instead of something usefull like "a not interested in this game" option.
we get this.
Somethings never change

^^ this

What I don't quite get are the times listed. What do they say? Longest playtime?
Day of the Tentacle ... 5 hours? Sure, first time, maybe sedond. For teh first playthrough without walkthrough I would even estimate longer. But I also finished it in 40 minutes.

Or is this just an average for the expected playtime? In that case it would not be too much off.

that explains it :)

Inaccurate for who ? It is statisticaly feed by the community, with their differents ways to play. It give a pretty great overall depending of your way to play. Personnaly for all the games I finished and put my times on HLTB it was really accurate.

For the gaming industry, it's a good suggestion for players... Beat the game, go for another one... There are games I play for 20-30 years and not considering it as beaten... There are speedruns and games cuddling... Idling while I listening to its music...

It's some info, representing a certain style of playing, -> but without it, I could not even compare my style<-... I like cuddling I've been with Games for years, and I do not beat them... Only challenging to unknown...

After all, it's useful to see the statistics.

Ditto. Not sure why they'd want to push down the most relevant section? Perhaps they thought nobody would notice the new additions otherwise?

People change, and GOG is taking that into consideration. You might be interested in the game sometime in the future, so they don't let you ignore it :P. (/s, of course)

That was my concern.
That's also why I don't personally trust the OpenCritic review system, as explained in my previous post.

While often not 100% accurate -- what is, right? -- I see this as a positive!

I often check How Long to Beat before making a purchase. Having it integrated saves me time.

Personally, I 100% hate it!

Before this, I was able to see (some) useful information about the game without scrolling far down.
Now, if I want to see some technical data, like release date or download size, it's very annoying to be forced to scroll down past that new block there.

If it was some useful information, I could live with that.
But how long some random people took to play some game is completely useless information, because most likely I am not going to play it like they did.

If someone else wants to get rid of it like I do, follow these two steps:

1) Voice your opinion so that GOG would consider removing it, like they removed that failed 99+ experiment.

2) Add the following line to your adblock:
gog.com##.howlongtobeat-section

At least GOG has nicely named that whole thing, so it's relatively easy to find and block on the user side, which obviously is not an optimal solution, but at least shows the gamecards like they used to be.

It is useful I guess but really it is not the right spot for it. The most important information should be on top and that is Game Details!!! Game features also should be above it. It should go under that or even languages! Being on top is really wrong.

I was already checking howlongtobeat before buying a game, so this just saves me time. Thanks GOG.

About reliability, the more data they have about a game the better, as it's usually the case with these user-generated aggregators. It's generally been in the ballpark for the games I play though.

Yeah, I like this too. Just glancing at some of the games I've finished and comparing my times to them it looks like I must be one of the slowest players on earth. lol Every one of my times are way over the highest one listed.

Even if their times are way off, they're still useful as comparisons from game to game. If game A has listed an average time of 40 hours and game B has an average time of 100 hours, then I can still tell that game B requires quite a bit more investment than game A and I find that useful in considering purchasing new games.

Thank you much gog. First you slayed the purple dot dragon and now add this small, but nice feature.

May not be a lot, but as far as I can tell, at least things seem to be moving in the right direction as opposed to ever more things breaking and being useless.

I am quick to criticize gog when things go wrong, and I'll be happy to be quick to praise them when they do things right, even if small ones. Well dond gog.

Unfortunately, some players don't realize they may be outliers. One average may not be enough to mean much if one wanted to get into the weeds about accuracy. But luckily, they can simply look at more details by going to the actual website under [Completions].

The purple, dark blue, and lighter blue bars look like they represent the lower and upper limits of different playstyles. And I'd assume "Rushed" = used a walkthrough, "Normal" = may or may not have used a walkthrough for the hardest parts, and "leisure" = didn't use a walkthrough at all.

In terms of giving a rough idea of completion, it does its job well with respect to averages of different playstyles.

Bullshit, always have to scroll a bit to pass after the big video banner. Same as usual. Just whining here. It may useless for you, ok, but don't speak for other. If you buy a game 80€ that last 40min, you would certainely be happy that integration is here to say it.

I don't see the point you would absolutely think for your own when they add a new feature. It's ok to not liking it, but at least be constructive, like move the card on another place or whatever instead of "gngngng REMOVE THAT SHIT".

^This

and please make it go away!