yes we know its mentioned on other pages, thats not the point. 6355 posted that to imply something, with false evidence, that is not necessarily true.

IOI very well could have informed the gog representative that the single player game is playable without drm, which is true, failing to mention that online is required for parts outside of well... online game modes.

Right now the game is sitting at

1.4 /5 overall rating

3 /5 verified owners rating

1.3 /5 filters based rating


Tried to look for anything lower but the filter by user rating doesn't really work.

As far as I can find without MaGog, there is at least one item lower, but it's a DLC, not a game:
https://www.gog.com/game/ys_viii_lacrimosa_of_dana_ultimate_resource_bundle

and one tied, but it's a bundle, not a single game:
https://www.gog.com/game/commandos_2_praetorians_hd_remaster_double_pack

Either way, these are just curiosities, with no reviews.

So the issue you have is that that page in particular didn't actually mention DRM-free like they implied but you're okay that gog.com states it currently along with the issue at hand? The fact that this site specifically mentions it is all people should be focusing on. And if any part of the game has DRM, it's not DRM-free... you don't get to say, 'well the single player part is so that's okay.'

No? Im not ok that gog is "going along" with the issue at hand. The issue I had was 6355 was trying to imply GOG is going away from DRM free with FALSE EVIDENCE.

also... online games/online aspects of games.... often need to connect to servers... I find it a weird argument to make that if a game doesn't have lan multiplayer or peer to peer, that it would not be allowed to be on the store front.

Why are you so committed to bad faith takes on this? AT least try to come at it with some good faith. Gog fucked up, how much they fucked up here is unknown still. Like I said already IOI could have mislead them.
That they have not taken it down from the storefront until its resolved with IOI is baffling yes, but breaking a contract knee jerk aint smart.

Why would misleading people in this thread be the correct move to make?

Because there is ALLOT of elitist people on the forums that need to $hit on GOG to tickle there ego.

Did GOG mess up? Yes. But it is no way worthy of an autistic screech fest equal only to a Resetera user when they see a female game character with breasts bigger than a A cup.

They could form a information campaign and establish a healthy contact with GOG staff and have the problem fixed. But no, they just HAVE to scream and shout and prove THEY are the most anti DRM of tem all.

While I agree to some extent -- and do think GOG should be given the chance to rectify this situation -- what you are seeing is the culmination of a number of issues over the last few years.

From discarding Good Old Games to games with DRM being sold, it's hard to recognize the company and what their mission is at this point? And seeing that this "change" has happened rather quickly, was there ever truth in F@#k DRM? Or was this all for show... just a strategy to build a company / store with a "rebel" ad campaign?

Someone at GOG had to have known Hitman's release would cause issues... yet they did it anyway.

I hope GOG fixes this issue and continues providing DRM-free content, but I am certainly questioning both their sincerity and their adherence to providing DRM-free content.

Maybe because this isn't some random, isolated incident no one saw coming that could be believeably explained away as a mistake, but another step in long sequence of pro-DRM moves that GOG has been making, and one that many people here have been vocally warning would happen.

But, of course, there's also option two - ignore facts, ignore everything that happened to lead us here, ignore GOG employees outright admitting GOG's acquiescence to partial DRM months ago, and keep attacking people who refuse to play along with your denial.

They fully knew it beforehand. As Breja pointed out as well, this is not an isolated incident, just another step in what they consider the right direction.

I'm already out of here (at least I will not buy games here anymore) because of the drm. but I 100% agree on the client part too.

I don't have any desire to sh*t on GOG. They've provided me with a valuable service over the years and assuming that an understanding can be reached, I don't see why that needs to stop.

However, I strongly suspect that their former strongly pro DRM-free stance is no longer convenient to their business model (I personally couldn't care less whether their previous DRM-free claims were genuine or not, I care about what will happen now and in the future) and rather than going through half-honest attempts to see how much DRM can be pushed (and customers potentially buying games they definitely do not want to buy like this one under false pretenses of them being DRM-free), I'd rather have an honest discussion on the subject matter at this point.

If they gradually want to allow more and more drm-content into games (which seems to be the case, they went from no drm to multiplayer drm to cosmetics drm to drm on significant single-player content), I'd rather they add detailed information about it for each game so that the process is as transparent as possible and customers can decide whether or not to purchase the game in an enlightened way, based on what content is DRM-free.

And if they see a future where they'll be like Steam and not care much about DRM, I'd rather know about that as well. At whatever point they stop caring about it, I'll stop updating my backups to avoid infesting them with DRM and we'll go our separate ways.

Basically, my personal desire is that they stop going through the increasingly difficult mental gymnastics of selling off their entire catalog as 100% drm-free (clearly, that claim just won't happen). now and always and instead that they openly admit that there are an ever increasing amount of nuances to that claim. From there, unencumbered by that increasingly misleading pr claim, they can move to the more tenable position of giving us the proper data for each game (in the state it is currently and also in the state it could potentially be in the future) so that we can be enabled to buy games according to our values.

I really doubt it's that simple. Are you telling me that GOG representatives don't bother to try the games to see if they work properly before putting them on the store (no jokes about CP77, please, I mean third party games)? That they just go and take someone's word for it? Ideally someone should spend some time playtesting the games and in the process they'd realize the truth.

The most simple explanation is the likeliest one: they simply didn't care, or thought that customers wouldn't.

anyone remember fckdrm? https://twitter.com/gogcom/status/1041986783251181569
only took 3 years to forget it seems.

Nice, I think this is what will get GOG to actually maybe shape up: outside negative PR that could result in more income loss.