Where did I insult someone? Please do share?

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I misspoke about that. I could have sworn I saw one and participated in it but must have been thinking of something else. Pardon the confusion. Thanks for your great post and to everyone else making great posts. Glad to see there are so many of us here who care about this stuff. GOG, as a company (so no need for anyone else to play semantic games about how it's Galaxy 2.0 not GOG.com) selling DRMed games is totally unthinkable. Yet apparently coming soon to a reality near us.

Emphasis mine. That is an insulting or debasing statement. And I don't care if he insulted you first.

EDIT: I respect your position on this matter. I don't agree, but I understand. I feel you're wrong about many things, including that GOG isn't selling DRMed games.

Honestly my humble opinion is that, in fact, it is being at contrary. But well, whatever. Basically the main focus of this topic is not to debate at all.

Greetings

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's not really an insult, rather that's saying your not really thinking this issue through but rather being reactionary. If it was taken as an insult then I apologize. Was not my intention.

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.

Well, I don't use Twitter/Facebook/etc. Still, GOG didn't bother posting anything about it to the news section of their own store, instead opting to make a post on the forums where many will not see it.

I guess it makes sense though, the social media/"don't care about DRM/privacy/etc" crowd seems to be GOG's main target audience now & given the state of things those of us who came here for DRM-freedom, offline installers etc. are clearly second-class customers to GOG these days. Third-class for those of us who also use Linux...

I'm so used to confrontational employees at this point that I didn't give that much thought. Professionalism and courtesy are dead. There must be an uptick in customers if they think we're disposable.

A good answer for any question, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Just to clarify, I do not work for GOG. I am not a GOG employee. GOG does not pay me, and I am entitled to my own opinions. I do not represent GOG, except for in matters that require moderation. Thank you.

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.

An important clarification, thank you.

I hope you can understand that those users who frequent GOG because of the DRM-free aspect sometimes get worried when they see GOG decisions that seem to contradict this feature. As a relatively new user I haven't seen as many changes as others, but I agree with some of the especially worried users that there is a clear trend away from the emphasis on DRM free content. GOG Galaxy, while not in itself DRM, is a launcher that very much reminds one of the Steam launcher that is badly associated with its DRM aspect. I got locked out of already installed pure single player games myself on Steam because of connectivity issues, which makes DRM-free an important factor for me. Several users have already described phenomena that shake the image of GOG Galaxy as an entirely optional and DRM-free launcher. Games that only receive updates for GOG Galaxy, be it bug-fixing or content-adding ones, but not for the separate offline installers, does leave more than a bit of a bitter taste. If I need GOG Galaxy for important and desired game updates it becomes mandatory rather than optional, which is a move away from the GOG Galaxy as an optional client sentiment. With GOG Galaxy's prominence on the GOG website and the presentation of the GOG Galaxy download links compared with the almost hidden offline installer download links it's pretty clear that GOG Galaxy is very important for the people in responsible positions and judging from the trends we see, its importance is ever growing.

We've seen other promises GOG made eventually fall, such as the refusal to apply regional pricing. While many users (just like myself) can see and accept the reasons behind this decision, we also see and remember that a promise made by GOG is a promise they might eventually be willing to break. GOG Galaxy is now also associated with (but still not in itself) DRM, so if it becomes less and less optional, we're getting ever closer to games affected by DRM.

Selling games that are affected by DRM through GOG Galaxy, an important part of GOG, increases the fear that DRM-free may be the next (and last) big promise to be abandoned, or at least increasingly neglected. Users don't pull such ideas out of their magic hats, a lot (albeit by far not all) of these concerns stem from GOG's decisions and GOG's seeming ignorance towards their userbase, such as the claim that selling games affected by DRM was a very prominent feature in the userbase, for which we don't see any sign.

I like GOG for the DRM-free offline installers, like quite a bunch of other people here. We all hope that we will keep the ability to buy games with up-to-date (!) offline installers here. But we can't unsee the risk that this feature of GOG may be abandoned eventually. You may not share this view, but I hope that you can afford a bit more understanding and tolerance for this position.

You're probably thinking of this thread:-
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_that_might_not_run_without_galaxy/page1

Really there are two separate issues:-

1. GOG's offline installers are not being updated whilst Galaxy are (possibly deliberately as "incentive" to use Galaxy)

2. GOG's offline installers are up to date with Galaxy, but the developers broke something on the newest build (not GOG's fault) for which the "solution" is to roll back. GOG used to provide older builds of offline installers when requested in a support ticket, but instead now tell people to "just use Galaxy". (This part is GOG's fault as it has the same functional effect as 1)

This is probably going to be my last post in the thread. But I just want to let you know that, this information has been forwarded to appropriate people and I've been assured it will be looked at. Thanks.

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.

Why do you even bother, you know the state of the forums (and its technological backend) hasen't really changed since 2009 or so. Legit criticism posted in this thread aside, I still feel that a lot of the technology behind this site is as outdated as some of the opinions many of the users of this board are expousing. I think its related to the infrastructure that is related to the general organisation of the site. The store doesn't need another revamp but anything related to it.

Its just speculation from my end but perhaps reaching out to other stores is also a way to compensate? Revamping an entire organisation is a huge effort after all (unless you're Apple or Twitch, then you're just a lazy fuck who is underpaying one dude to handle 99.9% of the entire backend of the business).

Let people bitch and moan over things 99.95% of the video game consuming population doesn't care about. If its too much for the moderation team to handle just move forth and close the thread. Its not like that users on here owe you anything after all, even if they're partially your core audience.

I support GOG even if they do "questionable" decisions simply because us as users don't fully know the context behind such moves. And to be fair and square, GOG.com is a clean company compared to the large ones like Apple, Google, all social media sites, MS, etc. It takes a long time (or a real lot of cash) to fully disregard your own core principles and I don't see GOG heading in such a direction. Not in a way that is fully obvious as of now at least.

Thank you.