Imo, to say Gwent is not 'sold here' is rather disingenuous. Yes, the base game is free to download, but clearly the whole point of the game is to make money through microtransactions, which is a much less consumer-friendly business model than an upfront charge. Because that model entices players to spend more than they would have otherwise and makes it difficult for players to plan their spending (why do you think MTX has been so successful and popular with AAA corporations?). So, they are advertising and selling microtransactions in the game. Clearly, the game is bringing in money for CDPR, or it wouldn't be here.

Gwent is a DRM- and MTX-ridden piece of trashware and doesn't belong on GOG.com.

Agreed. The release of Gwent here marked a sharp turn for the worse. It is the kind of anti-consumer ware that GOG used to scoff at. Until they released it themselves.

Is GTA Online, the totally free bonus included with GTA V, out of the goodness of their hearts, honest, also "not sold"? It is clear to me that at the very least these games are not designed for people to play without eventually paying SOMETHING. Cyberpunk multiplayer which will "naturally" have microtransactions is an upcoming example. But ultimately I feel this is quibbling over definitions and missing the forest for the trees, so I don't want to debate this very much. For me, GWENT and any other F2P game which requires connection does not belong on the DRM-free store. Move them to CDPR's page, or move them to the brand new optional app on GOG Galaxy 2.0 that sells DRM, or even make a brand new "FCKDRMFREE" page and put them there, just don't put them here, because they don't belong here, and, worse, those of us who take a harder line have to listen to endless rationalizations about why it's not reaaaally DRM.

This might just be the lowest point of any DRM white knighting I've seen here yet. I guess the new definition of "DRM free" is "DRM for free!"

If something is "totally free" it is kind of by definition "not sold" isn't it ? regardless if it's by goodness of heart or for purely cynical reasons.

I agree but here CDPR already had a whole infrastructure ready with Gog and Galaxy, i.e. online support, account management, billing, etc... they were not going to duplicate everything just for Gwent.
Dude learn to read, I never said anything about whenever Gwent was DRM or not (personally I consider it is even if, if you want to be perfectly correct, it could be argued that it is not) but whenever if was sold here or not.

Which, if it doesn't serve as a loophole for DRM, is totally irrelevant hairsplitting. So I have no idea what you're on about and why.

The microtransactions built into the game clearly are sold here. So, your comment about the game not being sold here is at best a technicality. 'Free to play' is nothing more than convenient corporate marketing jargon. As I said, the game is clearly making money for CDPR, therefore it can be argued it is not actually 'free to play'. As in, the average amount of money that each player spends on the game is >$0.

They could have sold it on mobile stores, Steam ... there was no need for them to put it on GOG and damage its DRM-free credibility.

Well, apparently they don't really about their credibility anymore. Otherwise, they wouldn't have chosen such a transparent lie as 'many messages from gamers'. And they wouldn't have put DRM on a DLC of their own flagship game.

And pay 30% (or whatever) on each transaction to do it on Steam even though they have their own infra that they can use for free.... yes definitely sounds like a great idea.

And exactly what damage exactly ? it was released nearly five years and even on the forum barely anybody cared one way or another. Especially after the released the SP part DRM-free.

They don't care about it, because there is no space to put 'credibility' on an accounting balance sheet. Therefore, from a corporation's perspective, it doesn't exist.

If you are going to build a game store based on championing certain principles, do you not think customers would be somewhat justified in expecting you to uphold those principles? Screw pragmatism, screw CDPR's profit margins. If they are going to make a game that totally goes against their stated values then yes, imo they should take a financial hit and sell it somewhere else.

I don't care about CDPR's profit margins or their convenience. I care about holding them to the principles of DRM-free that they have been promising their customers ever since GOG was founded.

You don't think it is damaging to their credibility to make and release a DRMed game with MTX onto a store that supposedly prides itself on being '100% DRM-free'. Sorry Gersen, but given the self-brainwashed alternate bubble reality you seem to be living in, I'm not sure it's worth debating this with you any further ...

There was already games with DRM on multiplayer years before Gwent, so if you include MP in "100% DRM-free" it was already no longer the case for quite some time. Also after nearly five years since its release exactly what kind "damage" did you notice ? How many articles complaining about it or even mentioning it ? Any huge dip in Gog popularity / profitability happening since 2016 ? anything at all ?

Do you expect any huge dip in GOG popularity if they release a 100% DRMed single-player game on GOG? I don't.

Did anyone see a huge dip in popularity when Humble Bundle moved from DRM-free to Steam keys? I don't think so.

There will be a brief outcry on the forum, but I believe the net result will be a rise in popularity and a rise in profits.

There was quite a lot of "reactions" when HB switched from DRM-free bundles to Steam keys, heck there even was quite a lot with their first non DRM-free bundle before that, it didn't last too long, but it was there.

So yes I expect some sort "reaction" if Gog ever switch to DRM, whenever it will be huge, kill them or be forgotten two weeks later I don't know but I don't expect things to go stealthy at least.

Was 'DRM-free' ever about popularity? Convenience? Corporate pragmatism? No. It was about ethical principles, for those that care about those principles. That's it. All these other factors that you repeatedly cite in your apologies of DRM are simply irrelevant to me.

Besides, if you have a store that you market as being '100% DRM-free' and then you compromise on that and start tolerating DRM, that is going to damage your credibility. That is based on simple logic and I can see that for myself. I don't need someone else to write an article to confirm that for me.