Posted May 06, 2011
GameRager: You could also have publishers thinking/saying "Look, CDPR released a nearly/fully DRM free game and it was still a failure as hardly no one bought it.....we guess DRM is still the way to go then." by that logic.
Also, I (again) see it more as the anti-drm people being reasonable and meeting Gog part way but saying "We'll try this for now but we want fully DRM free gaming in future but will also support you this time to show we appreciate the amount of freedom from normal DRM methods you have given us and to support fully DRM free games in the future."
See what i'm getting at here?
I think most people will end up doing that, but by the same token we don't have to be happy about the misleading information. From what I've read recently, I get the feeling that Mr. Gog wasn't told that the patching system would require authentication or that the information didn't make it to PR. Also, I (again) see it more as the anti-drm people being reasonable and meeting Gog part way but saying "We'll try this for now but we want fully DRM free gaming in future but will also support you this time to show we appreciate the amount of freedom from normal DRM methods you have given us and to support fully DRM free games in the future."
See what i'm getting at here?
I think a lot of the complaints probably wouldn't have been made if we hadn't been sold in part on it being the only DRM free option.
But, ultimately, I do find it reassuring that GOG apparently didn't intentionally mislead us and is at least trying to rectify the situation. Which may or may not be believable to various people, but I personally choose to trust them on this.