Except when it comes to multiplayer keys restricting you to only 1 access per game bought, because you only get 1. Other than that, indeed.

I'm only okay only with an optional PATCHING client. I'm absolutely NOT okay with an optional central hub/launcher client for launching all games. The more people use the latter method over time, the more financial sense it will make to eventually reduce support for launching games manually and without a central client. GOG is still a business that has to make a profit, and being DRM-free is dependent on its customers believing in the concept of DRM-free as firmly as possible (which I absolutely do 100%, but I believe some other customers take a "don't care" attitude toward it); I'm sorry but I can't trust any for-profit company, even CD Projekt which I'm a big fan of, to always stick to some political ideals which I and other end-users personally hold dear. That's why I feel that it's so important to never take DRM-free for granted, and to always stay vigilant on the idea (as well as spreading the word about it to others). But if you start to take baby steps to change the GOG concept and make [mostly new] customers care less about DRM-free (over time, even if the first step isn't truly DRM, you start to move toward a DRM concept and more [especially newer] customers start to adopt those ideas as a new norm), it means GOG will be pressured to cater more to such users to be financially viable.

If you think that CD Projekt will always stay firm to DRM-free no matter what as a matter of principle (not even ever offering "optional DRM"?), look at what game is currently available on Steam - The Witcher 2 with Steamworks DRM integration. So why don't they only sell The Witcher 2 on GOG.com and not also have a Steamworks DRM version that seems to go against their DRM-free principles? Sorry to say, but it's the profit motive (disguised as catering to demand and choice).

If they don't stick to firm concepts & principles, eventually they may start to add "optional" tracking/spyware features, especially for the DRM-accepting Steam users, which all require sending data to a central server each time you play; you end up with "optional" DRM-like features all over the place... absolutely horrendous and I would stop using GOG and boycott it if that were to ever happen.

Which is why I'm only okay with an optional PATCHING client that you could launch just to patch some of the newer games, after which you can only launch the game manually. Sticking with manual installs and manual game launches, there's no risk of the bad stuff happening years down the road.

To clarify: I wasn't talking rights but rather how "convenience can be inconvenient to users wanting control rather than convenience"

to use a GOG example: I bought the GOG version of Shadowrun Returns & I really liked it. And recently GOG released a patch for it & I started a new Char & I noticed a few things I preferred in the "GOG release" version so now I'm considering reinstalling it not patching & if I were using a client at the least it may nag me to patch the game.

I had to read that twice, but I get what you're saying. Many times, I prefer an older version of a game than a patched version that made some questionable changes. Manual patching allows me not to patch the game, and play my preferred version.

Here are some interviews and coverage of CD Projekt RED/GOG's executive views on DRM:

The Witcher 3 100% DRM Free on PC: An Interview with CDP RED
CD Projekt Red Talks About DRM

I might be crazy as a mad hatter, but I'm going to sink every brain cell I have of faith in GOG.com towards fighting towards making the world of gaming a better place by fighting to bring more game developers on board with DRM-free games and philosophy and to increase the awareness of DRM being useless against piracy. I stand strong by my opinion that the creation of a standalone gaming client that is vastly improved in both feature and function over the minimal functionality present in the existing GOG Downloader will only stand to draw more gamers from the wider market to the world of DRM-free gaming on GOG, that such can be done in an optional manner which people can ignore who do not wish for such functionality, and that providing such a software option is orthagonal and unrelated to the concept of DRM.

GOG's own track record stands on its own and it is in my eyes in high regard and I believe their philosophy on doing what's right for gamers is also what's right for business only grows in strength every day and that they'll continue to prosper because of it, and us GOG gamers will continue to reap the benefits of that via the selection of awesome games available through the service - despite what any naysayers or doomsday conspiracy theorists might think otherwise. ;oP

This idea that a client for patching and downloads would lead to DRM is baffling to me. I don't get it even a little bit.

I strongly recommend anyone who doubts GOG.com's motivations or what we can expect from them in the future should watch these videos and the other ones I posted above. By getting to know some of the people who are behind the company and their strong views and motivations, I believe people will form opinions about what we can expect from GOG in the future and allay any fears one might have of things turning to the dark side.


LGC 2011: GoG.com's Guillaume Rambourg -- Three Reasons Selling DRM-Free Content is the Future

Marcin Iwiński, Guillaume Rambourg - Creating a Digital Business for Humans

100% agree.
P.S: I don't like at all how Google is behaving lately about privacy, copyright and forced changes

Depends on the game actually, for some you can use 2 (generic and unique). It depends if the game checks only that the clients have unique cd-keys or if they are checked against a server (which has the generic blacklisted).

And of course that depends on whether you consider a multiplayer key drm or not.

You are aware that the promise only stretches so far. The main polish site of CD Project (cdp.pl) have not problems being a key seller for Steam and Origin or other DRM'd games.

So far, out of that company, it is only GoG which is DRM free only.

We don't really have a hammer but only our buying habit. Voting with the wallet is all we can do. I see it more neutral. If GOG fails, maybe somebody else will win. If GOG cannot provide an optinal automatic updater, maybe somebody else can. I really don't care where I get my DRM free games from as long as there is someone out there.

The good thing about CDP is that their games (Witcher ...) are available both: DRM free and DRMed. Much more than for example Take 2 or EA or Activision...

If it means that the only way to update drm-free games is when on-line, then that's a potential problem.

Extra content and features are very often added later - and in that scenario above, you will not be able to enjoy the extra goodies if you're not able to connect. An automated client and patcher is good for convenience, but it should always coexist with the offline way of updating stuff.

One example is the new Elite Dangerous space sim. The game itself is drm-free, but as i understand it - the expansions are not. The only way to get them is to log in, and the stuff gets added to the game, instead of just downloading the update archive for later use.
I hope i'm wrong about this, as off-line players will not be able access lot of content in this game in the future.

And how exactly do clients take control away from the games you install? Not every client is exactly the same as Steam/Origin/uPlay.

I know you said you have never used Desura before. C'mon, use it, Desura is the proof that having a client does NOT mean DRM. Desura just make managing your games much easier. I have tons of games on Steam and Desura (more than 200 on Desura and more than 900 on Steam), if there wasn't a client to manage all these games i would be screwed.


Why risk what? Desura has been offering the same client for years now and it's still DRM-free and optional. You can't just assume GOG will turn into a DRM digital store just because they made a client. That would be absurd. No one in this thread is asking to have a mandatory client, everyone is asking for an OPTION. That's it, just an option of using a client. Do you really think it's reasonable to refuse an optinal client for those that do want it just because you don't like it? Don't you think it's kind of selfish?

And i really believe having a good client would certainly help GOG. Let's be honest here, the current patching model was fine for old games, but for new games that are patched very often it's not. GOG can't even think about selling alpha and beta games with the current model. For people that do not care that much about DRM, Steam becomes the best choice for modern games because of how convenient it is compared to GOG. This is a problem.

Maybe because Steam has a MUCH larger userbase than GOG? You do know games need to sell, right? Especially a AAA game with high production values such as The Witcher 2. I'm pretty sure i had read a report somewhere saying that The Witcher 2 sold more on Steam than it did on GOG.

CDProjektRed and GOG are not the same company, by the way.