While some wouldn't question the validity of a F2P game (I do. It's an invalid model.), what's being questioned here is this product being on GOG.com: the anti-DRM game store. This product has no place on the GOG storefront. It's completely incongruous. If it should be anywhere, that should be elsewhere and not here.

GOG is the place for DRM-free games, the place where zero products rape their customers. Now it's one. This one.

It's not being change averse. It's about believing that when you spend money on something, it's yours.

"This is a limited, one-time only offer... "

Ah, yes, the limited supply of virtual items... Don't let this fantastic deal pass you by, folks!



... meh.

I'm still not sure what does that "limited" mean.. time, number or what?

It's probably a mistranslation. You see, in polish the word for "limited" can also mean the same as "retarded".

Then I guess we should be thankful it's an exclusive one-time only retarded offer.

Do I have to remind everyone that Gwent is free? Hence you haven't paid for anything. You don't own anything that has or doesn't have DRM!

I do get the no-DRM revolution (heck, I had a sticker on the bumper of my car for a few years) but this is not the case of a DRM slapped on top of a non-DRM game.

All the other games SOLD on GOG, they are and will still be DRM-free. Nothing changed in the business model.

"Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer zu bauen!"

I seriously resent that argument. Its GOG showing publishers that they're willing to compromise all of their ideals to be able to sell those shiny new games that has allowed the publishers to win out here. The industry has been in the midst of a revolution and GOG was leading the way with its DRM Free revolution right alongside the Indie revolution. GOG started buckling and compromising their values at least 3 years ago. Publishers seeing that shows that they've already won. And now look at what we have here. Now try to guess what GOG will look like in three years time.

Microtransactions are a change in the business model. Allowing evil like that to get its roots in here.
;)

What Breja said. Plus, obviously, "pirating". Heck, that's the one thing one can do to send a message. The other options in the end feed into the industry one way or another. But if you are interested in a game enough to have normally bought it and could afford to do so, yet instead play it without buying it, it's a tiny slap in the face of said industry, saying you're doing this because their practices are intolerable and expect them to change if they want anything from you in the future. On the other hand, if you stay away from said game completely, you hurt yourself more than them, as one less game played for you is far more statistically significant than one less copy sold for them. (Again, this only applies for games you would have bought otherwise, as without a realistic lost sale whether you'd play it or not logically can make no difference for them, regardless of their rhetoric.)

Ah, I see. So as long as the base game is free and money is only paid for associated products like the one this thread is for, then it can have DRM. I see you got your law degree at the Garfield University.

And of course giving the DRMed game away for free is surely doing wonders for the "DRM-free revolution".
Well, tough shit, cause it's true. It's exactly what you're doing.

"I hate Steam but I'll buy from them, what else could I possibly do?"
"What? How dare you say that Ill bitch an whine but in the end will buy games from a store I despise!? I resent that accusation!"

>Slowclap<

I"ve done everything I could to support GOG, I've been voting with my wallet for 5+ years. The reason I own so many games on here was to make GOG successful because I believed in them because they were old pirates like me. i'm not going to stop gaming. I might just quit buying new games altogether, I've been living without most games that I wanted for the past 5 years because I was only buying on here. Anytime GOG released a game I already owned on any other platform (even DRM-free on Humble) I bought it again here. I bought many games to give away to people on GOG as giveaways, did giveaways where people could pick any game and I'd buy it for them to help better this site and the community. I resent that comment because its not me that lost this fight, its GOG that gave up on it.

I'm not going to stop gaming, so during the summer sale on Steam I indulged on games I couldn't play for the past 5 years, and it was fucking awesome.

"I resent your comment! To show you how much I resent it, I will now emphasise how much I enjoyed doing exactly what you said!"

Don't you see that everything you're saying is only proving my point? You're such a stalwart supporter of the "DRM-free revolution", but in the end you're so unable or unwilling to stick to your guns when it becomes too inconvenient you abandon those DRM-free principles entirely, embrace Steam wholesale and love it. You're the living proof that there is no point in fighting the uphill battle for DRM-free gaming.

You won't stop gaming and won't stop buying games, GOG won't stop selling them and following the money, that can go both ways.
Thing is that it's both, both customers and GOG, but a change in customer behavior would change the industry entirely, while GOG's change of behavior eliminated a niche in the industry, a pocket for those who still cared. Terrible impact on those who do care, who did believe there could be something worth a damn here, but overall a mere tiny fraction of the impact a switch in customer behavior would have had.
Because these rotten practices exist because they generate the highest profits. Period. Otherwise they wouldn't hold. And they generate the highest profits because the most people fall for them. If they wouldn't, all this "machine" that just follows the money would change to follow the new course of said money, cater to whatever that large mass of customers would demand before paying them another cent.
On the other hand, GOG was something of a safe space for those who do care, regardless of what the rest were doing, of what the industry was. Them giving up on principles eliminated that pocket and left the, as you can see, small number of people who do care high and dry and hopeless again. But as long as most don't care and still fall for those practices, that pocket would have remained just a pocket.

So:
- Current situation: GOG, as the former leader of a revolution of the industry, gave in years ago, destroying this pocket it had created, probably dragging a few other small platforms that tried to squeeze their way into it down in the process and pretty much guaranteeing nobody else will try the same thing again with any notable success. Result: Rotten industry practices are emboldened, industry profits more, niche of customers who give a damn lose any hope they had of having something to support, all other customers see no improvement, and possibly even a worsening of the treatment they're subjected to. All customers lose, those who care lose the most and feel it most clearly.
- Previous situation: GOG had created a pocket from which the rotten industry practices were kept away, possibly encouraging a few others to try similar things on smaller levels and maybe making the bigger players consider making a few concessions here and there if they didn't inconvenience them too much. Result: Those who truly cared for something different had a place to gather in for a part of the products they were interested in, but the industry as a whole was still rotten, it still was the rotten practices that made the most money, most customers were still being badly taken advantage of and most products were still unattainable on acceptable terms. Customers who care have some partial gains, the others generally don't lose, but any improvements are questionable.
- Ideal situation: Customers no longer accept the industry's practices and no longer pay for any products that are not offered on terms that are in their advantage and not that of the sellers and rights holders. Result: Doesn't matter whether GOG or any other store still has values, because simply by following the money they'd all need to become ethical and respect the values of the customers, so the entire industry would improve in a way greatly benefiting customers, those who don't care just as much as those who do. All customers gain greatly, whether they even notice it or not.

Except the it has in-program-purchases. They're taking money for literally nothing. That's a violation. That it's free-to-start is meaningless to the discussion.