So what?

The result is the same for me now: I will not buy it.

Wether I do not buy it here , or do not buy it on steam, until it is "complete" makes no bloody difference. And at the point, it is for 5 bucks on sale, nobody is any longer interested in putting DRM in it. So they can sell it on GOG, after one or two years.

Problem solved.


P.S.

Additionally I will have a better PC in two years ahead. So these games will run much smoother. Another advantage.

They will probably just forget about it in 5 years and be upset at another issue entirely.

Didn't you post at some point that you parse the log and only post the relevant parts, after stripping some information down? Or is my memory really that bad?

From what I understand of how this works, is that the installers are compiled by the QA department, while Galaxy gets the files (and scripts) from a directory. Normally, said directory would have the exact same files the QA used, but someone has to update them. Thus there may be a slight discrepancy between the two sources.

Care to explain how does CDPR piss on your face (nice comparison btw) because they transparently announced that they work on game expansions rather than hide this fact until X copies of standalone are sold first? In what way would it be better if they hid this fact until say September?

(I assume you realise that the game is done for whatever number of months now and just being polished, meaning that writers and designers have time to work on new content - be it expansion or sequel)

GOG != CDPR, they are connected of course, but I'd like to keep it separately. As in, it was CDPR (as a publisher) decision to set regional prices.

I am well aware of that so not comparing CDPR to Ubisoft directly ofcourse as the circumstances are definitely different but the purpose is actually the same i.e. image boost. Also just once again highlighting the fact that CDPR are not doing anything special with this preorder announcement of the Expansion Pack which is similar to what most other companies intend to do with their Season Pass announcements i.e. to get money beforehand with the promise of future content no matter how large or small it ends up being.

It might help if people had the chance to actually PLAY that game first and get to adore it.

Right now, it seems more like content is being sold based on the franchise and the name, rather than things like gameplay value.

The real problem is that this really just makes sense if the company isn't sure that the gameplay will actually sell their product.

It's simple logic really - we really have two questions being asked here:

1. Is the gameplay good?
2. When should we announce more content?

This gives us four possibilities:

a. Good Gameplay + Early Announcement = Sales
b. Good Gameplay + Late Announcement = Sales
c. Bad Gameplay + Early Announcement = Sales
d. Bad Gameplay + Late Announcement = No Sales

The fact is that we can't tell whether the gameplay is good or bad, so it's essentially 50/50 - thus the only way to avoid the No Sales option is an early announcement BEFORE word about the gameplay is can get out.

This logical reasoning isn't hard to understand, but it does imply a certain lack of faith in the key selling factor of the product for most gamers - gameplay.

Most importantly, some customers won't take the time and effort to cancel a product and get a refund, particularly if the effort to do so outweighs the return the customer will get. Thus, more sales will occur through such misselling, based on customer laziness, at the expense of customer satisfaction.

This practice is a particularly insidious dark-side selling technique. It often coincides with T&Cs that prevent or hamper refunds. It's right up there with gym memberships and telecoms contracts, PPI and online gambling services.

As much as you can say "that's just the way the industry is" - and, unfortunately, we are saying exactly that more and more often - it still galls to see favoured businesses succumb to such techniques, especially when they are convinced that they can rebrand them and somehow that changes everything.

This is probably the biggest issue with both GOG.com and CDPR - not just that they are implementing such practices, but that they say that what they are doing is new, and somehow better, than what everyone else is doing, despite it being exactly the same.

This means that either they are aware that what they are doing is the same, and are thinking that they are able to fool the customer into believing that this is something different, or that they are deluded enough to actually think that they are somehow different, and even better, than others even though they are doing the same thing...

Unless they make it mandatory (like the Steam client), Galaxy is not DRM. It's not required to play your games; it's not even required to download them. It may be required for some multi-player games but only as a means to connect to the game servers (including Steam ones I believe) which is not DRM but a necessity for online gaming!

l sincerely hope this always remains the case.

No idea, Lynette. At the moment, it's cheaper to get the game + the expansion separately, than get the bundled release, as the latter does not come with any discount for owning the first two games.

Oh, and allow me a small, but apparently significant correction - it's Expansion Pass, not Expansion Pack. ;-P



With the game not out for another 1.5 month, is there any way to get this sort of reaction with this announcement?

Fun fact! Sacrifice requires a CD-Key to play multiplayer, and it was one of the games available when GOG first opened its doors (August 2008).

Your entitled to your opinion, but I can never see anything requiring the internet as ever really being DRM free simply by the nature of the internet... and not including MP in today's world is simply not an option.

I was talking about Galaxy not internet. Eitherway I see it as drm and am finished with this discussion.

Time will tell.

Cd-Key is not the problem. Galaxy is. I edited the above text since most people misinterpret what I ment.