How many such games that give bonuses from soda and doritos are on GOG? Answer: zero. Perhaps this will change in the future, probably with Cyberpunk multiplayer I would even guess, but this is a bit of a red herring in the meantime, no?

Can you rephrase this...I am not understanding and it seems to be in contradiction. The game technically has DRM'd content but you don't personally see it as having DRM'd content?

If the content is locked behind online code checks, etc, then yes that particular bonus content is. There's no 3rd party "sponsor a gimmick partnership" equivalent here though. The owners of a DRM-Free store are directly introducing online checks for single-player offline games to access the full 1st party content on their own store. That's not remotely the same as "a 3rd party site selling soft drinks has created it's own extra content in the same theme as its partner's product, and is hosting a competition giveaway in exchange for monetizing your contact details (e-mail address) to jump on a marketing / branding bandwagon of the current "in thing". GOG already has those details. It's needed to create an account to buy a game on GOG in the first place. They literally gain nothing annoying the cr*p out of existing GOG users by asking them to register with a client they've already decided to not use to unlock GOG content. The negative tone sent far outweighs the wafer thin middle ground.

Unfortunately "nuanced lenses" aren't helping GOG's image or clarity of thought at all. The real bottom line is this - Many people who absolutely don't want to use a client have two options for offline installers : 1. Buy them legally from GOG, 2. Download them illegally from 'scene groups' who'll still be churning them out long after GOG stops making them. One of these is more in GOG's long term interest than the other for retaining customers. It's just unfortunate that GOG will be the last people to figure out the real competition for client-less DRM-free offline installers isn't Galaxy "by hook or by crook", it's those who will amusingly be offering 100% of Cyberpunk's content via "repacks" for free whilst GOG only offers 99% via "official" offline installers for £50...

It is probably as simple as the age group of the people running GOG is on par with the longevity of Steam as a platform, so for a certain age group of 'game professionals' Steam has always been there.

These people look at Steam, then compare the popularity of GOG and make the simple (and slightly false) assumption that "We need to do what they are doing".

It is obviously more complex than that, but a part of the problem facing all other DD stores in comparison to Steam. Everyone wants to be successful, everyone wants the big pay out, it's natural (in the same way Windows OS is trying to be more Mac like (in terms of corporate control over user control)).

The danger for GOG is it built it's foundations on having a soul (whereas Steam is pure evil that wants (and does) control all gaming), and is in danger of losing that chasing Steams forked tails.

What other definition of DRM should there be? Sorry, but the only thing that makes any sense to me regarding DRM is a 100% zero-tolerance approach. We should not be compromising with regards to DRM, period. For me, 0.000001% DRM is too much DRM. Partly because a 'slippery slope' argument imo very much applies.

I also object to the Mountain Dew example you gave, if that relates to in-game extras that are only available by purchasing a can of Mountain Dew. It is still game content being locked behind a requirement that the player has to jump through some dirty corporate hoops to get them. I.e. it is unethical.
Yes. Aside for the 'is it DRM' argument, it is certainly another example of preferential treatment of Galaxy users over offline installer users, which I am very much fed up with.

You know, the [hypothetical] Mountain Dew promotion you mention can and has been done DRM-free before? The package comes with a redeem code, you enter it into the store/site, and it's added as another downloadable, DRM-free item I can add to my game.

I have tons of Sims 3 "mini-DLCs" that were cross-promotions done this way. Go to Sims3 store, redeem code, and download it. Sims3 actually had no DRM in the game itself [the disc copies anyway], nor its downloadables. I have it all backed up and have tested reinstalling it all blank, new PC, disconnected from the Internet and it's flawless, including the little promotional items.

DRM is *not* needed for things like this. The better way for GOG do do this is to give everyone a free copy of the Cyberpunk 2077 DLC to download from the GOG site, and make sure it works no matter which client/source they installed from... Or those of us here on GOG.com, who are clearly here for the DRM-free goods, just has it bundled in already. Because we clearly already have our account. DRM-free. No need for some shitty in-game online activation (which is undeniably DRM).

It could still be considered DRM-free, but it would make using the games in a DRM-free manner a lot of hassle, I would say pretty much impossible when you start having a sizable library. Big point of the DRM-free is that you are able to archive your games for offline use (it is not what defines DRM-free, but it is one of the most important points why people care about DRM-free).

I see you have 646 or so GOG games. Let's say most of them required you to download, install and run (once) the game, before you can zip them to your archive, in order to play them on some internet-less PC, or later when GOG doesn't exist anymore.

How long and how much effort do you figure it would take you to archive your GOG games (or, let's say, 70% of them that you care about)? At least you would have to have a very big hard drive as installing the games means you are storing them in an uncompressed format, until you zip them. That is different from when you are e.g. downloading an already compressed installer from GOG.

Also, updating your archived games would mean having to uncompress, import (to Galaxy), update and re-zip the games, one by one.

So I don't think it is unreasonable at all for people to feel all that effort needed just to archive your DRM-free games with a mandatory client is just too much. Hence, a mandatory client sucks for DRM-free gaming (unless it has some kind of automated process of doing all that I just described).

Naturally, if you feel you'd never want to archive your GOG games anyway, then I feel you probably just don't care about games being DRM-free that much, which would explain why you see no problem in all that.

They are if you are required to use the client while connected online to install. An easy heuristic to determine DRM: "Can I install this game using official, provided-to-me means on a new computer a desert island running a generator and absolutely no Internet connections".

If the content activates in-game on first launch via and Internet connection, that's DRM. It doesn't matter if it's "client" or not. This is how all the shit that was SecuROM was for Internet activation. This is no different other than it's only being applied to a small portion of the game, but it's still part of that game. Cyberpunk 2077, as described to us, has DRM and doesn't belong on GOG.

So did rjbuffchix get an answer to his thread question? :P

I guess the point is that if that activated game can then be zipped and archived and played 50 years from now on an internet-less PC, without having to reactivate the game or any of its contents, then it could be considered DRM-free. But not until you have downloaded, installed and run the game at least once.

And that whole process just makes "DRM-free" a lot of hassle with such a mandatory client. It is not just about downloading some compressed, ready-to-use game straight to your archive in order to use it later or elsewhere, but instead quite many time-consuming extra steps have been introduced, before you have a DRM-free game in your archive. Making it less and less relevant that the game is "DRM-free", after jumping through several fiery hoops.

I might reconsider my stance if Galaxy included an extra button that prepares such archivable game zip (or whatever) for you effortlessly. So instead of "download/install/run/manually zip/uninstall the game", it would be a simple "archive" button that has the same outcome for the said game.

Maybe what I also fear is that that is the plan all along. It would be so much effort and time-consuming to archive your GOG games that very few would try to do it. Then you can say "they are DRM-free" but only after lots of effort. I've said it before that I'm sure GOG would rather promote the idea that people don't download any of their games until they are actually going to play them, one by one. Otherwise they just want people to keep their games on the servers, waiting.

Which, of course, makes DRM-free pretty pointless. DRM-free matters only after you have transferred (=downloaded) your games to yourself. A DRM-free game on a dead server is just as unreachable as a Denuvo game.

I agree. The manual process in this hypothetical is onerous and breaks my "official, provided to me" clause.

An additional question to the OP's would be:

"WIll Cyberpunk ever have a standalone installer version?"

And tons of games provided through clients meet this definition. Even ignoring the fact Galaxy lets you download offline installers, games today are made to work without a traditional install process because of how Steam and Galaxy work. You could absolutely take Cyberpunk's files and do what you said above, even without an offline installer. I'm sure these costumes would be part of that as well.

Again, we will have to wait and see how they're handled, but I would guess they are DRM free once you download them through Galaxy, and thus would not be DRM'd the way I... or you, apparently... would define it.

Maybe this is obvious to some, but it is not to me. Why would the files downloaded through the Galaxy client not be the same ones offered through the web browser?

I noticed something, why are there no GOG staff or anyone higher up coming in here to clear stuff up or tells us about what they had in mind doing this? Seems like they just want Users to shout into a void of nothing and burn themselves out. Very odd. I remember the Witcher 3 launch they where active all over the place and talked with users. Here it's dead silent besides the response of YES you have to use Galaxy to download the game pre launch.

GOG even use Denuvo DRM on there copies they sent out to reviewers which is interesting, Witcher 3 never did.