The winners of skyStriders epic ten copy Witcher 2 giveaway for which you must write why you think you deserve it. Well I want it for free to stick it to cdp despite the fact you're paying for it isn't exactly an enticing line.

In a sense, the gifts/prizes have already been bought or at least set to be bought, so not accepting it doesn't change much. Except of course if it was then given to someone who would have paid for it. I'd also like to point out that "not giving my money for DRM stuff" doesn't imply the opinion "no money should be given for DRM stuff". I see it as more of a personal preference. I continue on my quest to prove that it's not hypocrisy or even hippopotamusy.

Ah, yes, those winners. They should definitely go to people who want the game badly and haven't got the moneys for games (but happen to have a wild computator with the powerz), or maybe someone who has done like a really rad skateboarding trick or something and just deserves it for that. I'm not going to take part in it, since I can easily buy the thing.

Well it's ... Quite arguable if it is a DRM scheme, after all, argument here proves that. It depends on your definition of DRM - by my definition and by yours, it is DRM, by others it may not be. Still, it'S CD-project reaching out to gamers and that I'm glad for.

It is DRM by technical definition too. You've paid for the update functionality and CDP can disable it for any reason at all. It's no different to them being able to disable any other functionality you've paid for like being able to install the game, launch it or access the a particular potion of it (singleplayer/multiplayer).

It's like the manufacturer of the car you brought being able to limit your car to 40mph. The people who claim this patching system isn't DRM would have no problem with this because going over 40mph is completely optional and the car still functions :P

40 mph is pretty fast, man. You're better off not being 2 fast 2 furious. It could be pretty bad, though, if someone put a bomb in the car and you'd have to keep driving above 50 miles per hour to avoid going boom. Man, that's some scary DRM.

The funny thing about your example is the fact that car engines are heavily drm-ed by default.

It all depends on how polished the game is on release. If it has a bunch of game breaking bugs in it that require a patch to make it playable, then the entire game might as well have DRM.

I don't have a problem with registering, I just don't like the possibility that I won't be able to able to back up the patches and DLC along with the main game. It won't really matter though, since I'm sure the patches will be cracked and on torrent sites just like steamworks patches.

Hopefully in the future they will update the main download to include everything.

That's what some people agree and some don't. Do you really pay for the update functionality, i.e. are patches part of the legal buying contract or are they just something that's commonly there but a completely voluntary additional service?

For me patches are part of the product. For them probably too: why producing patches if you do not want to distribute them afterwards? Wouldn't make sense.

However, legally it might not be part of it. So the wording is difficult. I decided for myself to say: "only 90% DRM free". :)

As much as I want to support GOG.com and Witcher 2, I will have to wait and see how the patching and DLC are handled before putting down my hard earned cash for two reasons.

1. Patches for PC games should be available to download and save at any time for future installs. I understand they are forcing the online update to fight piracy but once again the pirates will just crack the code while paying customers get the short end of the stick.

2. DLC. This may be a whole other topic but DLC just pisses me off. I loved how the original Witcher was handled with a huge download of additional quests, new graphics, etc. as a thank you to customers. I also miss full blown expansions. This whole preorder and get an in game outfit or special finishing move otherwise unavailable (which should already be in the regular game) is BS.

Unless one believes that developers make patches and fix bugs for free, the customer is paying for patches. The alternative being that the programmers are working on a voluntary basis for the good of the customers. That generally doesn't happen for companies and is illegal in most parts of the world.

Ergo the patches are paid for by the customers.

As for the rest, the patches are a part of the product that they're selling. CDProjekt isn't debating that issue, we know that there will be at least one patch if for nothing other than to add support for ratios other than 16:9. And they are managing restrictions on that patch.

There's really very little room to argue that there isn't any DRM, when they themselves admit that they are managing restrictions on patches that they've previously announced will be made available to paying customers.

Arguing that because the initial release hasn't got any DRM that there is no DRM is more or less a lie, I've never heard anybody buy a game and think, thank god that they only put the DRM into the patches.

That's exactly what was said, so there must be some kind of different view thing going on.
"...I don't see how, even in the most general sense, that can be considered DRM..."
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/the_witcher_2_gog_version/post63

I think you are absolutely right with respect to common sense (after all, if you produce a patch you want to distribute it as wide as possible)!

But maybe you're wrong with respect to legal sense. And it's directly an anti-pirate measure for the guys who buy the DRMed version and offering patches in parallel without limitation would kind of spoil the fun for these guys, woudl it. Probably that's their dilemma.

We don't know how many patches will come out or how much of the game will be changed by patches. There might be no patch at all coming or necessary (or only one tiny patch for the screen resolution).

It sounds strange to say that ones pays for an unknown amount of patching. Somebody might say, that he/she paid for three patches ... Also, I think you can definitely not sue them for something like one more patch that you would like to have.

It's probably more of a service, you rely on their goodwill and their reputation is at stake but no financial claim is involved.

I imagine the buying process more like: you give them the money, they give you the product. And nowhere on the product there is the promise that they will deliver patches or produce new ones.

Sometimes patches are included which is the best case I think. We should urge them to do the same with TW2.

If they don't do this I think the best strategy would be to wait a little more and see how it develops. But that's just me.

Until then, I guess, that most people would count patches in the total product, so it would be fair to say that the total product is not completely DRM free for now.

Sorry, peculiarity of the English language, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

You pay for whatever patching is done and the end product is supposed to be usable as sold, however many patches that might take.

In terms of the patches being used between DRM and DRM free releases, that's doubtful, you rarely if ever see patches that work with multiple stores that use differing forms of DRM.

You just fell into the "trap" I thought someone would. I said you've paid for the update functionality and they can disable that remotely. Specifically didn't mention the patches themselves :)

So... Wednesday was yesterday. Any news?