Guest User

Response to GOG discussion

a guest
May 6th, 2020
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 14.79 KB | None | 0 0
  1. [quote_91]
  2. if poeple have no interest in gathering information that is already there, in order to form an opinion are unsreasonable to, your milage may varyx
  3. [/quote]
  5. It is reasonable for people to read something posted by someone who is misinformed, and to think it makes sense when they don't have the relevant information to debunk that position themselves. It is reasonable for people to have a lack of relevant information to understand why GOG won't turn their launcher software into DRM. It is reasonable for people to see some of the bad decisions in Galaxy 2.0's current functionality and jump to an extreme of the direction it looks to be heading in and worry that might happen. It is also ridiculous to reach that far if you have some relevant information many such people are missing. But it's also reasonable to NOT expect people to trawl through every page of ANY single topic. And it's also reasonable to expect many people to NOT just happen to stumble across the answers to this concern which are mostly scattered throughout various unrelated topics as a side point to the discussion rather than being a primary topic that gets focused on throughout a major conversation.
  7. You seem to be acting willfully ignorant in order to call such people "unreasonable", but this reflects a problem I'll be addressing more seriously later in this reply.
  9. [quote_91]
  10. [quote_90]
  11. Thinking of which, adding a question to the FAQ which addresses that point might not be a bad idea. Something like "will Galaxy 2.0 ever become a requirement to play GOG games?" with a clear "no" and an explanation that doing so would be a form of DRM and being a DRM-free storefront precludes that as a possibility.
  12. [/quote]
  13. Might be not a bad idea after all (altough I would habe prefered this to remain a "technical" topic.
  14. As its clear that I have a more negative view on users that are plagued by these concerns, would you be interested in writing the entry ?
  15. [/quote]
  17. Question: "Will Galaxy 2.0 ever become a requirement for downloading or playing GOG games?"
  18. Answer: "No. GOG is an explicitly DRM-free platform and that is a major selling point of the storefront as a whole. Making any client software into a requirement for the games sold on the platform would be DRM, and would violate legally-binding promises the company has made to its customers. There has been no official suggestion at any point that this would be planned or considered and there's good reason to expect that it won't be."
  20. Feel free to change the formatting to suit your layout, and even to add "Stop being ridiculous." on the end of the answer because as much as I think it's reasonable for someone to be in a position where they end up with a ridiculous perspective on this situation, that doesn't make it an intelligent position to hold when given a modicum of relevant information to work from.
  22. [quote_91]
  23. [quote_90]
  24. Just to be clear... your reply is functionally nonsense
  25. [/quote]
  26. I disagree, cutting quotes is a functional thing, to keep the whole thing readable - proper meaning emerges from the context, the reader has to aquire for himself.
  27. And in this particular case, I don't see the problem either, as my answer adressed the point you were trying to make > we have a reference point (the part I qouted), so its clear what my reply adresses, and we have a counter argument, the makes clear what specific part I adress.
  28. [/quote]
  30. And once again, while responding to what I said, you're making the exact same mistake of cutting down to a part of my comment that doesn't provide context, then responding to something other than what I actually said instead of my point. This is at best a strawman (and not your first logical fallacy either) and at worst, continuing willful ignorance. No, you didn't address the point I was making. That you hadn't done so was the point of what you're failing to adequately quote me as saying. Your reply only looks like it MIGHT address what I'm saying when ignoring all but the portion of it that you quoted. And you're doing it again with this quote.
  32. Culling quotes CAN be a functional thing, but as I said, if you're going to forget or mischaracterise the portion you're removing, you can't get away with doing so. In my responses to you, I'm avoiding culling in this way in order to ensure that I don't leave room for the kind of mistake you're making by doing so. Because I have your quote in front of me to respond to and address CORRECTLY. And to show the context of what I'm saying so others can see that I'm responding to what you actually said, rather than a misrepresentation of it.
  34. [quote_91]
  35. [quote_90]
  36. MOST of the feedback people are giving about Galaxy 2.0 is MOSTLY polite.
  37. [/quote]
  38. MOST of the G2 users have no problem at all using it, looking at the post count in this board that madd no critical jump in numbers since it was rolled out on all users. So it is already a minorty stating their problems/concerns/whatsoever (just to be sure: this does not mean they should be ignored).
  39. [/quote]
  41. This is both irrelevant to the portion of my comment you quoted, and to the point I was making in the first place. The vast majority of feedback is polite and constructive but negative feedback. It was that way before they forced 2.0 on everyone in spite of still being in beta, and it still is now. The vastness of that majority reflects a majority of dislike for the new client, NOT your claimed support or even a more balanced spread of opinions. You are practically a lone voice of fanboyishness in a sea of negativity and in spite of how consistent the negative feedback is, the vast majority is still polite and constructive. You have claimed otherwise but have failed to back that claim up, and are now not even trying to do so.
  43. When filing support tickets and feedback for Galaxy 2.0, there is an automated response that tells users there is much higher than usual demand on support - that means there are a lot of problems with GOG at the moment, and with the 2.0 launch being the only major change to be discussed at the moment, it makes sense that the majority of that overload of tickets is relating to the forced launch while it's not yet ready. Other platforms where the 2.0 launch is being discussed, it's also mostly being seen as a bad move.
  45. [quote_91]
  46. From a business point of view its just makes no sense to roll back, this binds resources and may push the schedule back as you now have to worry again whether a change on the server side may brake the old client - or you know it will, which would mean updating the odl client or running different server versions > binds money and resources.
  47. And there is also the possibility that the people reponsible for this have a rather "traditional" work relationship: Failure is no option for a superior, so by definition superiors can't make mistakes. So rolling back to G1 would imply a failure, thus if you would do so the universe would implode.
  48. [/quote]
  50. From a business point of view, it made no sense to roll it out in the first place. From a business point of view, it absolutely makes sense to roll it back. There are growing trends of consumers recognising and railing against anti-consumer practices, and GOG has consistently been on the consumer-friendly side. This consumer-friendly approach has actually been a key element to the company's success over the years and its continuing growth. Maintaining that trend by rolling back a poor decision would only reflect even better on them and help to grow the business. At worst, people might view the rollback as something we should reasonably expect from the company when they do it, and continue supporting GOG only as much as normal instead of being pleasantly surprised and actively increasing our support.
  52. Even GOG itself labels 2.0 as still being "beta", showing that it's not ready for full release yet. There is no good reason why it should be forced onto users as it has been while openly acknowledged NOT to be ready for that yet. There is every reason to roll it back because NOBODY BUT YOU (and I'm not even sure about you) is saying that it's ready for release in its current state.
  54. [quote_91]
  55. [quote_90]
  56. Your statement here is not even remotely close to being a counter-argument to this
  57. [/quote]
  58. First of: Why are users in your response always nice, friendly and polite ? The negative side is never mentioned - we can disagree on how this distributes on the total post count, but I don't see a reason to just glance over that.
  59. [/quote]
  61. You presented a false picture where most feedback is rude. You are letting your fanboyism shape your perspective and taking offense when none is given. You are reading all negative feedback as insults rather than constructive criticism, whether true or not. You have claimed to see rude and insulting comments then almost entirely failed to provide any such comments in your examples. i'm absolutely presenting the position that most feedback is negative, and I'm not denying that SOME might be rude with it. But while negative, the vast majority of feedback is POLITE and CONSTRUCTIVE. So I'm presenting it as such because that's an accurate representation where yours was not.
  63. [quote_91]
  64. Back to topic: Why should I be responsible for your arguments ?
  65. [/quote]
  67. The closest I've been to claiming you should be responsible for anyone's arguments is actually saying that you need to be responsible for your OWN. And you have been failing to do so, by not ensuring that your arguments are adequately responding to those you're trying to answer. You don't have to be responsible for MY arguments, but you DO have to be sure to actually address them if you want to make any progress. And for the most part, you're failing to do so.
  69. [quote_91]
  70. You basically made a counter point to my assessament of the situation:
  72. "Sure there are some negative statements, but overall people are polite and friendly, and are just trying to make their point in an effort to convince gog, to roll back till G2 is more ready for a mass rollout. And you do not understand why this isn't done as most points people bring up are valid."
  73. [/quote]
  75. You're making that quote up as a paraphrasing of what I said, and given your propensity for mischaracterising my arrguments, it's surprisingly accurate. But the fun part here is that you've previously claimed that I'm denying the existence of negative feedback, but in your made up quote to represent my argument, you have me directly acknowledging that it exists. Maybe getting your own story about what I'm saying straight might help? Because this is much closer to my actual argument than the argument you've been trying to debunk this whole time.
  77. [quote_91]
  78. And, to me, its pretty clear that this won't happen, as the basic idea is wrong: the people that decide how to proceed aren't the ones that have to shovel their way through theses boards (and reddit/discord/i simply don't know what else).
  79. [/quote]
  81. If the people who have to decide aren't reading these boards, then they should have someone who is reading them, who is giving them an indication of what the boards are saying. Similarly, they should be getting reports from support about the feedback the company is receiving regarding the Galaxy 2.0 update through those channels. If they are making decisions without being given the relevant information, they are running their business wrong.
  83. There is no good argument against rolling back. There are plenty of good arguments in favour of doing so. "It's how the company is run (but actually I don't know I'm just making an assumption out of nowhere)" isn't even close to a valid argument and is highly likely to be objectively wrong.
  85. [quote_91]
  86. Mind explaining how I pushed you into that corner ?
  87. [/quote]
  89. Well, for one thing, you didn't. And for another, I literally answered the question you seem to be trying to ask directly and unambiguously already. But since you're missing the point, I'll go through it from start to finish to provide proper context.
  91. You presented a false equivalency argument that strawmans the situation to try and make me concede that if I was in a worse version of a worse type of situation than GOG is in, I wouldn't do what GOG is doing. I responded by correcting your example to a more rational and realistic representation of the situation, and responded that I would do exactly what I'm asking GOG to do if I was in an equivalent of their position.
  93. Since you seem so adamant to continue this, however, lets give your argument a try:
  95. If I were to have released a piece of software which is in relatively wide use among my customers...
  96. ...and I had been beta testing a new version...
  97. ...and most of the feedback was negative and insulting...
  98. ...well first off I wouldn't be the complete lunatic who forced the still-beta version of the software onto everyone in the first place, so there's that...
  99. ...but assuming I somehow thought it was a good idea in spite of all the abusive and insulting negativity from my beta testers to ignore that my new version is still in beta and force everyone to use it while I know it's not ready for launch yet...
  100. ...if the feedback continued to be negative and insulting...
  102. ...YUP. I'd still roll it back. And not only would I roll it back, I'd make a point of issuing a public apology for the mistake of forcing everyone into beta testing it for me when it was clear to me as well as the beta testers that it's not ready yet.
  104. And to be even more fair, lets STEELMAN your argument (for reference, this is the opposite of a strawman, where you present a case that's even more favourable to your opposition than their actual argument, let alone reality):
  106. If I were to have released a piece of software which is in relatively wide use among my customers...
  107. ...and I had been beta testing a new version...
  108. ...and most of the feedback was constructive and I fixed the major problems I was made aware of...
  109. ...and I launched the software to everyone thinking it was ready for release...
  110. ...if the feedback shifted after launch to be negative and insulting because of something I'd overlooked that was also missed by beta testers but was a massive problem for a significant number of users...
  112. ...well, if this happened, guess what? Even though it's a way more positive position for your argument than your actual argument or the reality of the Galaxy 2.0 forced beta, I. WOULD. STILL. ROLL. THIS. SOFTWARE. BACK. TO. THE. LAST. STABLE. WORKING. VERSION. BECAUSE. I. AM. NOT. AN. IDIOT.
  114. I don't believe GOG are idiots either, and I do believe that there are enough problems in Galaxy 2.0 that they can't just magically fix all of them overnight. As such, I believe the most rational response is to roll 2.0 back to being treated as the beta they still openly admit that it is. And I think it's reasonable to EXPECT - not instantly, but in a reasonable timeframe - that Galaxy 2.0 will be put back into beta because it's the sensible response here.
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment