That's even worse. Question is if they already knew about this bug before they have removed the bug-free version.

It's probably also another reason why they won't be :D

to word of today is "Conflating"

>Cyberpunk 2077
>The DRM Dildo

Itz coming! You can count on that!

If only for the fact that they have no other core principles left to break.

Getting rid of the downloader was another big step towards making Galaxy mandatory. When CP comes out, it will likely be eleventy billion Gigabytes. Have you ever tried downloading eleventy billion Gigabytes with your browser. It can be cumbersome, which is why the Downloader was still a useful tool. Why retire a useful tool shortly before a major release? *thinking emoji*

I've been wondering how they will weasel their way out of their assurances that they will always have offline installers. So, here's how I think it's going to work: You can download the game from your browser, but you'll need to have a Cyberpunk profile to play/save your game etc (or, if you're already a user, you'll get logged in via your Galaxy/gog profile). Conveniently, non-gog customers who open a profile via Cyberpunk would automatically create a corresponding Galaxy/gog profile, which would boost the numbers of active gog users. All the while gog could still claim: "Whaddya want? It's sill DRM-free! It still has offline installers!"

Something like that is coming. You wait and see!

I can't believe I didn't realize this myself...I think you're right on as to why this is happening now rather than 5 years ago when Downloader was "discontinued".

This one I'm not so sure on though. Even with all the softening they tried to do of such practices, I don't see people standing (yet) for that to be the case in singleplayer of Cyberpunk. Will multiplayer be Galaxy-exclusive or account-exclusive? Absolutely I assume it will be, since unfortunately such DRM continues to be set as the standard. I wish CDPR would take more of a stand in favor of DRM-free multiplayer but I can't trust that will be the case. I think the critics are right to hold GOG's "feet to the fire" on such issues. Once anti-consumer practices are implemented, it is near-impossible to ever get the companies to reverse course.

The problem with DRM-free multiplayer is that when one stops to think how to define that, hardly anything else than simple old school LAN multiplayer modes would qualify and it would be a huge waste of potential if this game's multiplayer is revealed to only be a Co-Op support for the single player campaign and a small collection of death match and capture the flag levels.

I see D:OS here on the list. Am i glad then that i have backupped an older version. That reminds me then to backup now the ones which i didn't, cause i'm afraid the ladies and gents of cdprojekt break their promise and galaxy is required to run it. And then it won't be long till the offline installers are gone forever. The installers was a reason for me to join gog by that time and that older games were here.

If I understand you correctly, for Obduction, even with galaxy you cannot get to an old pre-bug version. So, in that respect, there is really no difference between galaxy and non-galaxy for this game. Both are stuck with only post-bug versions. In that case, I don't think it belongs on the OP list. What do you think?

That's a fair point. There was a period of time where GOG removed the last known good offline installer before the removed the version from Galaxy to rollback to, but yes you're right, it's reasonable to remove it from a list which tracks only ongoing games for which Galaxy isn't that "optional".

Thanks.

Examples of DRM-free multiplayer include at least direct connect, play by e-mail (not really applicable to Cyberpunk from what little we know so far), LAN, split-screen, hotseat...plenty of different ways to implement.

Also, the excuses that people give for "you can't have LAN anymore because DRMed online is better" have really run out in recent years with the existence of things that emulate LAN.

And "waste of potential" in what way? I didn't even say (this time) that they couldn't have the "DRMed style" options as well, though I do think that is very confusing from a branding perspective.

None of your examples are what I meant, but as you reminded me about play by email being possible with some type of games, lets use it as way to better describe my point by turning the following statement:

"I wish that CDPR would take more of a stand in favor of DRM-free multiplayer with Cyberpunk 2077"

...into this:

"I wish that CDPR would take more of a stand in favor of play by email with Cyberpunk 2077"

In other words, wishing for a "DRM-free multiplayer" before we even know anything about the what type(s) of multiplayer support the developers are even planning can be seen more like wishing that the next Elder Scrolls game would be turnbased rather than wishing that an upcoming racing game would be released on GOG so that DRM-free gamers who like racing games could also buy it.

And while you did add that you wouldn't mind DRM'ed multiplayer support would be additianally available as well, the feasability of doing that well with limited resources depends heavily on whether or not the DRM'ed multiplayer is closer to Unreal Tournament than EVE online. Just as all of those games that tried to please the fans of TB and RTwP at the same time would have been better if either one of the modes had been chosen early in the development and the other scrapped entirely, trying to get a single home computer able to host a limited version of a huge online persistent world would likely end up with both versions suffering greatly from that.

I see you didn't address the part where I tried to illustrate in how demanding multiplayer to be "DRM-free" could be similar to wanting that the developers would desing their next sequal to have totally different game mechanics.

If a DRM-free genie would grant me three wishes, with the condition that each wish can only affect one game instead of the usual "grant me more wishes" or "make everyting past, present and in the future DRM-free" stuff, and lets pretend that I would actually care about multiplayer gaming enough to wish one or more multiplayer games to be DRM-free, even then the I wouldn't be confortable at spending a wish on almost any upcoming game with multiplayer support because I could essentially be responsible at changing entirely the direction and scope of that game.

I said almost, because although I never really had any real confidence that the promised private servers for Star Citizen would become a reality, it was a promise and I would hate see it be broken, especially because first on the list of already released multiplayer games I might wish to become DRM-free is Elite: Dangerous as I was one of the backers who almost had to drag Braben into court to get our refunds.

But aside form those two examples, I wouldn't be making any wishes on any multiplayer game that doesn't already run almost totally on our computers like Minecraft as wishing that a MMO game would have "DRM-free multiplayer" would either remove the first "M" from it entirely or I would need to own a small server farm and multigigabit data connection to be able to host it on my own, then get enough players to join that the world wouldn't feel so empty and at that point I would also have start worrying about things like GDPR.

Just in case you are fine with the first outcome, you would still need to remember to specify very clearly what kind of gameplay the non-massive multiplayer would need to have in order to that wish resulting in a game at least you would like to play, otherwise your wish could be totally wasted unless you consider any change that displeases those "pesky MMO gamers" as a worthy secondary goal.

TL;DR, The problem with defining "DRM-free multiplayer" is that it inherently sets restrictions on the design, whereas with the single player side the developers are free to set their design plans for their game however they please and then proceed to develop it with or without injecting DRM along the way or slap it in at the very last minute before release. And as I feel that many would easily overlook that distiction, I wouldn't start a petition in favor of DRM-free multiplayer without making it a bit more clear what that really means unless I wanted to do a variation of the "DHMO should be banned" parody.

Well, in an indirect way, I think I did. Let me try to rephrase. I am looking at a macro-level. Either a multiplayer mode is DRMed, or it is DRM-free. Multiplayer modes plural (in total) for a game, may be a hybrid of both, where some modes are DRMed but other (usually different style) modes are DRM-free.

What I am advocating is that CDPR take a stand to focus on DRM-free multiplayer, in whatever form that takes, and yes, even if that negatively impacts what would be a DRMed mode or causes it to be removed outright. While I do have my favorite types of DRM-free multiplayer, in this case I am saying I would be satisfied with any type.

That is not to intentionally antagonize users who like other forms of multiplayer, but to keep brand consistency. If this is a DRM-free store, the focus should be on DRM-free. GOG's "sister site" FCKDRM.com last I checked has a standard that to get listed on there as a source of DRM-free media, the source has to be "100% DRM-free".

That is what I am wishing for, regardless of how it is implemented in games. It would also be nice if CDPR could set a trend doing so, sort of like how some indie games already brought back DRM-free multiplayer (usually couch co-op). If CDPR had a big release here with successful DRM-free multiplayer, maybe other devs would follow suit.

In the meantime, Galaxy requirements for multiplayer and account requirements (Paradox) continue to erode the DRM-free foundation here.