And they didn't first “look into it” to let you know their decision after several weeks?

Just when you asked yourself how low GOG could go...

Censoring negative reviews and forum posts is all GOG is good for nowadays.

(preface: again, not disputing mod actions, simply discussing this as it partly ties to this thread)
====================================================

No, surprisingly they were prompt and efficient with the PM they sent me. ;)
(oddly enough, though, they seem to have missed something in post 1313 when cleaning it of that "vile advertising")

They join a limbo contest?
Reminiscing: I remember my chats with TheEnigmaticT.....they were so nice and cordial.

FFS

Unlike Steam, once you have downloaded a GOG offline installer, you have the files and they have no physical means to take it away from you. There is no inbuilt mechanism coded into the game that can be used to enforce the GOG EULA. Also, I don't believe (not 100% sure on it) there is any clause in GOG's EULA that makes any provision for it to be removed at will at a later date, after purchase. So, once you have bought a game on GOG, you have that license perpetually, with no dependency on the GOG/CDPR entity continuing to exist.

So, I think you are mistaken. There is a huge difference in the extent of 'ownership' between games on GOG and on Steam. (at least, the ones on GOG that are actually DRM-free)

According to wikipedia:

"While a review bomb may be a result of customers criticizing the poor quality of the product, it can also be associated with perceived political and cultural issues around the product, its vendor, or related works.[3] This is often done to draw wider and mainstream attention to that issue, especially if the vendor does not have an open communications channel or seems unresponsive to direct feedback"

So if wiki is correct you both and GOG are correct as well. Still does not mean that bad reviews should be deleted. I read a few of those reviews and to stay fair - some of them simply are mentioning one word or simply curse at GOG without mentioning the game. I guess those are the reviews GOG meant when they anounced to remove reviews (but I still don't think the timing for such an announcement was even remotely clever). People get emotional and in such case they might write reviews that are not 100% acording to the guidelines. GOG should have realized that this is no senseless bashing but instead a way of their customers to tell GOG how serious this matter is for them. So imo they should have made an exception since deleting any review after such a big outcry must look for everybody as if GOG is trying to silence their own userbase for the sake of sales. I doubt that'S really the case - but that's unfortunately the way it looks.

The same is true of all DRM-free games on Steam, of which there are many thousands, except that the game you download there comes installed, but if you want you can compress it into a standalone installer by yourself to save space. It's just a matter of convenience; essentially no different.

Yes, that is true for a percentage of the games on Steam. Although Steam makes doing that much less convenient than GOG. It all seemingly requires user-made workarounds and fiddling.

Coming back to my point above regarding licensing: the point about licensing is true for any piece of proprietary software. Any video game you buy from anywhere comes with a license, as did games that were sold on physical media back in the 80s/90s, console games etc. When we talk about 'ownership' on GOG, what we really mean is that the license is perpetual and not in any way time-limited. It is not dependent on the distributor or developer staying in business, or any of their 'machinery' continuing to function. There is also nothing coded into the game to enable enforcement of the license agreement.

That last part is the essence of what DRM is: something coded into the game that gives the developer control of the user post-purchase and allows them to enforce terms of the license.

While understandable I wonder if there'a something in the community guidelines against this.

And what about games which add things to the registry to be functional? You do Debug the game to know how it works and then put your user made batch/reg file into the user made zip?

It's indeed a potential drawback, but not really for me. If a game adds essential information into the registry during installation (rather than during game launch), to the point that it is unplayable if transferred to another computer, I have no interest in it.

It's the same thing for me as requiring a client. I don't call it DRM, but I still don't want it. Every game should be transferable from computer to computer to be of interest to me.

Hello, chandra!

With all due respect to your color, this is the kind of corporate speak that alienates brands from their user communities.

If launching a game with single-player content behind a DRM wall at GOG needs bringing GOG's attention to, there's something wrong. And if GOG indeed realized this was potentially risky but just went for it for whatever reason, it's just an empty phrase. Neither shows GOG in favorable light.

This comment isn't meant personally, as you're probably acting along some communication guidelines, too. What I really want to say is that I'm fearing GOG is losing its brand identity, or its DNA, if you like, and I like its brand communication less and less.

Anyway don't worry. According to the Steam EULA you could only tranfer your "DRM Free" game to a one more HD at once.

I couldn't care less about any EULA anywhere.

Then crack the exe and all should be simpler, faster and more "DRM Free". If you are going to break you contract/license/user agreement, then it doesn't matter how you do it.