That's because many of the raters are "big fans" of GOG who seem to think GOG can do no wrong. :\


=-=-=-=

Well, at least we still have zoom-platform and other sites.

I would love a couple of settings in my Account Setup:

1. One setting to filter out/block any game with any kind of DRM so that I can't even see it when shopping
2. A setting that flags if I'm looking at a game with DRM, maybe with a pop up, or some highlight at the top (easily visible) of the game's product page - something that I can see without fail to ensure that I understand the game I'm looking at has some kind of DRM built into it.

I exclusively purchase new titles on GoG now, and for me to continue this trend, I have to know for certain that what I'm buying here has no DRM. I used to never pay more than $5 for any digital game, and now via GoG, to support the No-DRM storefront, I've been buying games well beyond my original threshold for digital titles, up to full retail price.

I'd like to keep supporting this for the future.

Thanks for your committment to these values and principles listed above in the OP

So basically GOG is at the "as long as there's something on the disc that runs offline it's all good" stage just like console.
How great, I'm so tired of having more parts of games locked behind all sorts of online DRM to make sure they'll be permanently lost one day or simply the fact that even rn i have to waste a bunch of time looking at stupid charts to decide which edition I want or which time limited content I missed. The way they just basically admit how multiplayer modes as a whole is completely fine to be DRMed is really disgusting.
Just ban all DRM of all forms. GOG is the last hope for having games preserved and they're working real hard on making sure that doesn't happen.

I think it's a pessimistic view to say that all devs will become drm-pushers (with the full-drm argument).

I think AAA titles will increasingly go down the drain (might be a couple of exceptions, but I think most of them will be drm-fests even here within a couple of years). I'll confess I have little faith that large investor-driven corporations will forgo potential sources of profits to do the honorable thing.

Indie titles will be a toss, but I think many of them have their hearts in the right place and will do right by their customers.

But yes, I think GOG's position as a drm-free gatekeeper is gradually coming to an end (I think games like Absolver and Hitman have shown that they can get away with the drm-free portion of the game being greatly watered down to the point of near-meaninglessness... these games are the future of all AAA games here I believe), a process which I believe has started some time ago btw, not because GOG themselves are pushing for more drm, but because many game devs are (especially the large ones) and GOG wants a piece of that action.

At this point, I mainly hope that my drm-free workflow will remain enabled for the games that support it and the the drm integration in the games that have them will be transparent enough that I'll be able to purchase drm-free games in an enlightened manner.

The post seems to indicate that this will be the case and if that is so, I'll still be able to purchase most indie/retro releases and the occasional AAA release that happens to be drm-free.

And should that promise fall through, well, then I guess I'll fallback to simply enjoying my backlog and save some money.

oh, for sure. but i think that's probably the likely long-term end-game for gog.

if not "all games drm'd," then "a lot of the games will slowly have drm."

edited in later: [and to get there, it's pretty simple for most developers. they just have to make a "nominal multiplayer" section to their game. could be as simple as just including "click this button to be on a server with other people playing the game in single player!" and that way, they can qualify that they "need drm" for their game.]

absolutely. for me, personally, this post just buries their "last pillar." it's official now because it's basically in writing.

yup. this is increasingly becoming my position.

i have a LOT of games that are on my backlog. i'll just play those.

While it is good to see GOG discussing its policy, these three commitments have not been met.

The first (" single-player mode has to be accessible offline") has been watered down by GOG's decision (starting with Cyberfunk) to treat so-called "cosmetics" differently. SmollestLight's confirmation of this policy drives a coach-and-horses through this commitment, since who decides what is cosmetic or not? Clearly not the customers, whose view should matter most!

The second has been breached by GOG adding content that breaks compatibility with older OSes (the Galaxy.dll Saga) plus recent changes to the GOG Account page making it non-functional on older browsers.

Whilst these cases have affected WinXP users, there's nothing to prevent similar actions hitting Win7/8/10 users in future (indeed, Win7 users are now locked out from Galaxy 2.0). Though cautious users can protect themselves somewhat by keeping backup copies of older, working versions this does not help in the situation of DLC where a later DLC purchase won't install with an older game version.

The third is linked to the first, due to GOG's change of policy in regarding "gating" of offline content behind Galaxy as being acceptable (in effect, making Galaxy compulsory for a "complete" offline experience).

This topic could have been an opportunity for GOG to try to reset its relationship and re-commit to its core values. But without action to correct the issues I and others here have pointed out, its nothing more than a whitewash exercise. It was GOG's weaseling around its core values that prompted I and others to boycott GOG, and I see nothing there to merit a change in that policy. A shame really.
Priceless... :)
And I've just read this thread and found people making civil discussion and relevant criticism. Clearly there are issues that seem over your head, but if you're willing to make up accusations of trolling and harassment, then this community will surely benefit from your absence.

Cheerio, and don't let the door hit you in the back on your way out...
Thanks for the attempted clarification - but wasn't the point of GOG that you could purchase games without having to check for DRM surprises? What you are proposing is really no better than the days of CD/DVD games, where prospective customers had to check whether any intrusive protection software (e.g. SafeDisc, SecuROM, StarForce) was present.
So now you say that it is developers who decide what content gets restricted. How sure can you be that their definition of "cosmetic" will always tie in with yours? Or for that matter, with each other? What you are suggesting is in effect a "DRM multiverse" with each game coming with its own Orwellian version of double-speak to justify a requirement for an online login.
The only thing I can understand from this statement is that you appear to consider "DRM-free" to be an impediment, to be buried as silently and swiftly as possible. GOG is unlikely to survive against other major game stores without a Unique Selling Point and your policy statement seems to indicate intent to dilute it to the point of invisibility.

Just a remark: your current stance "the developer decides what parts of the game they put DRM on" is the opposite of you deciding what constitutes DRM and what not. That's very different from the commitment that you used to have long ago. You used to style yourself as fighting against DRM. This has changed to finding excuses for DRM. Even your own parent company puts DRM on your flagship game.

As a reminder what level of single player DRM GOG is currently ok with, here's the list:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singleplayer_games_with_drm/page1

No, it's way worse. Because now what people been opposing all those years is now declared officially. And it's no longer a DRM-Free store. Also many of those descriptions don't have all the information. And I'm sure they will be abused to hide information in the future. Like everything else being abused on GOG under disguise of mistakes and incompetence. That's just GOG's style of corruption.

Yes. GOG has transitioned officially to a DRM-agnostic store. Which is an acceptable business model too. I do buy DRM-free games on itch.io for example. But GOG pretends to commit to DRM free, while at the same time stating, that it's up to the publishers, what DRM free means. This kind of duplicity doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their labelling. Like you, I expect that GOG and the publishers will keep lying, when labelling what kind of DRM has. But we'll see.

This is a big problem. Because whole purpose behind GOG was to have buying power to convince publishers release games DRM-Free, if they want to sell to GOG's customers. Now it's no longer a thing. Contrary, Galaxy DRM serves as an incentive for publishers to create online DRM of a kind you see in Hitman(2016).

And the only reason why GOG removes their DRM-Free stance, is because managers believe they can make more money by mistreating customers.

I would highlight a word of caution for those who rely on offline installers. They can add or remove anything from them. Wizardry 8 had some content removed and doesn’t work for some people. Titan quest has been linked to galaxy.dll amongst others. If you have any installers from pre the “rename and version” process, which is where galaxy features started getting added in, I would keep these n addition to any new ones As there is virtually no change logs, and no way to download older versions. This standpoint simply means I cannot even trust the offline installers.

Of course. They want to become big like Steam and think they will accomplish this by copying Steam. ... Totally ignoring that they are giving up the edge that made them successful in the first place. By leaving their niche, GOG risks to become irrelevant.

Why is preservation binary? Why is it all or nothing?
I am quite ok if I could preserve the game with working single player component with broken multiplayer and no cosmetics.

If you have a car from 1950s, you changed the tires, break lines, leather seats,.. This car has some 20% of components that are basically fake. Some of the features that no longer work since it would be too expensive to replicate, but it still runs.

Did we preserve it or not?

I will say I respectfully disagree with your comments along these lines thusfar. Here is why I can't share your positivity on this: because I refuse to "settle." To me, it is not good news that pages will, supposedly, state in transparent fashion what DRM or DRM-like scheme a game has. Actual good news worthy of excitement would be fixing/removing every DRMed game on the store. There is a saying about how change begins with oneself, so I encourage GOG to begin such campaign by fixing the DRMed My Rewards in Cyberpunk (which as shown in this topic, they refuse to do), unbundling GWENT/its bonuses with Thronebreaker, and removing GWENT from this storefront permanently. As for the offline installers, we know they are not properly maintained compared to precious optional Galaxy, so to put that on storepages is redundant information if you ask me.

Edit: ..and remove the Cyberpunk Interactive Online map permanently. You know, it's not a good sign of a store's commitment to DRM-free when I think of additional examples of DRM with "their own" content and have to put addendums to my comment. By the way, how does the online-only map fit even the disappointing criteria of the Outrageous Post? I thought I saw someone else ask this too, with no response yet.