DRM free on KS doesn't mean they will sell it later also DRM free. Just that they will produce at least some copies for the backers without DRM. I guess many backers would like to make sure others can buy a DRM free version too. They should decide this before starting a campaign and communicating this. Some do, many do not.

Nono, in this case they said the game would be sold DRM-free.

That's what people don't seem to understand... you're not just pre-ordering a game for yourself, you're trying to make the project happen and in this case one of the things they stated would happen was that they were going to sell it on their site DRM-free.

Wow. Really?

I posted back on page 29 about the community not being what it once was and claimed personal insults as a reason - this despite the fact, that I repeatedly claimed that HBS made a mistake (which should put me firmly outside of the minority group).
How much does your assumption hold up? To completely blow your mind, count the personal insults / attacks on that page 29 alone before my post, then hold it up against the only high-rated statement on that page.
No comment.

, [url=http://www.gog.com/forum/general/so_apparantly_shadowrun_returns_will_only_be_sortof_drm_free/post39]2, 3 (after being facepalmed, accused of Steam fanboyism).... how's your majority side holding up so far?

Maybe I should check the high-rated posts for personal insults.... but I'll leave that one up to you. I guarantee you won't come up empty handed.....

Double standards? What's that again?

I emailed them with a refund demand. Let's wait and see what will happen.

Or maybe you should grow a spine? Seriously, I find it funny that some people feel so oppressed.

It's a god damn internet forum, I have absolutely no idea why you should take things said on it, or even the people who visit it, so freakin' seriously.

If you are so apprehensive to post something because "the community sucks and will downvote me" then I say again, grow a spine. There have been real people in history whose actual lives were at stake when they've professed something that was unpopular and you are nothing compared to those people.

I have to tell people this time and again "Having an opinion does not make you immune to being criticized, fairly or not, for having that opinion", if someone is not lobbing valid criticisms at you, ignore them.

I tell ya, I have a little more respect for those people who still hang around here despite being constantly downvoted (Roman5, and JCD come to mind) than the people who feel oh-so-offended by Robby Hatfield of Akron, Ohio when he pushes a little minus button next to your comments.

Get over yourself.
(the irony of this post is not lost on me btw :P)

You seem to miss the point (at least as far as I'm concerned). I haven't been downvoted as far as I know and if I would have been, I wouldn't throw a tantrum about it.

But when someone claims things to be THAT way, when I see it otherwise, I reserve my rights to speak out.
If someone claims low-rated posts happening because they "have resorted to insulting other parties collectively in lieu of a proper argument", without even criticizing the same behavior on high-rated posts or even did to a degree the very same themselves without being downvoted, then yes I reserve my rights to speak.
And it absolutely doesn't matter if I'm on the "winning" or "loosing" side of the spectrum.

You can criticize me for all and everything I wrote here or on other boards. If I made a mistake and someone call me out on it, I admit it.
If however I don't see the mistake on my side, then yes I'll may counter. And that usually with arguments, not with insults or personal attacks (though I'm NOT claiming innocence here for me).

What certainly doesn't work (at least for me), is this part:
Why? Maybe you check back on those real people in history and what difference it would have made, when they followed your above advice.

And as the spineless being I (clearly) seem to be, I'd like to give you an advice too: never, ever claim to not take the people on a god damn internet forum not freakin' seriously. At least not this one - others gotten already low-rated for doing so - and it wasn't me. I lacked the spine to do so.

You seem to think there is some kind of celestial meaning to rep. There isn't. If a low or high rating is such a critical matter to you, then you probably really need to reassess your priorities and broaden your horizon.

There's a difference between attacking someone for having an opinion - for example whether DRM is effective - and disputing plain, simple facts out of fanboy fervour. Personally, I hate fanboyism in any side of a debate because it's these people that will generally ignore simple facts (as SirPrimalForm has just quite eloquently proven with his direct quote from the KS page), deliberately quote out of context and generally behave in an abusive manner.

I have no desire to get into this "you did it first" debate into any great extent, save to say that you too have decided to quote out of context. A fairly obvious fact was pointed out - that Valve negotiates exclusivity agreements with publishers, just as any platform holder does. It's even been acknowledged in the media several times. Microsoft does it. EA does it. Sony does it. GOG does it. The response? The insinuation that Valve 'bribing' publishers was ridiculous.

I agree that ShaolinsKunk was a little abrasive in his response, but his point is valid - having an opinion does not put a person above criticism, especially when such opinions are based on deliberate ignorance or obfuscation of established facts, motivated by fanboy fervour.

Of the GOG games I've bought, here are the ones I've enjoyed:

Fallout, at least as far as I got. It was pretty immersive.
Little Big Adventure 2 (again, as far as I got)
Beyond Good & Evil (until the last boss)
Rayman 2 (until the last boss)
Far Cry
Duke Nukem Man. Project
Serious Sam 2nd Encounter
Beneath a Steel Sky (needed a walkthrough for most of it, though)

I always seem to find myself in a minority position when I say that I absolutely hated Far Cry 1. I sort-of enjoyed Far Cry 2, and loved Far Cry 3, but Far Cry 1 was for me an excellent idea superimposed on crappy gameplay.

Just out of curiosity, is this an attempt to end the flamewar? Because I think it's needed...

LOL. Fact - " I wonder how much Valve was paying them... ". That was a nice little fact for you.

edit - or to let me rephrase - wherever in that post I responded to was there any mentions of any negotiations or even exclusivity rights.... and did you even read his reply to mine?

Oh, shoot, what the heck?! Lol, this was suppose to go here: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/new_to_gog_just_a_couple_questions

I had nothing to do with this thread (well, maybe one post expressing frustration), I don't know what happened. :P If a mod sees this, hopefully he'll delete it as I'll repost it in the correct thread.

Wait... what did I ignore? >_>

Which part of my first two sentences you didn't get?

No it doesn't put a person above criticism, never will. The problem is, that you seem to "forget" the opposite side of the fanboys - the haters. Be it Steam, EA or whoever. And they've been called out time and time again in this thread and now guess what? The single most common response they used was, calling previous posters fanboys. So much about ignoring or obfuscating facts.

Quoting out of context.... you might want to get back and check yourself, what the poster of this simple fact in your example followed by that insinuating response had to say (attention, qooC coming): haha, fair point.
You also seem to forget, that you can't claim "fact" without prove. Yes there MAY be an exclusive agreement. But as much as others aren't aware of Valve's internal licensing deals, neither are you. It doesn't just work one way.

I'm not the holier than thou typ or at least, try not to be. But there's a lot of guys throwing stones in here, while all standing in a glasshouse. The problem now is, one side are called the fanboys while the other side is considered just stating opinions or so called "facts".

At the very least I tried to be unbiased, which is more then most can claim.

He wasn't referring to you, he was referring to who you were responding to.

Oh, phew!