that'd be that link I mentioned a few posts back?

Being in Beta may not be for everyone, please consult your local financial institution for more details..

Whoops, I wasn't paying attention. :(

GOG feels like a Final Product already...
*scratches my head*

Ah, but betas are fashionable now; Gmail has been in a permanent beta phase for several years now. It's also an easy way out of problems that arise during the initial growth period.
I suspect GOG will have a lot more functionality than it currently does before coming out of beta, possibly including support for other languages (the interface image indicates that German, French and Polish will be added at some point) and no doubt some additions to the forum system as well.

GOG Beta turned out much better than Steam Version 1.0

But of course. Steam Version 1 was ugly as hell, had sharp corners, storefront was janky, and CD registration was bollocks.

i was just about to start the very same topic. Good to hear there's more to expect before the beta ends!!

Nah. This was the prevailing attitude among tech people a couple of years ago, but now most have accepted it. "Web 2.0" basically means a dynamic site with a heavy focus on community interaction throughout, not just segregated to a particular section, like a forum. It also implies a certain look and feel (gradients, reflections, stripes, big buttons, big fonts) and behavior (reliance on JavaScript or Flash fast content loading, light boxes, and so on).
GOG.com meets those requirements (games have star ratings, reviews, feedback about the reviews, etc.).

A well-done (web 2.0 or otherwise) site should also work (at least essential functions) without Javascript or plugins being enabled on the client.

Yes.

So, like I said. The net you've cast is so large it basically just covers the the slow, gradual evolution of web design that's occurred over the past decade. When you take a simple gradual evolution like this, then try to treat the (current) end result as some remarkable and distinct shift from what's previously been done with a single label that's tossed all about.... well, that puts you squarely in buzzword territory. "Web 2.0" is a buzzword; the fact that some people have put themselves through mental contortions to try to find a definition for it that encompasses many current trends in web design doesn't make it any less of a meaningless buzzword.

There is a marked difference between websites of today and websites of a decade ago, not only in terms of technology and design but also audience interaction (e.g., read/write versus read-only). It is simply a way of acknowledging that change.
I don't understand why that's so objectionable to some people. I imagine they are the same people who objected to the term "Ajax", which of course is now pervasive (like "Web 2.0"). Just because something is a buzzword doesn't mean it's meaningless--"Java" was a buzzword for years in management circles back in the '90s.

I think what he means is that since the change has been so gradual over the past 10 years, calling it "Web 2.0" all of a sudden is meaningless. If what we have now is "Web 2.0" and what we had 10 years ago was "Web 1.0", then what did we have last year? "Web 1.9"? The term "Web 2.0" makes it sound like a brand new technology that popped up overnight. This is not the case. It's simply a little more advanced than what we had last year, and that was a little more advanced than what we had the year before that. And I don't think people will start talking about Web 2.1 next year either. So yeah, it's a buzzword. It may be a commonly accepted term, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

While there certainly is a difference between many professional websites today and those of 10-15 years ago, the change has been of such a gradual and piecemeal nature that there is simply nothing specific or distinct for any term attempting to describe the change to capture. "Web 2.0" is basically just taking a snapshot of the current state of web development, then pretending that ti's something that actually needs its own special title. It's pointless and silly.
It's not that it's objectionable, it's simply pointless. The purpose of language is to communicate concepts, so if a term has no clear concept behind it there's little point to even having it around. Buzzwords go a step further, as their purpose is to use this lack of a concept behind them to create excitement without actually having to put forth what people should be excited about. This is all fine if this kind of deception is one's goal, but when people then start throwing around the buzzword as if it actually means something then it just gets rather pathetic. As for your last little bit of mental contortions, while Ajax and Java can be buzzwords in the context of marketing/PHB types using them while having no idea what they actually describe, they also describe fairly specific concepts (although Ajax comes close to being an edge case). So while a term can be both a buzzword and a legitimate description of something depending on context, this is not the case with "Web 2.0" as there still is no clear concept behind it.
This is getting a bit dull and pointless, though (and I say that as someone who can be incredibly pedantic), so there's a good chance I won't be responding further unless something particularly novel or interesting is put forth.