I think that is the primary problem with even discussing what DRM free or DRM is, everyone has a different interpretation of what it should be and it's that disconnect that makes having a reasonable discussion impossible as it normally just boils down to placing people in the wrong camp just because there definition of DRM free doesn't meet another persons definition of DRM free.

This is a serious problem as earlier in the thread people couldn't even agree on the definition of what a Boycott is, frankly this is the main reason I hate trying to have a serious discussion in pure text only, things can easily get misinterpreted or read completely wrong.

For me it comes down to intention, which usually isn't too hard to suss out. I can live with DRM if it isn't intrusive, but at this point there aren't that many games that are worth getting, with or without DRM.

That's the point. GOG is by now officially OK with anything publishers want to put in their games. Only if a big outcry happens, they reconsider. Before the massive push-back from the community, GOG was totally OK with the DRM in Hitman, for example.

Ponczo even officially stated that GOG believes that developers/publishers should be allowed to protect their games however they want, as long as that doesn't affect the game in a major way. Whatever 'major' means. Locking an entire DLC behind DRM apparently isn't major enough.

I won't, but truth be told: This ragequit is one of the funniest things that happened on this forum for quite some time.

I agree with ponczo. The difference is I don't think such games should be on a service that advertises itself as DRM free. Publishers and developers can use any means of protection they choose. But here it should be none.

Exactly. GOG advertising itself as DRM-free is nowadays false advertisement.

I have to say, while I admire the spirit of this thread, and stopped by just to scan it, I find the list posted on the original post deeply misguided. I'm not trying to attack the poster, but I feel that the OP should take what I have to say into account. (Though any final decision, as always, is yours, and I don't mean to press you into agreeing with me, just providing an opinion.)


"Requiring an online connection for some features" is wildly different from DRM, and should not be constituted as such. By that logic any game with online multiplayer, especially games that are primarily online (ala Quake 3) would have no place here. This also applies to GWENT, which is a first party game (which makes sense would be released on their own store) and would be unplayable offline due simply to being a competitive multiplayer game. (obviously the game has a single player mode, but you can play that mode with your internet off, and it's not the point of the game anyway.)
I want to make a distinction between that and "Age of Wonders" scenario where the game has explicitly locked players out of the single player experience across the board, reducing it to a demo without network.

Additionally, I would like to take issue (respectfully) with the idea of "Non-cosmetic DLC" being acceptable. Conversely, I find cosmetic DLC to be the most hideous abuse of user trust. Refer back to the "Horse Armor" situation. While I would prefer GOG to not sell games that don't have all DLC prepackaged (Dead Space 3 comes to mind, and GOG fortunately does not,) if I'm paying for extra content, then it should never be cosmetic. At all. I find that point to be inverted on the actual issue.

That said, on the flip side, I want to point out that I'm not solely opposed to you either. The registration of Cyberpunk to a galaxy account I understand is incentivization to keep that platform up, and they have a right to do it, but I agree it falls into the grey area when it comes to their presentation. I have to admit, I don't know the right way to resolve that one, because, like the Gwent issue, it's their first party property, but in this case it's a single player game.

I would like to see them take a public crackdown specifically on things like EAC and Denuvo, and I think that would be a good mark as long as they act to back it up. Fixing games, like the FEAR situation, is clearly a developer failure, and there's an argument the game shouldn't be sold in its current form due to being broken, but you'd have to take it up with FEAR fans to see which they'd prefer, as many still don't want to buy from steam.

If you do take the time to read this, I appreciate it, but I don't want you to feel obligated to take any action, especially as I won't be signing the petition anyway, as this issue is not my primary reason for supporting this company, and wouldn't want to see them falter against giants like Steam just because of a bugbear. (to me. And I admit, it bothers me as well, it's just not the most important issue.) But I do feel some of these points need to be addressed for your objective to be considered honest, and either way I wish you luck!

you are barking up the wrong tree here. DRM has stopped meaning Digital Rights Managment years ago, but have now become analogous with "things in gaming I do not like".

personally I now just assume that DRM had a rebranding in the same way that gOg no longer mean "Good Old Games". so I just take it as a single word now instead of an abbreviation, and the meaning as a catch-all term.

Which is why I've always laughed at the idea that a corporation has "core values" other than maximizing profit. Pretending you do is a great way to build brand loyalty, but at some point the ruse runs out of gas and becomes counterproductive. I'd say GOG has reached that point, and then some.

Please don't tell me you mean that I have to use Galaxy in order to run Cyberpunk 2077?

I've had the game since release but have not touched it yet, as I have recently taken a break from serious gaming (And had no desire to play it at first anyway, given the state in which it released). I hope I am misunderstanding this.

That depends on what you mean by "to run."

If by "to run" you mean "to run the game with missing content," then you can indeed run the game with missing content without using Galaxy.

On the other hand, if by "to run" you mean "to run the game with 100% of its content included," then no, you cannot do that without using Galaxy.

You have a bunch of t-shirts and one weapon that needs to be claimed using Galaxy.

It seems that GOG is intent on trying to stretch the meaning of 'DRM-free' as far as they can get away with, which is not in the spirit of what this store was originally built to be. It's also obvious from the Hitman debacle that they are not interested in listening to their customers and will only take action on a scandal, if it gets into the mainstream gaming media.

Sure, developers should be free to design their games how they choose. But they shouldn't necessarily be free to sell them on here, on a store that markets itself as 'DRM-free'.

Regarding the ambiguity over the definition of DRM, again that one is another mess of GOG's own making. The onus is surely on them, as a 'DRM-free store', to clearly define what they mean by 'DRM'. Otherwise, it up to each person to decide where they draw the line.

Hi, thanks for your post and I appreciate you taking the time to make your points. I'm happy to read it and respond with my thoughts.

Personally, I disagree. However, we should note that there is no universally-accepted definition of 'DRM', so people's opinions may differ. If a game (single- or multiplayer) is reliant on a connection to an external server for a portion of the content, then that has the exact same impact on ownership and preservation as DRM. And, to me, the impact is what matters. I think the semantics of what we call it are less important than what it is, which is anti-consumer and anti-preservation.

In my opinion, a game that requires an external server connection for multiplayer doesn't belong here, because that is not preservable. However, GOG seem to have decided some time ago that DRM-ed multiplayer doesn't count (which I find misguided).

Yes, it applies to GWENT, which is why it has it's own place on the list. It being a CDPR game does not excuse it's presence on GOG in the slightest. If CDPR had any real convictions about their DRM-free principles, they would not have made GWENT in the first place (or at least, they wouldn't be pushing it on GOG).

I'm not 100% sure which comment you are referring to here and I respect that you don't like cosmetic DLC. I don't like it either and wouldn't buy it myself. However, by itself, cosmetic DLC is not DRM, since it can be in the form of a downloadable offline installer patch, which could be installed/backed up without needing an internet connection.

I don't see why games being first-party CDPR properties should make any difference, or come with a license for CDPR to break their own rules. Again, if they had any conviction over their supposed DRM-free values, CDPR would not be designing their games in that way in the first place.

I disagree that GOG's slipping commitments to DRM-free should be brushed off as a 'bugbear'. DRM-free is the critical principle that stands at the core of why this store exists and has any relevance at all. There has been a clear pattern of behavior over several years now, that GOG does not respect their core customers or their DRM-free roots. That is unacceptable and I will be buying no further games here unless things change.

Content is content. Why should we give GOG a free pass at the thin end of the wedge? Just to watch them push the wedge in further?

Due to the nature of the internet I didn't expect a respectful response, and appreciate yours. I still do respectfully disagree with your positions on alot of these things, especially on interpretation, but given (again) that I was never likely to join the campaign, I just want to heartily commend and thank you for giving my post the time of day. I wish you good luck on your quest, at least to tone things back to my personal taste, even if I hope Gwent never goes away. And given what happened in the Hitman debacle and the new leadership, I think you're likely to continue your string of wins! So take heart.

Have a wonderful year!