more time to consider their choices. They may not revisit those decisions later, so they end up undersharing for a long time. Given GOG's apparent interest in maximizing user sharing, that result is exactly what you don't want to encourage.
Regarding documentation for the new features, try to describe in some detail what users can learn about others' accounts through the new features. For example, there is some confusion over what "full game library" will show. Will it let us see what the user paid for the game (full price, on-sale, gift code, GOG giveaway)? Will we see the date when the user added that game to his/her library? How does that interact with Galaxy's time-played tracking? Can we see tags that the user assigned to the game ("completed"; "abandoned"; "sucks"; etc.)? I don't expect you to answer these questions inline, but I suggest you have answers ready as part of the general announcement so that people do not need to experiment to find the answers.
Separate from the workflow issue, I also second complaints made elsewhere in the thread that the presentation of the choices, and in particular the "Your visibility" choice, is unnecessarily confusing. "Your visibility" would have been better as a two-option select ("Nobody"; "Everybody"), similar to the three-option select boxes for the other choices. The existing design of an auto-saving checkbox with a label that always describes the current state is not new, but it is weird. Like others above, my initial interpretation of an unchecked box labeled "Nobody can find me" is that the protection is not enabled (that is, "it is not the case that nobody can find me"; or "it is the case that somebody can find me") and I should click the box to make the statement "Nobody can find me" become true. That's not how it works, but it's how I expect it to work based on the labeling.