Posted January 30, 2018
Looks like the thread is bugged.
So we've nailed down the problem: DRM needs defined. In fact, i think GOG should be obligated to go ahead and define it, since they're advertising that they don't have it and it's coming into question.
I've been saying that for years.. problem is as soon as GOG does that a lot of people are going to get pissed. Because it's pretty clear where GOG stands on DRM Free by their actions but some of the fringe parts of the community will take issue with it.
Weird, my reply didn't show up.
Anyway, i'll type it again. GOG hasn't really been all that clear at this point. Their actions are different from their words, and we have a right to be disgruntled when what they say doesn't match their actions, especially since we support them with our money. The fringe even has a right. They know they're hiding how they feel to get the extra buck. It's no different than, say, a drug company that intentionally hides one of it's side-effects, except for when people die over it, since gog isn't killing anyone. In terms of how unethical it is, it's pretty much the same.
So we've nailed down the problem: DRM needs defined. In fact, i think GOG should be obligated to go ahead and define it, since they're advertising that they don't have it and it's coming into question.
Anyway, i'll type it again. GOG hasn't really been all that clear at this point. Their actions are different from their words, and we have a right to be disgruntled when what they say doesn't match their actions, especially since we support them with our money. The fringe even has a right. They know they're hiding how they feel to get the extra buck. It's no different than, say, a drug company that intentionally hides one of it's side-effects, except for when people die over it, since gog isn't killing anyone. In terms of how unethical it is, it's pretty much the same.
