They ARE hypocritical.

Don't forget they are the same people that hired a law firm to send threatening letters to gamers who may or may not have 'pirated' the first Witcher. They lost a lot of my respect when they did that, as it tells you what their core values are. A shame.
Yes, it's absolutely as bad as they are supporting the Xbone and Microsoft.

Anyone who doesn't believe in DRM doesn't support it. Simple really.

Sorry my mistake typo, I ment isn't really

Yes, and designing the game as a PC exclusive would allow them with so much more freedom.

I'm against the idea of multi-platform design as a principle, because you end up with PC games which feel play like console ports, Witcher 2 plays like a console port even though it was PC-exclusive at release and only later ported to 360, and yet with KBM control the game feels like a console game, you can tell it was designed with a small number of buttons (gamepad) in mind.

I think designing a game either as a computer game or a console game, and if it's successful then porting it afterward, is good design and good business. Designing it for both platforms leaves you with a game which does nothing right.

Not to mention that your typical merican XBAWKS owner isn't a serious RPG player to begin with, and given how shitty the Xbone is shaping up to be I'll say that the only people who'll be buying it are Halo/broshooter fanboys and people who are buying the system to watch TV/movies.

I can only say, there's a (enourmous) difference between supporting something and shoving it down the throat of others. CDP supports DRM free in a pretty wonderful way, as you can see on GOG. However, they won't force people to buy DRM free.

I'm cool with that.

That's not the point, when you against DRM, any sort of it is bad.

That's a narrow way to look at it.
I'm getting a real Templar vibe here...

Probably should be mentioned here that it wasn't the fact that they were pursuing pirates that damaged CDPR's reputation in this regard. It was the fact that they used IP addresses to identify them, a method that had long been proven at that time as well as now to be legally unacceptable and extremely unreliable.

Nobody likes piracy, especially when people are getting rich off it. But likewise, nobody benefits when you go after grandmas and teenage kids except to drag the industry's reputation further through the mud.

No. Just no. There are people against always online DRM who are ok with disc checks, for instance.

And I'm sorry, but that's exactly the point. I believe in DRM free, so I will not put any sort of DRM in my game. If a platform I release in has some out-of-the-box DRM, it's still on that platform, not in my game. I think it makes perfect sense


Look, I think we're getting things the wrong way: you say they are against DRM, I say they support DRM-free. It's quite a different approach.

I under stand what your getting at 100%, but the way I see it is that there against DRM, but not 100%, that won't have it on there games, but there fine if someone else does the DRM for them.
If cd project truly believed DRM free revolution, they would have held onto there integrity and skipped the Xbox one.

Well, as you say, that's the way you see it. The way I see it, they ensure that a) there is no DRM anywhere within their field of control, and b) there is a 100% DRM free option available. Which is what supporting DRM free is all about, as far as I'm concerned. After that, they will also sell in other places which will may or may not add DRM around their products, but if somebody would rather buy a DRM infested version of a game they could get DRM free... well, people learn by making mistakes.

GOG is not CD Project Red. They are sister companies.

That's another thing that's bugged me - the use of the term "sister company". Is that used to somehow disassociate GOG.com from whatever CDPR does, or is it a mistranslation from Polish? Because GOG.com is a subsidiary of CDPR, plain and simple.

They're owned by the same people though.

BTW, on a slightly different note - CDPR has just announced they're opening a second studio to make 'smaller games'. Interesting.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-17-cd-projekt-red-opening-new-studio-to-make-one-of-two-smaller-roughly-20-hour-games

Sorry -- that was the wrong URL. Correct one now :)

I'm using an Enterprise copy of Windows 7 on one of my machines. The OS requires me to connect to my company's network (either by physically taking it there or through a VPN) so it can authenticate with the company's KMS server. The check isn't needed constantly, but often enough. So in essence, it works much as XBox One does. Online check to authenticate.
Should GOG not support Windows 7 Enterprise, even if it's almost the same as Windows 7 Ultimate? Or should they ignore the OS' authentication and simply not add something on top of it?
And why is Windows 7 Enterprise different from XBox One's authentication scheme?