@wallaceprime You've made it clear that you want your money back and Beamdog have made it clear they are not in a position to do so. You now argue everything in your obsession against Beamdog.
I've not made it clear I want my money back, I've made it clear I want either, the game returned or a refund.
That is something they are obligated to do and we've not had a guarantee that the game will be returned to those who paid for it, only that they will get it back on Google and ""hope" it will be returned to those who've purchased it before.
If Beamdogs position is that they cannot offer refunds in any situation, when they've signed up to a contract that says they must in certain situations, then they're opening themselves up to legal issues and all of their games being yanked.
You are here at this site to keep pressure on Beamdog for a fix? Your assumption is that they can’t afford negative press, so they will cave in eventually?
Further that you are only present in this thread because the rest of the forum Is not interesting?
I ask not out of resent, but out of curiosity. Even if I may qualify as being part of the Beamdog police (liked the metaphor, so I will keep it). I love the games, and the EE versions - and I am quite vocal about my love. So at present we can agree on disagreeing - but later who knows.
You free time is your to spend. If you want to stay active in this thread until a fix is issued, it’s ok. Then perhaps it’s goodbye then within weeks (who knows really). But I think it’s a shame...
You obviously care about the EE games, and this forum is a great place for modders, artist and players. Just coming here for complaints and leaving when you get your way is your choice, I just don’t get it.
An old saying about politics comes to mind:
don’t threaten about leaving, threaten them with staying. And I dare say, that the forum is worth your stay.
I say this only because I care, but I would like to point out that there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
You are here at this site to keep pressure on Beamdog for a fix? Your assumption is that they can’t afford negative press, so they will cave in eventually?
Further that you are only present in this thread because the rest of the forum Is not interesting?
I ask not out of resent, but out of curiosity. Even if I may qualify as being part of the Beamdog police (liked the metaphor, so I will keep it). I love the games, and the EE versions - and I am quite vocal about my love. So at present we can agree on disagreeing - but later who knows.
Correct, I dont particularly care about engaging in forums, except as a tool to resolve issues, its not personal, I just dont have any interest in discussing things on forums
You free time is your to spend. If you want to stay active in this thread until a fix is issued, it’s ok. Then perhaps it’s goodbye then within weeks (who knows really). But I think it’s a shame...
You obviously care about the EE games, and this forum is a great place for modders, artist and players. Just coming here for complaints and leaving when you get your way is your choice, I just don’t get it.
An old saying about politics comes to mind:
don’t threaten about leaving, threaten them with staying. And I dare say, that the forum is worth your stay.
I do care a great deal about the Infinity engine games, I could take or leave the enhanced editions, except they allow me to play on a mobile device (in theory).
Would I be a bit more engaged if earlier communication had been better handled, who knows? but now I've no interest in further engagement with Beamdog outside of resolving this issue.
Yes, Wallace, of course. For all your good sense you still can't tell the difference between telling someone how to feel and suggesting that things aren't that bad? I meant no judgement can also mean that whatever judgement YOU feel from me was not intended. You assume a lot. If I've aggrieved you so, then...
I'm sorry i suggested that you should smile. Be a miserable sot over some game. Personally I don't care, just trying to offer a little sunshine into a dark thread.
You didnt just suggest things werent that bad, to go back to the start you said "maybe your energy should be directed towards solving real life problems, which is the absolute cast iron example of the fallacy of relative privation.
Smile! If this is what you've got to complain about, your life must be pretty damn good. Otherwise, maybe your energy should be directed into solving real life problems.
The threads dark, because it covers a topic which a lot of people are annoyed about. Telling someone to smile doesnt add "sunshine". Coupled with the early suggestion that folk focus on "real world problems" its just insulting.
Uhm they used Google's feature that then violated their(Google) updated policy. Google created this monster.
Allegedly, the requirements to be GDPR complaint were all known before this, from what they've (beamdog) said, their token effort wasn't close.
Counterpoint - the token effort, which was to stop using said feature, by itself was enough to fix... except that in the process of making the token effort Beamdog discovered that they needed to completely change their workflow in order to prevent this from happening again six months from now.
Uhm they used Google's feature that then violated their(Google) updated policy. Google created this monster.
Allegedly, the requirements to be GDPR complaint were all known before this, from what they've (beamdog) said, their token effort wasn't close.
Counterpoint - the token effort, which was to stop using said feature, by itself was enough to fix... except that in the process of making the token effort Beamdog discovered that they needed to completely change their workflow in order to prevent this from happening again six months from now.
Sorry I meant their token effort of GDPR compliance was to inckude a link to the policy rather than an embedded warning rather than the simple fix.
This doesn't come close to compliance with GDPR, regardless of what googles new policy says.
GDPR isn't new and compliance isn't that hard, if they'd done it properly the first time, this wouldn't have happened.
Yes there are other problems down the line and they should be allocating resources appropriately to deal with them
Uhm they used Google's feature that then violated their(Google) updated policy. Google created this monster.
Allegedly, the requirements to be GDPR complaint were all known before this, from what they've (beamdog) said, their token effort wasn't close.
Counterpoint - the token effort, which was to stop using said feature, by itself was enough to fix... except that in the process of making the token effort Beamdog discovered that they needed to completely change their workflow in order to prevent this from happening again six months from now.
Sorry I meant their token effort of GDPR compliance was to inckude a link to the policy rather than an embedded warning rather than the simple fix.
This doesn't come close to compliance with GDPR, regardless of what googles new policy says.
GDPR isn't new and compliance isn't that hard, if they'd done it properly the first time, this wouldn't have happened.
Yes there are other problems down the line and they should be allocating resources appropriately to deal with them
It may have started as a token fix, but it ended in a not so token 64 bit rebuild. I appreciate that, and it goes to show the commitment to their games.
An btw if they hadn’t started with a token fix, this thread would have been jam packed with people fuming about Beamdog over complicating a fix. A fix should always be as simple as possible I’d reckon.
I’d know we don’t agree on this, but there is another way of seeing the same picture.
Yes, I must admit that saying to focus on real world is a bit insulting. It was not meant to sound that way, and I do apologize if you(or anyone else) were actually insulted by it. I wanted to show the contrast between games and life.
I understand why it's a dark thread, that's why I tried to offer a smile.
Come on, guys, really. Chill. Wait till it's back online and then tell others here so that if someone didn't already notice can go and download his games again.
There really isn't any more reason to bitch around.
Uhm they used Google's feature that then violated their(Google) updated policy. Google created this monster.
Allegedly, the requirements to be GDPR complaint were all known before this, from what they've (beamdog) said, their token effort wasn't close.
Counterpoint - the token effort, which was to stop using said feature, by itself was enough to fix... except that in the process of making the token effort Beamdog discovered that they needed to completely change their workflow in order to prevent this from happening again six months from now.
Sorry I meant their token effort of GDPR compliance was to inckude a link to the policy rather than an embedded warning rather than the simple fix.
This doesn't come close to compliance with GDPR, regardless of what googles new policy says.
GDPR isn't new and compliance isn't that hard, if they'd done it properly the first time, this wouldn't have happened.
Yes there are other problems down the line and they should be allocating resources appropriately to deal with them
According to what has been said, the offense wasn't even with GDPR, it was with the App Store's data collection policies policy - they were collecting telemetry data for diagnostic purposes in a way that Google now requires a discrete in-app data collection policy indicating that it's collecting that specific data. As of 2.6 they will no longer be collecting that telemetry data, meaning that it's only the GDPR that they need to be wary of.
Edit: Okay, yeah, that is technically noncompliant with the GDPR in that they weren't fully disclosing what was being collected or how it was being used, but at the time of 2.5's release the GDPR had not yet been declared by the ABA as being in force outside of the European Union, so Beamdog was not yet required to be compliant with it - Canada's not in the European Union.
Question: what all was in the 2.5 build to ensure GDPR compliance? Was there anything given how long ago 2.5 was released? And is that on all platforms or just certain ones?
Also, can I just say how silly it is that America is telling Canada that they have to follow a law passed in Europe?
If the Canadian wants to do business in the EU/UK and they are going through the American company to do the sales, it isn’t silly in the slightest.
I disagree with the “Beamdog should have seen the GDPR coming.” The game was released in November 2015, 6 months from the bill actually being discussed and it wasn’t till 2018 till was actually implemented.
I do think this now has to do more with the 2.6 delay than anything else. It 2.6 actually came out when it did on all platforms I don’t think this would have been an issue.
If the Canadian wants to do business in the EU/UK and they are going through the American company to do the sales, it isn’t silly in the slightest.
I disagree with the “Beamdog should have seen the GDPR coming.” The game was released in November 2015, 6 months from the bill actually being discussed and it wasn’t till 2018 till was actually implemented.
I do think this now has to do more with the 2.6 delay than anything else. It 2.6 actually came out when it did on all platforms I don’t think this would have been an issue.
It would be one thing if Google was telling Beamdog that they have to follow the GDPR if they want to do business in Europe.
This is American Lawyers telling the entire nation of Canada (really the rest of the world, but in this specific instance it's Canada) that an European Law is in effect globally. Regardless on if their product is available in the international market or not (which, given it applies to software, is nearly always true anyway).
Please note: I don't take issue with the GDPR itself. I agree with it. I take issue with the fact that we're not letting each nation implement their own version of it.
Please note: I don't take issue with the GDPR itself. I agree with it. I take issue with the fact that we're not letting each nation implement their own version of it.
Here I believe I can sheed some light to the confusion.
1: Each nation do indeed implement their own version of GDPR
2: In order to facilitate trade in the EU Google has established a legal trade entity in Ireland
3: This legal entity is indeed in hot water in Ireland nowdays, even with this strictness controversy. See for instance: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/irish-data-privacy-watchdog-to-probe-google-over-potential-gdpr-breach.html
4: The suggested "solution" to for google to offer region locking based eu and GDPR reliance has some major issues:
4a: Look at the strength of the anti-region lock principle in the market (think for instance the PS2 case)
4b: Wouldn't the american media and privacy advocates just have the field day of their life with google if it came out that they offered Europeans stronger privacy guarantees than Americans? (Especially amids recent facebook controversies)
In face of these facts/observations I find google's path for privacy policy policy perfectly reasonable. As the advertiserId is the core in the suspicions/allegations against google, I am actually happy to see that they are taking specific actions against it's use.
That being said there seem to be issues with the way Google has decided to enforce it. But I believe my thoughts on that should rather be a post in its own.
Some context about me: I was among those that had deleted my BG2:EE on one device, and planed on reinstalling on an different device. I have followed this thread with interest from the start. I am a Norwegian software engineer, and hence have been close to the "Real" debate about how to try to interpret GDPR. For your information, GDPR i so fuzzy that the potential grey areas are enormous (Norway also has GDPR implemented, even if not a "full" EU member).
Thank you @Enrahim, my position wasn't that the reality was silly, but that on the surface it appeared so. One nation telling other nations to follow a third nation's law. I, for one, welcome stricter protection. Privacy is an important issue, and will only become more difficult to ensure as technology advances.
If the Canadian wants to do business in the EU/UK and they are going through the American company to do the sales, it isn’t silly in the slightest.
I disagree with the “Beamdog should have seen the GDPR coming.” The game was released in November 2015, 6 months from the bill actually being discussed and it wasn’t till 2018 till was actually implemented.
I do think this now has to do more with the 2.6 delay than anything else. It 2.6 actually came out when it did on all platforms I don’t think this would have been an issue.
To be fair, GDPR was trailed for a very long time and all businesses were given a good lead in to sort there practices out if they handled personal data (and operated within Europe).
*Edit having checked, it was adopted in 2016 and enforced in 2018, so that's 2 years of leadtime.
They should have prioritised a fix for this since they were collecting personal data, if only to protect themselves.
Rather than wait till the game gets yanked because someone reports it.
The fine for misuse of personal data is up to 4% of company turnover or £20 million which evers greater.
Yes, I must admit that saying to focus on real world is a bit insulting. It was not meant to sound that way, and I do apologize if you(or anyone else) were actually insulted by it. I wanted to show the contrast between games and life.
I understand why it's a dark thread, that's why I tried to offer a smile.
That's fair I apologise for reacting with vitriol. I don't like how beamdog have handled this, but it wasn't necessary to vent on you and others.
I will keep pressure on this thread as I think it's an effective tool
Uhm they used Google's feature that then violated their(Google) updated policy. Google created this monster.
Allegedly, the requirements to be GDPR complaint were all known before this, from what they've (beamdog) said, their token effort wasn't close.
Counterpoint - the token effort, which was to stop using said feature, by itself was enough to fix... except that in the process of making the token effort Beamdog discovered that they needed to completely change their workflow in order to prevent this from happening again six months from now.
Sorry I meant their token effort of GDPR compliance was to inckude a link to the policy rather than an embedded warning rather than the simple fix.
This doesn't come close to compliance with GDPR, regardless of what googles new policy says.
GDPR isn't new and compliance isn't that hard, if they'd done it properly the first time, this wouldn't have happened.
Yes there are other problems down the line and they should be allocating resources appropriately to deal with them
According to what has been said, the offense wasn't even with GDPR, it was with the App Store's data collection policies policy - they were collecting telemetry data for diagnostic purposes in a way that Google now requires a discrete in-app data collection policy indicating that it's collecting that specific data. As of 2.6 they will no longer be collecting that telemetry data, meaning that it's only the GDPR that they need to be wary of.
Edit: Okay, yeah, that is technically noncompliant with the GDPR in that they weren't fully disclosing what was being collected or how it was being used, but at the time of 2.5's release the GDPR had not yet been declared by the ABA as being in force outside of the European Union, so Beamdog was not yet required to be compliant with it - Canada's not in the European Union.
Question: what all was in the 2.5 build to ensure GDPR compliance? Was there anything given how long ago 2.5 was released? And is that on all platforms or just certain ones?
Also, can I just say how silly it is that America is telling Canada that they have to follow a law passed in Europe?
I'm not an expert in GDPR, but I thought the requirement for compliance from the start was if you were handling the personal data of EU citizens, regardless of whether you were based in the EU or not.
I think 2.5s token effort was a link to an external website saying they were collecting data, when it really needed an embedded policy in the app (or to remove the telemetry tracking
@jimmytiel It's not one week later, 6 days at the moment. In the same article it's said: "We’re almost at the end of that road, and once we’ve verified that everything’s in good shape, we can QA it, and hopefully get it to you within the next few weeks."
@jimmytiel It's not one week later, 6 days at the moment. In the same article it's said: "We’re almost at the end of that road, and once we’ve verified that everything’s in good shape, we can QA it, and hopefully get it to you within the next few weeks."
so "post haste" now means "another month at least" i.e. the "game not available" period will probably exceed half a year.. so you quibbling about a one day rounding error looks rather silly
We're waiting for stability testing of the build right? So can Julius us a rough idea how long this has taken in past instances, so we've got a rough idea of what to expect?
It has been covered in the blog. "We’re almost at the end of that road, and once we’ve verified that everything’s in good shape, we can QA it, and hopefully get it to you within the next few weeks."
Posthaste means it's as fast as possible. It cannot be faster. We published the blog after we had got a substantial information update to share it with you.
I've learned that the vague answers are not only intentional, but necessary. When firm times are given and it doesn't work out it causes even more drama. They give updates as each hurdle is actually cleared, beyond that there's not much to say.
Yes, I suppouse we've seen enough drama conserning this issue already. A pressure that is tiring for us, must be excruciating for the dev team. B. guys gave us some necessary insight into the problem and it about time to wait patiently for a solution.
Comments
I've not made it clear I want my money back, I've made it clear I want either, the game returned or a refund.
That is something they are obligated to do and we've not had a guarantee that the game will be returned to those who paid for it, only that they will get it back on Google and ""hope" it will be returned to those who've purchased it before.
If Beamdogs position is that they cannot offer refunds in any situation, when they've signed up to a contract that says they must in certain situations, then they're opening themselves up to legal issues and all of their games being yanked.
I will complain about incompetence any way I want keeping within the forum rules.
I don't owe you anything, if this is your view of religious zealotry, you need to wake up
Let me get this straight.
You are here at this site to keep pressure on Beamdog for a fix? Your assumption is that they can’t afford negative press, so they will cave in eventually?
Further that you are only present in this thread because the rest of the forum Is not interesting?
I ask not out of resent, but out of curiosity. Even if I may qualify as being part of the Beamdog police (liked the metaphor, so I will keep it). I love the games, and the EE versions - and I am quite vocal about my love. So at present we can agree on disagreeing - but later who knows.
You free time is your to spend. If you want to stay active in this thread until a fix is issued, it’s ok. Then perhaps it’s goodbye then within weeks (who knows really). But I think it’s a shame...
You obviously care about the EE games, and this forum is a great place for modders, artist and players. Just coming here for complaints and leaving when you get your way is your choice, I just don’t get it.
An old saying about politics comes to mind:
don’t threaten about leaving, threaten them with staying. And I dare say, that the forum is worth your stay.
Correct, I dont particularly care about engaging in forums, except as a tool to resolve issues, its not personal, I just dont have any interest in discussing things on forums
I do care a great deal about the Infinity engine games, I could take or leave the enhanced editions, except they allow me to play on a mobile device (in theory).
Would I be a bit more engaged if earlier communication had been better handled, who knows? but now I've no interest in further engagement with Beamdog outside of resolving this issue.
You didnt just suggest things werent that bad, to go back to the start you said "maybe your energy should be directed towards solving real life problems, which is the absolute cast iron example of the fallacy of relative privation.
The threads dark, because it covers a topic which a lot of people are annoyed about. Telling someone to smile doesnt add "sunshine". Coupled with the early suggestion that folk focus on "real world problems" its just insulting.
Sorry I meant their token effort of GDPR compliance was to inckude a link to the policy rather than an embedded warning rather than the simple fix.
This doesn't come close to compliance with GDPR, regardless of what googles new policy says.
GDPR isn't new and compliance isn't that hard, if they'd done it properly the first time, this wouldn't have happened.
Yes there are other problems down the line and they should be allocating resources appropriately to deal with them
It may have started as a token fix, but it ended in a not so token 64 bit rebuild. I appreciate that, and it goes to show the commitment to their games.
An btw if they hadn’t started with a token fix, this thread would have been jam packed with people fuming about Beamdog over complicating a fix. A fix should always be as simple as possible I’d reckon.
I’d know we don’t agree on this, but there is another way of seeing the same picture.
I understand why it's a dark thread, that's why I tried to offer a smile.
There really isn't any more reason to bitch around.
According to what has been said, the offense wasn't even with GDPR, it was with the App Store's data collection policies policy - they were collecting telemetry data for diagnostic purposes in a way that Google now requires a discrete in-app data collection policy indicating that it's collecting that specific data. As of 2.6 they will no longer be collecting that telemetry data, meaning that it's only the GDPR that they need to be wary of.
Edit: Okay, yeah, that is technically noncompliant with the GDPR in that they weren't fully disclosing what was being collected or how it was being used, but at the time of 2.5's release the GDPR had not yet been declared by the ABA as being in force outside of the European Union, so Beamdog was not yet required to be compliant with it - Canada's not in the European Union.
Question: what all was in the 2.5 build to ensure GDPR compliance? Was there anything given how long ago 2.5 was released? And is that on all platforms or just certain ones?
Also, can I just say how silly it is that America is telling Canada that they have to follow a law passed in Europe?
I disagree with the “Beamdog should have seen the GDPR coming.” The game was released in November 2015, 6 months from the bill actually being discussed and it wasn’t till 2018 till was actually implemented.
I do think this now has to do more with the 2.6 delay than anything else. It 2.6 actually came out when it did on all platforms I don’t think this would have been an issue.
It would be one thing if Google was telling Beamdog that they have to follow the GDPR if they want to do business in Europe.
This is American Lawyers telling the entire nation of Canada (really the rest of the world, but in this specific instance it's Canada) that an European Law is in effect globally. Regardless on if their product is available in the international market or not (which, given it applies to software, is nearly always true anyway).
Please note: I don't take issue with the GDPR itself. I agree with it. I take issue with the fact that we're not letting each nation implement their own version of it.
Here I believe I can sheed some light to the confusion.
1: Each nation do indeed implement their own version of GDPR
2: In order to facilitate trade in the EU Google has established a legal trade entity in Ireland
3: This legal entity is indeed in hot water in Ireland nowdays, even with this strictness controversy. See for instance: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/irish-data-privacy-watchdog-to-probe-google-over-potential-gdpr-breach.html
4: The suggested "solution" to for google to offer region locking based eu and GDPR reliance has some major issues:
4a: Look at the strength of the anti-region lock principle in the market (think for instance the PS2 case)
4b: Wouldn't the american media and privacy advocates just have the field day of their life with google if it came out that they offered Europeans stronger privacy guarantees than Americans? (Especially amids recent facebook controversies)
In face of these facts/observations I find google's path for privacy policy policy perfectly reasonable. As the advertiserId is the core in the suspicions/allegations against google, I am actually happy to see that they are taking specific actions against it's use.
That being said there seem to be issues with the way Google has decided to enforce it. But I believe my thoughts on that should rather be a post in its own.
Some context about me: I was among those that had deleted my BG2:EE on one device, and planed on reinstalling on an different device. I have followed this thread with interest from the start. I am a Norwegian software engineer, and hence have been close to the "Real" debate about how to try to interpret GDPR. For your information, GDPR i so fuzzy that the potential grey areas are enormous (Norway also has GDPR implemented, even if not a "full" EU member).
To be fair, GDPR was trailed for a very long time and all businesses were given a good lead in to sort there practices out if they handled personal data (and operated within Europe).
*Edit having checked, it was adopted in 2016 and enforced in 2018, so that's 2 years of leadtime.
They should have prioritised a fix for this since they were collecting personal data, if only to protect themselves.
Rather than wait till the game gets yanked because someone reports it.
The fine for misuse of personal data is up to 4% of company turnover or £20 million which evers greater.
That's fair I apologise for reacting with vitriol. I don't like how beamdog have handled this, but it wasn't necessary to vent on you and others.
I will keep pressure on this thread as I think it's an effective tool
I'm not an expert in GDPR, but I thought the requirement for compliance from the start was if you were handling the personal data of EU citizens, regardless of whether you were based in the EU or not.
I think 2.5s token effort was a link to an external website saying they were collecting data, when it really needed an embedded policy in the app (or to remove the telemetry tracking
so "post haste" now means "another month at least" i.e. the "game not available" period will probably exceed half a year.. so you quibbling about a one day rounding error looks rather silly
and post-haste is still a meaningless promise
the six months elapsed of NO GAME fast approaches
We're waiting for stability testing of the build right? So can Julius us a rough idea how long this has taken in past instances, so we've got a rough idea of what to expect?
Posthaste means it's as fast as possible. It cannot be faster. We published the blog after we had got a substantial information update to share it with you.