The post I linked *did* correct the OP's source, showing that there is confirmation of *monetization*, not micropayments. So it would seem that you don't understand that monetization and micropayments are not the same thing. Nor do you understand the difference between an assertion and a promise.

What I fail to understand is why you'd argue against an assertion that was shown to be true before it was made. lol

It is a post from someone else, not a tool and certainly not your doing. Correct me if any of these statements are wrong, please. But PLEASE, make sense this time.

I am doing this because until 2 years ago GOG was the only community that I could discuss things freely with intellectual people. But lately, more and more people like you came here to do "trolling" which I believe is called on internet slang. GOG forums became just another place where people insult others and criticize things they do not do themselves. They tell others what they SHOULD do while they do not follow those principles themselves.

Original Poster may be the worst kind of person on the planet. Or the best that anyone yet to see. I can't know that because I do not have the ability to read people's minds or intentions. I can and should act only according to what is given to me. And what I see was a legitimate question with valid concern which was stated by the amazing replies.

You on the other hand...

Criticized him/her for something you couldn't deliver for days yourself. You said "Why would you post a news story when you're unable to attest to it's veracity?. Yet when you said "It's not an answer I consider acceptable when we have access to tools that allow us to check sources in a matter of minutes. ", you failed to deliver both those "tools" and the "time frame" arguments.

You said you possess tools, which you also delivered to SHOW OR USE. Linking someone else is NOT a tool. GOOGLE IS NOT A TOOL. It is a search engine where you can or can not reach tools. Go to any university or any place that is slightly involved in academic writing and they will tell you the same. Google is NEVER an acceptable source of information. That's what makes the OP's question even more meaningful.

You made MANY mistakes both in your logic, knowledge, and explanations yet shamelessly tried to come on top with more lies and personal insults. Typical behavior of someone with limited intelligence but huge ignorance and ego, which usually goes alongside each other as clearly explained by the Dunning Kruger effect.

Everyone makes mistakes. But what you choose to do when you realize it, shows what kind of person you are. So this is a message to everyone reading this: Choose who you want to be.

How is a search engine not a tool for finding information?

Dunning–Kruger effect, indeed! lol

I used to post on forums where thread starters would be moderated for posting questionable sources. A fairly sound policy, IMO.

Thank God i didnt preorder and decided to wait and see.

Honestly, if youre including microtransactions then it should be f2p or released at a portion of what a full game costs. Its just wrong. Cosmetic only? Those used to be unlocked through gameplay, not nickle and diming the customers that already paid full price for the content.

It doesnt shock me though after seeing a no bonus or discount preorder. I guess they are going the way of EA and are going for every single penny they can squeeze out of you rather than just a fair and honest trade. I would think these practices make them lose money from all the people that completely avoid their product as a result (like myself), but i guess the majority are ok with it.

No one knows the business model of the multiplayer portion which will most likely be standalone from what i have heard (not certain) and this MTX controversy was the result of "journalists" using CDP's investor conference to put words in their mouths, words that was never spoken in the first place. CDP also confirmed that they do not know yet how they will monetize it but have spoken out against MTX in the past in the current 2019 climate.

It just proves once again that journalism today suck and shame on me for taking them on their words and not second guessing despite knowing better.

Umm... the game at release will be a fully functional single player game. As promised. Not even rumours of MTX or anything like it (would be hard to do with a DRM-free game anyway). My guess is some minor free DLC and some bigger paid expansions - worked well for Witcher 3, why change anything?

MP is planned as something separate altogether. And it's not even set in what form - could be a paid expansion or f2p with MTX. From what I understand, they're currently considering their options making money with it. And "cosmetics" wasn't even mentioned, on the contrary, they stated that "good value for money" is their core value. Might be true or not or in the eye of the beholder - I don't care about MP and frown at Gwent.

Oh I see, so that makes sense then. The MP is essentially f2p with transactions.

But yeah, "journalism" is a joke, which is another aspect of my current wait and see policy.

Im hoping CDPR stays how theyve been, but its almost unavoidable as they grow to become like all the others.

That's not set. The only thing that is known at this point is that they want to make money with MP somehow and are considering their options.

You seem to have a very different definition of "tool" from the rest of the world.

A tool is some thing that may help you accomplish a task. A knife is a tool for cutting stuff, regardless if the stuff you try to cut with it can be cut, should be cut or you cut it wrong. So if the cutting is a success depends on the skill of the one wielding the tool, the material they're working with and to some extend the quality of the knife. Regardless of the outcome - the knife is a tool.
A search engine is a tool for finding stuff on the internet. If it's the stuff you were looking for (ie. reliable information or cat content) depends on the skill of you using this tool (including your ability to evaluate the quality of the result), the quality of the information available and the quality of the search engine. However the outcome and success of your using it - it's still a tool.

I know I'm too late but this had to happen, ebb and flow and all that stuff. This applies to all video game companies and indie devs. If your reputation is ruined, this doesn't mean that the companies can't do better. You've seen this most prominently with the PR perception of Hello Games when it came to No Mans Sky and most recently with Fallen Order. I wouldn't be suprised if EA is amongst the greatest video game publishing companies in existence in the next 5 or so years, kinda like they were back during the early 90s.

Positive track records can never stay perfect nor do negative ones. If a good repulation is how you make money nowadays is what has to be done then thats what companies logically must do, nothing more and nothing less.

Ah, I see the confusion now. You are right, Google IS a tool to search for information.

But the person I am arguing with claimed that "Google is a tool to test the source within minutes". What I tried to show is that it is not. You can not google "is that source reliable". Can you? You have to examine each results carefully and 1. You can never be sure what you read either since there is no certainty that its validity is higher than the link you are examining, 2 . It certainly won't be within minutes.

From your same example, we can view GOOGLE as a sets of stores who sell tools. Let's say you want to dig a hole on your wall to hang a picture. You can ask the store owners "How can I dig a hole on my wall?". One can tell you that you should use a drill, and the other one can tell you "you should use this army knife, it is good for digging holes". An other one can recommend a shovel, which is certainly perfect for digging holes.

Which one will you listen? You will listen to your common sense of course. But what if the concept is not clear to you as it is in this example?

Follow up questions; Are the store owners "tools" for finding information? Are they useful to get the job done? Are they reliable and can you trust them?

The answer is, and always will be no. You can NOT trust them. They may be of some help of course, but in the end, the end result will never be sure. That's why the OP did the right thing to come here and ask the question to people who may or may not have the answer. And s/he got it.

Summary, Always ask more stores before buying anything. :)

Of course you can. Though YMMV.

You can usually check the track-record of a source, who objected to it, who treats the source as reliable, what's the source of the source, if there are conflicting interests... it's work and requires patience, brain 1.0 skills and perseverance.

So a sensationalist news outlet which generates money by generating clicks which is know for spreading any information they come across is by default less reliable than a serious paper with in-depth analyses by established experts and a long history of "no bull". And those are information you can google (although I personally prefer DuckDuckGo).

And Google is not a set of stores selling tools. Google is itself a store selling ads, nothing more. The search engine is their way of bringing the ads to the user and profile the latter. And the profile is used to bring better fitting ads to the user they might click on (=money for Google) more. It's also by default used to prioritize your search results. So if your profile says you're a great fan of DOOM a search for "chainsaw" will show different results than when it says you enjoy outdoor work... The danger with this is that it strengthens confirmation bias and filter bubbles this way.

So Google doesn't sell you tools for "digging a whole into a wall". It shows ads for companies supplying tools for that task. And shows a list of ways of tools for digging walls, ways to dig through a wall, videos digging through walls, forums of wall-diggers...
Ads are ads - the only reliable thing about those is that someone wants to sell you something. Fortunately serious search engines clearly separate ads from search results. And as for the search results themselves - it's up to you to find out how reliable they are. And Google can help with that.

While I agree that this policy is sound, I also think your criticism is a little harsh for this instance.

The OP found an interview with CD PRojekt RED, which is the sibling (parent) company of Gog. The best strategy is to track information to its source, so asking on this forum is arguably the best investigative method to ascertain the veracity of the article in question. Since it also alerts those interested (Gog customers) to said article, whilst also availing the OP of the largest group of people likely to know the answer (maybe even a member of staff!1!!), it also provides a service to the staff and customers here (i.e., said alerting).

Also, Google translate is (still) almost completely useless. (Google, or DuckDuckGo on a good day, is much better at finding other people who have translated whatever is of interest.)