Still waiting for hotfixes / first patch...

Have the reviews been reset again? Now there are lots of 5-star reviews at the top, the more critical reviews and the ones mentioning the DRM somewhat buried.

Did GOG staff intentionally move favorable reviews to the top? May such thing be requested by the publisher or developer?

Except GOG asked the community on that one a while back, and you'll find that while we're very much against DRM for single player games, competitive online multiplayer gets a little greyer as there are actually good reasons for being able to lock people out. Cheating for instance can destroy online multiplayer for any competitive game so having a sign up process for the game in order to play online goes a long way towards at least making cheating expensive.

For LAN multiplayer it's back to black and white: no DRM, no online authentication, just LAN.

And that's a reasonable position to take IMO.

Never said that having an account to access multiplayer is without merit. Just saying that multiplayer could be implemented in different ways. It could also support different modes, one with an account and one that rely only on having a functioning copy of the game, like LAN or dedicated servers hosted by users. However, if you only provides the account one, you are making the game (or part of it, it's the same) dependant to something out of control of the user.

I believe that if they ask the community right now if they would allow drm, some would say yes. And GOG would take that as community's will regardless of the real number just like everything else. It's not a matter of how many people wants it anymore. It's the same with multiplayer.
Anyway, the matter is simple. If they want to sell games with drm, even only on multiplayer, so be it. They'll deal with the conseguenced of changing their principles. But call them with the right name.

So what is your proposal? Should GOG refuse every game that somewhere may have DRM'ed DLC even when this base game is DRM-free? Is it all or nothing? What about players who don't care about all existing in another stores DLCs and just want the base game DRM-free?

Multiplayer is a feature that is developed using the techniques the developers found most suitable. If they think that they have to use their own server that's their right to make such a design decision. And we as gamers then decide whether we like it or not. But implementing inherently online features one way or another doesn't make them DRM.

Is there a reason why patch 1.0.1 isn't here yet ? or is it because backer copies and it's already here for the regular version.

Battletech had so many issues at launch and they can't even get the patches here but HBS also released a roadmap for fixing over the coming months which sounds optimistic if they manage to update GOG version at same time or soon after.

Currently planned fixes include: source from Project Update mail.

1. Compatibility / Performance Investigations
Our launch last week wasn't perfect. A subset of players are experiencing hardware/system compatibility and performance issues that our team is working hard to investigate. Solutions for critical issues are always our top priority, and will be released as soon as they're available and tested. Typically, we will release patches to our public_beta branch on Steam for a few days for testing before we push them to the default branch.

2. General BugFix (Late May)
We expect to release at least one general bugfix/improvements patch later in May.

3. Localization (French, German, Russian) and Linux Support
These are both Kickstarter commitments and high priorities for our post-launch roadmap. (Along with a couple other Kickstarter commitments that didn't make it in for launch.) We don't have a more precise ETA yet for these items but will update you as soon as we do.

4. Update #1: Customization & Player Options (June/July)
We're already beginning work on our first larger free Update to BATTLETECH. This Update is all about customization and reacting to common pieces of feedback that we've received from you on the game. Here's a list of items we're currently looking at for Update 1 this summer

--Accelerated Combat Options - We're working on options for players who would like to accelerate the pace of combat missions.

--MechWarrior Customization - We know that many players would like to change the appearance, callsign, name, and voice of all their MechWarriors, not just their Commander. This didn't make it in for launch but we'll be adding it in Update 1

--Granular difficulty settings - A set of discrete options for players to customize the challenge level of the game in different areas.

--MechLab / Store / Salvage Quality-of-Life Improvements - Interface additions to reduce friction when buying and salvaging new items.

--Tutorial-skip Option - Allowing players who have already played the prologue missions to skip those missions when starting a new campaign, and get right to the Leopard.

--Addressing Difficulty Spikes - We'll be working on smoothing out some issues with unexpectedly hard (or easy) content. Not to remove all difficulty variance, but to address clear outliers.

--Live-streaming Quality-of-Life Improvements - Audio persisting when alt-tabbed, for example.

Sure it does. If the feature is somehow controlled by something other than the player to access its content (or better, to manage its digital right to access the feature/product) it is drm. Will you be able to play multiplayer indefinitely without a Paradox account? No, so the game has a drm that regulate the access to part of or the whole product. As I said, GOG could also choose to sell those games, but it should do so by properly advertising them as games with drm. DRM-free is not a gimmick or a publicity brand-like name, it's a characteristic and can be factually determined, not used improperly to try to sell a product which doesn't fit in that category.
Trying to pretend the game is drm-free while it is not just for the sake of not losing something you use as a marketing device, it not in your users best interest and it's actually anti-consumer.

And to your other question: what about players who don't care about drm-free and want games that are only available with drm? Should GOG try to also please them?

Yes, i am sure. For the store page, i don't own the game (basic or deluxe, it's the same)

Also, i got no answer to that from my ticket, just to "refresh my user" (it's the same answer i got about the reviews been reseted again and again)

Yes, again. Last time it was this last monday or tuesday, i don't remember. That's 3 or 4 times in just a week, i'm not exactly sure, i'm not counting anymore :S

Also, they must know about it, at least since my updated ticket. I have no more answers to it except the initial "refresh your user" but at least they know for sure the reviews are resetting. If they have no answer to that (not even a "hey, thanks for letting us know!") i must assume they know and they have simple nothing to say about it. Maybe it's working as intended, who knows, i am actually not sure of anything.

My review is a bit up again, but those 250 votes it got the first days or the 100 last days have disappeared anyway and we are getting more and more those 5 start reviews ("simply amazing", "awesome", more or less lol)

They announced the live patch yesterday for Steam and GOG. Well, not all GOG, of course, just for Galaxy, but that's another question.

For the rest we will need to wait even more. Also, by the way the PR talk in the Paradox forums, i am starting to think that for "GOG version" they just recognize the Galaxy one. The rest, well...the rest cannot also use their extra content so they don't count, it seems.

Someone at GOG should have said to them that having their game here means having the Galaxy one and the "classic" installers one. But given they can happily go after putting their DRM content inside the game, i am sure they can also forget about the "classic" installers.

Thanks good to know.

Time to fix my pc then and download galaxy again, no problem i guess but the clusterfuck this release has been leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it might be better to avoid Paradox/HBS games altogether in the future.

Like I said, it's a dead horse. Account-based multiplayer has been here long ago (just an example: Age of Wonders 3). Multiplayer is not considered DRM by GOG and was never considered as such for all I know.
As for the content, as long as game can be completed without its online gameplay features (and without the necessity to log-in after downloading a distributive) this game is a DRM-free game.

DRM-free is one of the GOG main principles and even the first one. It is right on the main page: "DRM-Free Content. You buy it - it’s yours". Selling games with DRM will break this principle. Selling DRM-free games that has DRM'ed DLC somewhere on another store doesn't break anything: you are buying DRM-free base game, you have it; you are not buying DRM'ed DLC on GOG as it is unavailable here and can be bought (or obtained in other way) only on other site.
For example, if GOG manages to get Dragon Age 2 (or 3) DRM-free but without the Black Emporium DLC, then the main game remains DRM-free regardless of whether this DLC is absent at all and can't be installed over it or this DLC is available to activating online. The game will not be the fullest possible version but still DRM-free - and it is what really matters.
As far as I know, classic installers are made by GOG based on the content pushed through the Galaxy by developers. But it was said that GOG will test it first so it's not fast process.

Sure, there are still some exception. And everyone of them has been met with due critics. What GOG consider DRM is not important here and GOG is really not reliable on the matter. Unfortunately for them they can only choose what to sell, not how thing can be categorized. You cannot pretend a game is drm-free when it is not. You can say you are allowing soft or partial form of drm, but not that the game sold is drm-free. Multiplayer is part of the game and you buy it along with the main product. If that part can cease to work for some reason in the future (being dependent to an account or a server is a reason for that) then the game has drm. Otherwise how would you differentiate between games that has multiplayer that can be played without a 3rd party authorization (LAN, dedicated server)?
I understand what you mean, but if the issue is in how to name those games in which only part of the contents are behind a drm, then we should simply consider them as not drm-free and categorize them as that. The issue is for GOG that has to change its main marketing point, but still they cannot be allowed to lie forever.

It's not like GOG didn't break one of its principles before, actually that one is the only one left after many crumbled. And this one is already cracked as games with drm are already sold here. For Battletech, the preorder contents were sold here and still need the 3rd party account. I agree that for the backers one the main offender is HBS, but still GOG allowed that. I wonder what they'll do with future dlc, will they require 3rd party account too?
About selling only the part of the game without drm, when content with drm is sold elsewhere, there are already many cases. One is the infamous Armello. The developers clearly are at fault, but GOG went along with it. It's not different than when games don't receive updates here when they do elsewhere. GOG should decide not to support those publishers and to demand a fair treatment of its customers. It should also advertise that some of the content won't be available due to the drm nature, so customers will be able to make an informed decision.

Can't wait for these ones, truly what separate this game from being an instant classic.

Can't wait for the patch to be available. As a patch. Not as a new full download.

(No, not using Galaxy.)

When Paradox prostituted themselves out to Steam, and yanked all updates/patches from the GamersGate versions of their games... I was threatened with a permanent ban for having "Steam is spyware" as my signature.