It has been pointed out in this thread https://www.gog.com/forum/general/boycotting_gog_2021/post1657 that GOG used to advertise as '100% DRM free'. Now it does no longer do that and only advertises as 'DRM free'.

Guess this has to do with why FCKDRM.com was scrapped...

I still buy the occasional old game(s) here at a discount, I'm lucky because that's all I'm interested in usually

It did't work properly as in: it still listed GOG as DRM-free store. Which isn't true anymore. So disabling the site was really for the best, both because it hat a high cringe factor and because it was false advertising.

It had Gabe centre stage as first tile on it, so it was hardly about drm free. More like an aspirational diary page,GOG, the hipsters steam, CDPR the hipster EA.

The front page still says "We are GOG.COM, the DRM-free home for a curated selection of games." Is that false advertising? Should we fight GOG to the ends of the earth?

Nice to know that "DRM-free" was just an ad campaign.

Well, at least they removed the "100%" from their earlier claim of "100% DRM-free". So they could argue, if someone were to take them to court, that they are technically still a home for some DRM-free, curated games. In other words a selection of games here is DRM-free. The others are not necessarily so.

Still, in spirit, the "DRM-free home" is false advertising by now. Legally probably not. I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

Oh, GOG is still 'DRM-free', in the sense that they mouth the words. Yet, those in charge of the store don't really believe in the cause any more. They lack any conviction to enforce their supposed policy and de-list games that have introduced DRM. CDPR has no desire to set an example with their own games.

They are 'DRM free' like a catholic who only goes to Church at Christmas.

Delisting games? Absolutely not.

Stop users the option to purchase a new game in a DRM free and cleaner version? Deny them the upgradability in the middle of its updates life?

Deny GOG to compete with much better versions than others stores? Convert them in a convenient niche forever because a fundamentalist, subjective and irreal view of what DRM is in the Digital Only Gaming stores era?

Absolutely NOT. I suspected about the toxiticy and cynism of some users here but the intention and agenda is being more and more visible.

And do you know where is the main cynism? In the assumption that all of these GOG image attacks won't harm GOG in near future, and if they do, well, do not worry you will have the option of backup your DRM free games because you can.

And sorry but his is an insult to the intelligence of a lot of people here.

Did you even read my post? I am talking specifically about games on GOG.com that are known to contain DRM. I.e. some of the games on this list. This is supposed to be a DRM-free games store, is it not? Therefore, if a game being sold here is found to have DRM, then yes, absolutely it should be de-listed, if the developers are not willing to remove the DRM.

It is not 'extremist' to expect GOG to stand by the basic principles the store was built on, and that many of its users have
bought into.

Cosmetic content and/or rewards?, and/or things basically developers related?. If it is convenient and possible these things could change in the future, in other cases it would be not the end of the world. This is the Digital era mate.

But apparently it is easier to delist Them in favor of Steam and even worse options.

Six titles with debatable content treated as DRM? and that means it s not a DRM free store anymore? the treason of the century? They are not principles, It is overrreaction and nonsense obstinacy

Is GOG going to initiate a new campaign of promoting DRM-free gaming? If not, why not?

3 of the games on that list have substantial single-player content locked behind an online requirement, not just cosmetics. No Man's Sky, before it was fixed, had single-player missions locked behind an online requirement. What is that supposed to mean? Statements like 'this is the digital era' and 'this is just how things are now' were being used to justify the normalization of DRM in the first place. GOG has literally built its store on pushing back against those pernicious industry trends, rather than accepting or embracing them. Six titles is six titles too many. I find it highly concerning that GOG is apparently doing nothing to enforce its own policies on its store. Tbh, I would throw your reasoning back at you: if it is 'only' a small number of games, then it would have a negligible effect on GOG's revenue if they do something about it. Therefore, there is little reason for them not to. Surely their credibility as a 'DRM-free' store is worth more than the revenue from 6 measly games?

That is part of the problem: GOG no longer places any value on their credibility as a DRM-free store, despite the fact that is what built their business in the first place. When did I say it is the 'treason of the century'? What I am saying is that, if GOG.com wants any more of my dollars, they will have to show more conviction about upholding their values of DRM-free. Because DRM-free is why I shop here and that is what I want to see. You are free to do whatever you want with your money.

Those things can change right now, in the present. If memory serves, there are "AAA" games here which have cosmetic content available via the offline "backup" installers. As that is clearly possible, there is no excuse for anything to be locked behind online clients, making accounts with a third-party, etc. What is particularly grating is that the flagship game Cyberpunk has content locked behind Galaxy. GOG/CDPR out of anyone should know better.

Yes...and you wouldn't accept your "logic" (which I left out of the quote) on this when it comes to other topics. As I said in another thread, if you order soup and there's a hair in it, you wouldn't go "oh at least it's only one hair, and at least it's not some more disgusting bodily fluid". Maybe it's even a very short whisker, most people probably wouldn't even notice it being there! Doesn't matter, though, as your hypothetical soup at this point would no longer be "100% hair-free".