deleted

I am with you, can't stand all the social media. But unfortunately it is ingrained in people now, generations have grown up with it. You can't go out of the house without some numpty taking pictures of you and posting them all over social media. Hence GOG have had to take note and start implementing things here.

At least in this instance they have alerted us soon, and given the option of turning it all off, though they are using amazon backed platform I believe anyways, so its all being collated regardless of their security options.

And so it starts..........yuk yuk yuk.

It's not really privacy if the default setting are set to completely open.

I see this turning out very poorly. The number of people who will - and do log in - only occasionally, are going to be super pissed off and stunned when they find out and come to realize that their personal and private info has not been kept private, but rather broadcasted out across the GOG network for weeks and months without their consent because the default setting was Public and not Private.

You know, some people like it, and those who do not don't have to use it.

And that.

Eeeh. How about it's an easy way to share some things with friends.


Do agree that it should be set to private by default, considering a lot of people seem to not care for features like that, and some might not even be aware.

I would prefer if GOG spent all their effort to get developers on updating their games to their latest patches as they are on Steam instead of adding useless shit like this and especially facebook integration.


More focus on the games please and less on the social aspect, not good enough GOG.

I'm perfectly fine with there being traditional profile and social options (some of which I've wanted to be able to do for years now), and it makes sense from a business perspective to do so to grow your user base, but I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment that all these privacy options should be as strict as possible by default. Users should be opting in to sharing their information, not opting out.

Oh, and while we're creating a modern profile system, can we update the forums? Please?

Okay.

I'll hedge my opinions for now.

I think it is a good idea.

even gamefaqs had profile pages back in the 90s.

It would be a good idea in the profile for a social media links for the person

I suppose it's the last games you played, last achievements unlocked, etc...

Hidden games must not be shown if a customer chooses to show others what games they have.

First of all: Thanks for the heads up.

A few remarks though:

1) Defaults should all be set to max privacy. See EU privacy laws - could invite trouble otherwise.

2) "My activity" and "my online friends" should be split. It's fine if I decide to reveal my own stuff - it's not ok to reveal other people without asking them first.

3) Please do not only announce this on the front page - changes in privacy settings are like TOS changes. Every user should be notified. Send emails to every account (it's not promoting games, so it should be fine, even if they unchecked email notifications). Some people don't frequent the site very often, they could miss the announcement (or do you want to leave standing there forever?). This is especially important if you decide to leave some defaults at "not max privacy". If the users miss the email - well the problem is on their side - at least you tried.
Now we also need manual sorting back, so I can put Softporn Adventure and HuniePop at the top of my list...

[HunchBluntley runs by waving his dick]

It has been some time since I read/discuss the GDPR but IIRC only "sensitive personal data" requires mandatory explicit "opt-in", as in if Gog want to release you real name, etc... then it's opt in only.

For non-sensitive data (and the game in you collection is definitely non-sensitive data) you only need to be unambiguously informed (could be via a mail or a new EULA to accept when you connect to the site) and have the possibility to opt-in / opt-out at will.

It doesn't seem as "clear cut" as some superficial reading of article 25 can make you believe, standard interpretation and lawyer interpretation seems to differ quite a lot. I suspect Gog probably checked with their lawyer what they could and couldn't do.