Kakarot96: 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.
Olauron: 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.
Yup, you are right. I was mixing up both things, but i was still talking about the drm inside my extra content (which i cannot enjoy because i play like always played in GOG, offline)
Anyway, if they are testing the first patch, now there's already a second one, so maybe we're going to wait a week or more to see anything. We're on the weekend and there's no patch around so...
For the rest of what you said to MIK0, i disagree with you. If part of the code in your offline installer is walled by DRM, you are selling a DRM game, not a DRM-free game. Also,
the DRM'ed content we are talking about,
it's indeed available here, is not something exclusive for other site (also, it was a part of the incentive for pre-order, they didn't say hey, nope, that has DRM, please remove the DRM'ed content from your pre-order offer to be only on those other sites who accept it)
Also, as MIK0 already said and i also agree, if they allow more and more games with DRM to be here, at least they have to be honest and say it. Playing with words does not help, and it's not honest with the customers that expect something before buying the game and then realize they need to be
constantly online to get something. It's half-truth at the very least. It's beautiful to be able to sell the world that you are the only DRM-free store, that's their main marketing point. It's just not completely true right now.
And about the problem of rejecting or accepting these games, i agree it's a big problem. You ask if GOG should refuse every game that "somewhere may have" DRM'ed "DLC" even when this "base game is DRM-free" (btw, that's playing with words, friend, this game HAS DRM inside it, it's not even a DLC, but part of the base code, you don't add anything with DRM to the game, it's already there) but the whole process of accepting a game is a bit misterious because they have also rejected a lot of DRM-free games that provoked discussions on the General Forum asking why all of those have been rejected. Even more after talking with a developer that was accepting a complete DRM-free version of his game to be able to release in this store.
I know some must have been a problem because other questions but when that happens and we are still asking ourselves why those games are not here and instead we have games with DRM parts on the store...well, that questions all the process and all the arguments we are discussing. Because, apparently, Paradox game are always accepted here (i mean only Paradox distributed games, because they don't sell anymore their own games on GOG, they don't like us too much it seems) but a lot of indie DRM-free, or even not so indie, are simply rejected.
And that, despite not having a single PR here, ever. Despite old games that still have DRM problems to activate content. Despite the different way of applying sales here and on Steam making us wonder if DRM-free is a privilege we have to extra pay for. Despite deleting threads on their own forum when people claims for GOG versions of CK2, EUIV, HOI4 or Stellaris. Despite not writing a single kind word about GOG or even answering their own customers because they simply ignore GOG at all...except for distributing their published games, as those games are always accepted anyway. It's really ironic how they also use the "DRM-free" card for marketing with their own games while also releasing only on a DRM platform and not here, the "home" of the "DRM-free" games.
Oh, well, i just don't understand (well, not true, i understand, but it's all really sad) Oh, and some actual usual ways to do things being a deadhorse doesn't mean we should accept it and go silent forever. We who always defended GOG ways are really split in 2? Those who defend it for the purest DRM-free old forms and ways to do things and those who defend it even if they someday change so much that are similar to Steam? Which of those groups of loyal customers will be more useful to GOG then? Or actually? Don't answer, please, just a rethorical question, i'm a bit depressed :P
I still come here to see the new releases and to buy here before Steam or Humble or whatever other platform but... some things happening around are just depressing.
MIK0: While I didn't expect anything different from them, did they banned you on the forum or the whole account?
Socratatus: I dont know. I tried logging in and got a message I was banned. I`ve not tried logging in with the game.
If you try, let us know! But yeah, nothing new, i'm afraid. GOG mentions have disappeared from their forums, also. You can still see some Humble references in the first pages (because their DRM-free versions don't have an independent patch, although they have the new version to download, with the 2nd patch) but GOG mentions are not welcome(d?). I am guessing they recognize that it's a thorny issue but they have opted for pre-locked statements to prevent opinions and for deleting threads and ignore comments buried in other threads outside those statements (i mean HBS in this case, not Paradox, but still)
Kakarot96: [...] but it really hurts a lot seeing HBS do this things and changing their past behaviour (along with their ethics)
HypersomniacLive: Sorry, but they did screw up their Kickstarter campaign for the first
Shadowrun title too.
Sorry, i have skipped this somehow. You are partially right, imo. I mean with the backer content that was available offline forever once you activated it. In BT case, what we have is a new step towards DRM despite offering the backers a complete DRM-free version (as i said, that was not the case with Shadowrun, so something is different this time)
What i don't know (i was not a kickstarter backer) is if they also got a version which prevented them to post a review here like with BT (or if they got initially a basic, normal version and then someone changed their version making them unable to write reviews, something i consider is unnaceptable and censoring)