You know, I can understand why some people don't consider locked cosmetics to be 'DRM'. I personally think they are, but there is at least some logic to the argument: "if it is just cosmetic content, then it doesn't materially affect the game, so why should I care?"

Two points though:

First, even if not DRM, providing cosmetic bonuses for pre-ordering is still anti-consumer and something the gaming community should be pushing back against anyway. So, the argument as to whether or not it is DRM is a bit pedantic.

Secondly, it strikes me as a bit of a red herring/straw man, because there are several games on the single-player DRM list that have more substantial content locked than just cosmetic. Those are absolutely DRMed games on GOG.com, which need to be fixed or removed. I haven't seen any persuasive arguments as to why those are not DRM (Absolver, Dying Light). So, I feel in a way that focusing the debate on the 'cosmetic' stuff is distracting from the more serious offenders and the fact that GOG is listing DRMed games.

I think it's really simple. Locked cosmetics are not DRM. As in, the rest of the game is not DRM-ed because of them. But they are DRM-ed. There can be no arguing that it is a case of DRM, it's just not the "game proper" that's DRMed. If we weren't talking about games sold by a store with a supposedly "100% DRM free" policy officialy still in place such DRMed content would not be worth mentioning perhaps, but as we are - it is.

Right. So, what I'm saying is that it seems the question of cosmetic content is the most subjective, because it depends on interpretation and everyone has a different interpretation of what should be considered 'DRM'. For some, 'DRM' means that the 'whole game' is DRMed or rendered unplayable, or that it only applies to substantial game content.

This is why I am saying that for those who are getting hung up on the cosmetics issue, it is a distraction. Because, even if we were to all agree that locked cosmetics are not DRM, that doesn't change the fact that some of the offending examples have more substantial content locked, which is unarguably DRM. This is the thing - for the cosmetics, there is a valid debate. But for the others, there simply isn't.

I don't think you understood me. There isn't anything valid to debate about the cosmetics. They are DRM-ed. People get confused about the issue, because it's such negligible content that the fact it's DRM-ed is hardly even an inconvenience, but there is no rational way to argue that it's not DRM-ed content. And as long as GOG maintains that it's "100% DRM-free" there should be no games with any DRM-ed content here at all. So, again - there is no valid debate to be had here. It's just a matter a clearly laying things out.

-game "proper" - not DRM-ed
-optional, unimportant content - DRM-ed
- the "whole package" - tests postive for DRM, should not be on GOG.

People can still buy and play the game and consider it "functionally" DRM-free as far as they are concerned if they don't care about the cosmetics, but it still violates GOG's suppsed policy. There is no rational way of putting things in such a way that it wouldn't.

To burn it?

Yet you seem to only do so in threads critical of GOG and their actions/decisions, and not ones that overly praise GOG on such...why is that, then?

So just a catch-up. Still not brought anything since nov2020. Some realisations which have happened over this time:
Ownership is dead. It was a nice idea but it’s gone. Everything is rental now, film, music, telly, even money is just numbers on a computer. Therefore I no longer bother with drm free or try to keep everything. It’s quite a freeing feeling just being able to delete things. My tracker has gone from 20k games down to 5-6k rows.

Nothing is really as bad as you think up front. After suffering cyberpunk it has made me reassess what is actually “bad”, and this has meant I can go back to games I previously didn’t enjoy with a new low bar in place. Doom eternal for instance, battlefield (some of the single player campaigns are ok), and most recently call of duty (just played ww2).

I can highly recommend to look back over what games you have or games you might have ignored and reassess them. Just think, it can’t be as bad as cyberpunk can it?

Fair enough, though I just want to point out that....from my experience.....people who use words like crybabies and circlejerk(like in the post of theirs that I just replied to a few posts above/back ITT) to describe those they're talking about/to are seemingly more often than not not posting with the best of intentions.

To me, I see the preorder stuff(if just cosmetic, the cosmetic stuff) as akin to various "silly" perks irl stores give(like a free coffee) to generate business or get new customers, and if it isn't story content then I don't mind/am okay with such(of course others are free to view it differently).

I'm guessing some might not be aware of them, or they might also not see it as substantial enough to be upset over.

I agree they should be fixed....if they can be, that is....but if not i'd personally rather see some of them kept** so people can buy/play them rather than having them removed.

(**with also gog doing better to not allow such things onto the store again from now on, of course)

-
-
-

I think wolf sort of makes an interesting point, in a way: GOG/etc are starting to get some people to care about content like skins/other cosmetics they otherwise wouldn't have cared much for...if at all.

-
-
-

Eh, this is a bit of a stretch....ownership still exists, and there is still hope for some things.

That said:

I am glad to see you seem to be enjoying some games(and maybe other things?) a bit more. :)

Because these critical threads are the only ones active or regularly made. Show me a thread that tries do go up GOG's ass and I will point out there fanboyism.

Seriously, I can't find any thread on the forum that would be like "GOG is the awesomeness!!!", that isn't like 5 years old.

There have recently been a few small ones every now and then, actually.
(I forget the thread titles atm[poor memory in general], but if I see them or any new ones pop up I will link them)

That said, imo there is almost no reason to poke fun** at the people who are actually civilly(if a bit "passionately" at times) expressing the things they dislike re: GOG.

(**I mean by using words like crybaby and circlejerk)

I'm all for a civil discussion, but like I said before, this thread devolved into a shitposting thread where you could feel the tin foil had energy. Constant verbal abuse at the GOG staff and showing that allot of users here have this glorified idea on how to run a business, not realising how one bad step can end you in a legal clusterfuck.

I might have used words like circklejerk and crybaby, but the freedom fighters over here would call the GOG staff CCP dick suckers and how the like to take it up the ass from Comrade Winny the Pooh.

Can you please back this up by showing some examples of where people in this thread have been verbally abusive towards GOG staff? Imo, this thread has been quite civil and objective. If I had seen anyone being verbally abusive, then I would have requested they stop. And I have read almost all of the posts in this long thread.

I think the problem is that there is no universally-agreed definition of what 'DRM' is, which is where the ambiguity arises. If you use the definition that DRM is "any content that is locked behind a remote connection" (which I personally agree with), then your interpretation above is consistent with that and a game with locked cosmetics is DRMed.

However, some others seem to be using a different definition that DRM is "something that means you can't play the game". So, they would disagree with your interpretation based on that: that locked cosmetic content is not DRM, because it doesn't stop you 'playing the game; therefore, a game that has only locked cosmetic content is not DRMed.

So, this is why I am saying the cosmetic stuff is a bit more contentious, because it depends on each person's working definition of DRM. I think someone that uses that second definition I gave above does have an arguable case that it is not DRM, based on that alternative definition. I don't agree with them, but I think their argument is at least logically consistent with that definition.

Not many discussing this thread's topics have been "verbally abusive".....maybe a scant few posters....the rest have been very civil.

That said: Is it right/helpful to do the same in kind? Or to seemingly** label the entire thread as such types?

(**let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say you didn't mean everyone posting here....it still came off as such)

As for GOG's business decisions: some feel that morals should come before making a few extra bucks. If people wanna say such civilly, why should it bother anyone?

-

(edit) Whether such posting is good/proper or not aside, I can see why some used such language: they feel GOG has betrayed it's principles and them in various ways, and sided with a very nasty regime to make a few extra bucks.