indeed... so it is back to square 1...

(and welcome to the English language, the most imprecise language in existence. God knows why it is used so much)

And... if we do accept the above definition (that microtransactions have to be bought in-game) then by that very definition this starter pack is not a microtransaction. Just a DLC for GWENT.

You just blew my mind.... up is now down, and black is white! Are you the new messiah?

Those turth bombs they are hardest pills to swallow. Thanks for laying down some more turth bombs ZFR.

Will probably... at least disappoint the others remaining on this side of the argument, sorry about that, but... Personally fine with that. What's clear is that GWENT does (or will? no idea what's already implemented and what's not) have microtransactions, that was spelled out from the get go, but this particular pack, being sold this way, probably isn't one. So anger directed at the game for that reason is right, at this item in particular, maybe not so much.
Also not exactly taking a hard stance on the DRM issue, or the Galaxy requirement issue (same thing as far as I'm concerned), when it refers strictly to using the official servers for multiplayer. Do take issue with such a multiplayer game only allowing the use of said official servers if that is the case, instead of also providing the tools for people to host their own and, if applicable, to have LAN / direct connection skirmishes and local / hot seat games. But that is rather a different matter. The moment GOG will have a game requiring Galaxy, connection, keys, whatever for single player, that's when the DRM-free value will also go down the way of the one world one price one. The launch of Thronebreaker may yet prove to be that moment, but it's not yet.

But, I'll say again, seen one way or another, this is just another straw. For some it may be a notable one, maybe even the last one, even if the item itself doesn't quite fit the bill, because it's a specific thing that happened that brought the matter to the forefront once again. But the real problem is CDP's policy direction for the past few years and how it dragged GOG along with it. Don't think that the GOG, and also the CDP, of over 5.5 years ago (as in pre-bigger/fresher/newer, we're no longer Good Old Games) would have even considered something like GWENT. (And if they did, they've been leading us all on all along.)

Just for the record, regardless of how we define microtransactions, I still think that the starter pack, and maybe GWENT in general, should not have been put on GOG this way. Granted that what "should be on GOG" is just my subjective opinion. Or at least GOG should have handled it better. Either by putting all the "made for multiplayer" games as a separate service and have Galaxy on both "classic" GOG and the new service. Or at the very least by having better communication and being more transparent with what they're doing. With this coming soon after their Galaxy-laced installers idea no wonder people are agitated.

I just don't like how it's impossible to have any discussion about this because lots of the people here seem to have the "You're either completely with us or you're a pro-DRM pro-microtransactions GOG shill" mentality. If you complain, at least know what you're complaining against. Don't just blindly lash out at GOG. Then again after the stunts GOG has been pulling lately I don't feel like defending them either, so I just stay out of these.

This is very true. It is another straw. And CDP/GOG's policy lately is the problem.

I really don't mind the fact that GOG's changing per se; it's almost 10 years after all. But it's the way they're doing it. No communication, no transparency but sneakily trying to bring about "Good news - here is some bad news" changes.
At least be open about what you're doing.

The difference is you at-least open your mind to what it is. You may not like it per say, but you aren't trying to make it out to be something it isn't. I can respect that.

I also don't agree with exactly how they have handled Gwent, there are better ways for sure... but I'll wait to see the final product in complete form before making any swift judements.

Could not agree more. I am an old gamer, have been gaming for 25+ years, and really against DRM, and usual BS. But this is just one game, that is free to play, and nobody forces you to play. It is also by their parent company. What's the deal.

In my ideal world I would have gog have only "good old games". But that's unrealistic and while I do not like seeing all the indie and new games here, I accept them as other may like them and it provides gog with additional income so they can keep adding old games. Life is about finding compromises. Gog did ton of good things to the community but they need to finance themselves too. This one release does not change anything. As coreyblueexclusive said, I will worry if Cyberpunk 2077 has DRM. Until then I do not understand the outrage.

And it is rather hypocritical to say you are against DRM, and then say you switch to Steam. Of course you are free to do as you want, but crusading against gog here and then logging on steam the next moment to purchase a new game there with DRM seems to me rather odd and somewhat schizophrenic.

They could have avoided the deal, but only by going bankrupt, then we'd never have seen W2, GOG, W3, etc.

Simple fact is they had to make some compromises, to get the publisher money to finish the game.
They stood their ground on what they (and I) considered the most important point.
They didn't sell the Witcher franchise rights, so still owned the IP.

They had to even accept DRM, on the physical disc vesions in the US, but still kept it DRM free on GOG.
Which hadf a fringe benfit, of showing it was the DRM version that got pirated, even though it needed a crack.
GOG release wasn't torrented anywhere near as much,

In the end we've got to judge the company on what we really want.
The GOG of old, ceased to exist the moment it became a public company with tradable shares.
Only as a private company could the owner make consumer favourable decisions, that made less profit.
Last I heard he held 30% of the shares, so is vulnerable to being forced out.

That's usually enough to keep control, but if a richer business wants to pay more to buy up all the shares, he can lose control. Exactly the same thing that's happening with Ubisoft.

Without owning a majority (51%) of the shares, a forced takeover is possible, and to keep the 70% he doesn't own happy with his decisions, he must make more profit, even if it's not consumer friendly.

Each GOG user must draw there own line, and make it clear that will be where they stand.

My line is Offline installers, I detest all Store clients, and the only good thing about Galaxy, is it's optional.
Store Clients, are a plague, and as bad as DRM to me, especially when multi-player requires it.
All MPG's should have that functionality built into the game, not depend on a damn store client.
A multi-player game that requies a store client, is not a game I will play.

As a result, I rarely touch multiplayer games, and modes, when I'm forced to use a client in SPG's, I turn everything I can off, not intersested in any of that added bloat, with GOG I can just ignore the client entirely.

So that's my line,.DRM free offline installers, with Galaxy optional.
MPG's, and modes, have already crossed the line, and I won't play them.
I'm a Single Player Gamer, at heart, and rarely take any interest in Multi-Player.

Maybe, and so be it. Die on your feet instead of living on your knees.

I think the changes being made are quite negative as far as social behavior goes, because it isn't greed that drives healthy, prosperous societies, but rather, cooperation. And the manner in which they've communicated these changes is consistent with that sort of mindset.

When the cost of winning the battle is losing the war, something is very. very wrong.

OK, wait a minute. Look at it logically, and from design standpoint (or at least from a neutral vantage point).

How can you make a collectable card game without having a level playing field, persistent player card collections, and sellable or findable cards that expand said persistent collections?

How can you make new cards in the form of DLCs ("bought content that genuinely belongs to a person and is inaccessible otherwise")? Firstly, it makes the playing field unfair, because part of the player base has these cards and everyone else has no way of getting them... aside from literally paying their way to them (P2W). Secondly, adding new cards gradually and balancing them becomes impossible, because not everyone can get them and you need to release them in batches anyway, as finished products.

Furthermore, how can you make a collectable card game have an unlimited offline version for LAN parties, as some people here said? If you make a separate version of it where you can access all the existing cards and make your decks with it, it defeats the core loop of the game - building of unique decks and playstyles and discovering new cards.

The only way to pay for the (considerable) upkeep costs of a huge online game like this are a humongous one-time price, a flat subscription rate, or, well, regular collectable items, like in Magic or Warhammer.

A, say, $100-300 price is unrealistic, and even the fiercest fans wouldn't pay it without at least trying how it plays (it's a card game). Subscription rate cuts off so much of the playerbase that it is completely possible that in given state of the world (purchasing power, number of people) it wouldn't be playable because there's too few people online - and it's a negative feedback cycle as we all know.

The only thing left are collectable items you can buy. Even though they're already developed, like Warhammer plastic figures or Magic cards (the thing that you call "paying for nothing"). With one caveat - you're also able to NOT buy them and they literally rain on you just in 1-3 hours of game time. Unlike Warhammer figurines or Magic cards.

(As an aside, it's weird to say that you pay for nothing when you pay for new cards. They are developed constantly, like new issues of magazines or new comic books. Painters and designers need to be paid. Even if the payment is distributed over the playerbase, and cards technically arrive into the game assets before you get them, it's not paying for nothing!)

So there's only one question left unanswered: if the situation is what it is, SHOULD you make a collectable card game? Many of you will say "defnintely no". But CDProjekt RED found itself under the rain of requests to create a standalone version of a damn minigame they never expected to be a surprise hit. So these creators, faced with overwhelming reaction of a hugely expanded, exalted audience, decided (amazingly!) to give people what they want, and in the process ostensibly make it better than other guys.

Try as I might, I can't find any malice or betrayal in this situation. You can have a kneejerk reaction to purchasable in-game currency, I definitely have it too. But it's a requirement of the genre, its core concept - that you have to somehow work around, or mollify its impact (which as I understand they're trying to do). For pete's sake, hunting for new cards, buying, winning, and stealing them from other people is the *whole idea of Gwent* as a fictional game!

Just as a disclaimer, I'm not a fan of any collectable games, but tried Gwent just out of curiousity, and liked it. Not going to play it regularly.

You don't have to do it, as has been said so many times. So in-program-purchases are rather meaningless to the discussion. Really it's pathetic how people are going on over this as being the end of DRM-free. Oh ffs, there's still over 2000 DRM-free games sold here so why anyone would boycott them I can't for the life of me see. All that would end up doing is send the opposite message of what we are trying to.

I've bought numerous DRM-free games both here and on Steam. It's the publishers who make me pay for DRM that l'm sending a message to. If I don't own it I don't buy it whether you choose to call it DRM or not. Doom was a massive flop due to ironically pirated DRM. Not because it was boycotted but because it got the job done during initial sales so it got almost no exposure and they eventually dropped the DRM. If more people would boycott such titles it will send a much stronger message to the industry. Choose your titles man and not your stores.

A donation is a gift and that means that there is no expectation of getting something in return. He already admitted that he does expect something in return so you are factually wrong. It doesn't matter what you want to pretend it is. He does have control over how much he wants to spend, but not the price. Don't reply to me again with any of this nonsense.