So polite. Well I'll be less polite: People stop complaining about everything. Geez. Some people can never be satisfied.

Well...for me DRM is when the publisher uses some kinf of control over it's digital content. Like a live online uplink that is necessary to either patch the game or play it.

I still think that technically this IS DRM.

Anyway...as long as no personal informations (like my hardware ID, game cd-key, e-mail adress) are being uploaded I guess it's okay. I don't need to register for an ingame-online-account in order for the auto-update to work, do I?

While it's highly unlikely that the game will prevent you from playing if there's a newer version available, it still would be nice to have the patch downloaded as an executable, rather than being automatically applied. That way, you can back up the PATCH as well.

Indeed. This system guarantees that should the patch ever not be available on CDProjekt's server anymore, the game can no longer be patched, and all new installations will be the vanilla version forever. And of course, the game can never be patched on a machine with no internet connection regardless. Better hope there are no game breaking bugs in the vanilla version.

No internet connection? Some people treat their computers with more respect then their family or girlfriends. Just take an ethernet plug and stick it inside for what will probably take less than ten minutes.

Why always buying a product for five ten years down the line for which an updated installer will probably be available at that time?

He specifically stated that you will have to register your CD key with CDProjekt in order to update or download DLC. So that's a "yes".

If there was a law obliging developers to release their software DRM-free, in my eyes your implementation would obey the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

I don't think it comes as a surprise that people looking for DRM-free titles mostly wants to avoid depending on external entities authorisations to be able to enjoy the games they buy out of various concerns, like not being able to use the authorisation tools in the first place (gaming rigs without an internet connection or with problematic connections), being subject to technical or implementation issues preventing the authorisation process to successfully complete, being cut off their games when the authorisation servers are, for whatever reason, no longer in place.

With your implementation, you're restricting the notion of enjoying the game without depending on external entities authorisations to the installation and execution of the game in its original release version, which may or may not be satisfactory depending on the state of the game at release (in terms of working in the first place, being bug-free, and in a not univocally definable "complete" state).

When Stardock followed a very similar route, the spin they tried to give to the concept was that the content people not registering didn't get access to was additional, something free, not needed for the product they bought to be "fit for the purpose". Customers of some of the titles released lately by the company may disagree.

Now, with all the respect for CD Projekt RED and confidence that they may release an as bug-free as possible game, patching when it comes to PC gaming is the norm, not the exception.

Bugs may slip past even the best Q&A department, not all possible configurations can be tested. In The Witcher 2 case, we already know that proper support for non-16:9 ratios won't make it to the release version but it's planned for a future patch: while I wasn't as worked up as some others for the lack of proper support for 16:10 monitors - having a 16:10 monitor supporting not-native resolutions without scaling (or with a very good scaler, when it's preferable) and fairly good black depth - the idea that such support may count as an additional feature rather than something to normally expect sounds awkward.

A lot of emphasis on the fact that registration is optional has been placed during the Spring Conference, sounding fairly similar to the Stardock position, but trying to treat patching like something additional, that can be detached from the notion of fully enjoying the game seems fairly questionable to me.

And with the system you're putting in place for patching, the concerns I expressed at the beginning of this very long post, are justified: servers may malfunction, serials may be blacklisted if a keygen hits a specific key too often.

Backing up installations and keeping track of registry changes while installing / patching the game may help with the other concerns, but that's an hassle each of us will take into account when deciding whatever to buy and at which price point.

You said exactly what I wanted to say, only so much better than me. +1

What I was thinking - If we patch the GOG - DRM Free Version - with a retail DRM included patch we are basically back to the Retail DRM Version of the game. Unless I am really not getting the issue.

@TheEnigmaticT

Thank you very much for clarifying this.

Because you need to register, the online update system is intended as a mild DRM.

"patches will not be available as separate files, making it impossible to update illegal copies of the game in this manner"

In game updating / DLC download is fine, but is always better to have stand alone patches / DLC available than having to back up the full installation or having to download everything when you reinstall TW2.

It's also quite possible that CDP will eventually release a final patch available as download. It will have more sense than having to maintain the update servers.

The bottom line is that GOG version is far better than the heavily DRM-ed retail version. Unfortunately GOG it's not accessible for people with poor or restricted Internet access. :(

Is the GoG version patched afterwards, so if I download the whole game, like 6 months after the release, do I have to download the patches again separately?

Well: Patches are generally considered essential since they usually contain bug fixes, better support, optimisations etc. Important things.

The only legitimate way to get patches for TW2 will apparently be to register your key then have the launcher download and install them after authenticating your copy of the game.

As the patches aren't standalone / cannot be backed up after downloading (short of perhaps making a backup of the entire install, which is a bit of a hassle), this process will need to be performed every single time you install the game, effectively making this a form of online activation.

So the same kind of DRM as Impulse then.

This confirms I will be buying the retail version since I want a box and now I see the GOG version has DRM on it anyway (no matter how friendly it is). I hope, for everyone's sake, that eventually the patches will be released outside the client, maybe when the game is a couple years old and the DRM is being removed from all versions (similar to the original Witcher).

Stardock released their games without key components like multiplayer on purpose to release a zero day patch that forced you to register to Impulse and they still called their games "DRM free". I doubt that CD Projekt will do the same, I hope the vanilla game will be completely playable with only minor bugs.

Well, we shall see. Considering how The Witcher released though I'm not going to grant CDP a pass on that. We already know for instance that 4:3 and 16:10 aspect ratio support will be coming in a patch.

Even if the game is fully playable at launch though the patching system is still DRM. CDP is managing your access to game features after the sale through the internet. That's the essence of DRM.