---
P10
---
Well Marko, you are right, it is not confirmed in original post 823 because it was the original post inbefore my response to it (thus questioning it's legitimacy). If you would follow my short exchange of posts with that person you would likely find the confirmation in one of the later posts easily.
That post 823 did this:
Which really, I don't know how could I possibly look at something like this seriously.
It really DOES look like either a super oblivious person or a satire (or perhaps a troll, I didn't name this possibility originally).
So I asked (post 826).
And in response I got:
Which would imply that that person DOES know about these things.
But then this got posted:
So now I don't know what I am supposed to believe as this would again imply that I was right about that person being oblivious / uninformed.
Hope you understand my point now Marko.

I am pretty ridiculously fatigued at the moment (recent time has been really taxing both physically and mentally to me and I am really darn extremely exhausted atm [to not call this mental agony / limbo combo]).
If you are asking for real then I will try to respond within 48 h.

I'm not sure I follow. Nani kore?

For example, naively trusting (NOT ANYMORE AFTER FINDING THIS THREAD) GOG claim that they will "provide time to download offline installers should they go out of business (or other sh*t happening)" while having ludicrously ancient internet (4 Mbps) that would make batch downloading it all a burden (plus being poor and constantly running out of storage, including having a pile of "too old" drives [ergo not reliable nor viable as a longterm backup solution] while not currently having money to buy new drives).
Plus let me quote myself:
Now, after finding this thread I have fundamentally changed my approach (since I am uber tactical in approach to my life) so I:
1.Halted all planned purchases on GOG indefinitely (possibly permanently)
2.Plan obtaining proper backup storage. If you are curious about my plan: (P1) https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_library_offline_backup/post10 (P2) https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_library_offline_backup/post11
3.Basically GOG is burned for me at this point, and I think it's time to move on (I will DEFINITELY not trust them anymore anyway)

Not exactly. There are still places that sell truly DRM-free games, not neccesarily EXCLUSIVELY DRM-free games ONLY but generally yes, for example itcho.io. and Playism.

edit: rearranged some text from P11 to P10 to save space (to not span into 3 posts and keep it within 2)

What the fck is going on here?
https://youtu.be/V3Gb7CcFYx4?t=112

Why, GOG, why?

---
P11
---
That is basically what I said at least a bunch of times in this thread:
Correct me if I'm wrong but at least until recently GOG made it so that their Galaxy marketing materials stated it is supposed to be a "unified LAUNCHER" without saying ANYTHING about "proxy store".
And people who don't get that "unified launcher" is COMPLETELY different thing from "unified proxy store" need to wake up already.
There are easily a ton of valid reason to not make the former but it by itself is not harmful towards DRM freedom PER SE.
This thread is exclusively involving the latter (the "unified" proxy store), which is to say the least, a BS, a broken promise on GOG part, RIDICULOUS privacy violation and a general pointless joke on GOG part (seriously, people need to make accounts on all these services themselves first, and then Galaxy will NOT remove ALL interactions with them [should there be high security account management neccesary for example I cannot possibly see the likes of Steam or Origin allowing that kind of interface running through 3rd party prioretary man-in-the-middle glorified iframe-like proxy], so just WHY would anyone want this kind of "unification" anyway. It's not going to eliminate the problem. No matter how you look at it it will only enlarge the overhead).

In gamedev DRM wrapping is always and afterthought and more or less the last stage before uploading to content management system in say Steam or GOG.
So TECHNICALLY releasing DRM-free builds in 99% cases is a breeze because any sane developer (so excluding those who toss their build backups into the sunset and suddenly "loose code to 20 year old game") will already have a DRM-free build from before DRM-wrapping (remember, what devs have on local content server is NOT RTM release goldmaster DRM wrapped build. What is on local content server is COMPLETELY separate and different from what is being uploaded to content management system).
I would also like to point out (since people either ignore it or don't know about it) that Steamworks TECHNICALLY isn't "a DRM" PER SE.
It's a framework for various functionality.
It's raw enough that:
1.A whole lot of games will work without Steam even with just sheer steamapi DLL removal (allegedly Resident Evil 2 Remake for example, I own it, but I am yet to test that).
2.The dll and subsequently Steam protocol responses can be emulated with stuff like goldberg (goldberg is open source). So TECHNICALLY most games on Steam can be made DRM-free fairly easily (so I cannot stand lot's of people being either totally oblivious or ignorant hypocrites about it).

Should we even still call it so after NMS is a thing?
If at this point GOG claims to be EXCLUSIVELY DRM-free then it's clearly false advertising (ergo unlimited 100% guaranteed right for NMS refund based on falsely advertised product).

I am.

Will agogfan finally get an answer after asking for one three times in a row? Or will his intentions be foiled again? Don't miss the gripping finale of our heart-rending saga, available exclusively on the GOG forum (and at quality retailers near you). Film at eleven.

That reminds me of the nerve-wracking cliffhangers on the Batman tv series from 1966. :D

Sincerely, I don't understand this movement of gog. If you are going to start selling games of other store in your own store... what benefits do you obtain? Money? One percentage of the 12%? And cons.? : a transfer of gog users to epic? because you are offering games from other store and people will spend money in other store and not in games from yours.

And these games... what signs are you showing to developers? They don't need to release their games on gog and to manage two versions for two stores if they could sell only on epic for both stores ¿? Probably these games never arrive to gog and others companies will think the same.

Epic has more to win than gog with this.

This is a deal breaker for me. I wont be using gog anymore, from this point forward

I disagree about the two versions since the game is directly still from the epic servers.

By doing this, the developers don't need to manage two versions, only the Epic version, because the GOG customers have access to the game anyway. He's saying that this is an incentive to the developers to avoid GOG.

I dont think so for example, control was on epic and then came to gog. You had that option to get it in the epic store before.

You can find an FAQ here which explains a few things about the latest store upddate.

Yes, but now you can get the Epic store version via the GOG client (if you choose to use that). So Epic reaches a significant portion of the GOG users anyhow, without devs having to program any Galaxy-conformity. So why should devs waste effort on Galaxy, when their games are already on Epic? Galaxy can now act as a front for the Epic store, so no dev has to waste resources on it. And, with respect to games that are on Epic, GOG has made Galaxy pointless.

But even further: by endorsing DRM-ed games to be sold via their client, GOG has made themselves pointless. The strict DRM-free policy was the one thing that made GOG stand out. Now, if I were willing to buy on a platform that endorses DRM, I surely wouldn't pick GOG. There are bigger stores out there with a larger selection of games. So why would I keep buying games here, after GOG gave up on their last selling point?

Ha, good one!