Wrong. Actually it took a lot and was a slow process. A process that involved GOG scrapping one of their principles after the other. When they started they advertised themselves as fair store, one world, one price. No regional blocking. No DRM whatsoever. But then, bit by bit, they showed that they are just another store like the others. DRM-free is the only thing that remains and that is only true for single-player. Multiplayer games are often DRM-ed now. And if you had your eyes open in the last years, you will have noticed that GOG tried do push Galaxy on everyone. Edging slowly away from the 'will always be optional' tenet. Sure, they say it always will be optional. Sure, they say that there will never be DRM. But they have said a lot that turned out to be lies. They even made public advertisement videos where they denounced regional pricing - and then introduced it themselves.

So yes, I expect that they will keep trying to make Galaxy more and more mandatory in a backhanded way. Like they did before. And Cyberpunk, being the next big thing, would be the perfect chance to sneak in the next step. That will make some customers unhappy, drive away some, but with it being such a big release they might count on retaining most customers and creating a new status quo, one step closer to a regular store with (of course totally "optional") DRM.

Of course neither of us can look into the future. So we'll see who is right upon release. But I do guess that Cyberpunk will have 'bonus-content' that is Galaxy exclusive. It is the logical evolution in the direction that GOG has been taking for the past decade.

So most people have no problem with an in-house title of CDP/GOG having heavy regional pricing?

I guess most peoples knows that given that the game is sold in retail too it's obvious that the digital version price will have to be aligned with retail including regional pricing.

Despite Witcher 3 being a fantastic game, and CPR/GoG not letting me down so far, it's alot to ask at that price and to pre-order in the current gaming climate, i.e Making spectacular looking shit, charging a fortune and watching the lemmings line up for a pre-order.

I'll wait as i always do, watch the gameplay, see the reviews and if it's what i'm into, i'll pay the price on GoG. :)

If there's a physical version the digital version will have regional pricing. They literally went to court over that issue with Witcher 2, and CDP lost/ Namco Bandai won.

I guess we could blame CDPR for having a physical media release instead of online only, but personally I wouldn't want to deprive people who like buying boxes over less than two dollars of regional pricing.

My expectations are high for Cyberpunk 2077, especially after my love affair with The Witcher III series. Gonna wishlist it for now. The price is reasonable for what I imagine will be quite a grand game, ...but with no specified PC specs on the horizon and with only a cinematic trailer rather than a new gameplay trailer, I prefer putting my wallet on hold for now.

They have to make sure no one cheats/etc so they host MP in their own client....this does not mean DRM(imo) as MP is optional.

Also mainly GOG(and CDPR's main games) do the DRM free thing, not some card game.

1. They've dropped some other principles because of dev/IP holder pressure, but I doubt they'd drop that one.

2. Galaxy will likely always be optional as making it mandatory would kill off a good portion of their original userbase and create bad PR for them.

3. If it's bonus for MP, maybe, but not SP.....unless you have a crystal ball or something similar?

No. They don't HAVE TO make sure no one cheats. That is a service. A service that is welcome for many players, sure, but it can and should be optional. Sure, for effective anti-cheat measurements all players have to make a verified account and to have that option is good. But multiplayer games used to have the alternative option. LAN multiplayer, for example, or the possibility to set up own dedicated servers. That's what DRM-free is about: choice. The freedom whether you want to register your game somewhere or not. Removing that choice and allowing only those players who play the game via Galaxy, tied to their GOG account, is DRM. And yes, many publishers want you to believe that DRM is necessary for multiplayer. But that is a lie.

Local MP should be allowed, that much is true, but to me it;'s not DRM to do it as CDPR is doing....maybe a different term would work but not DRM.

Lets straighten up a few things. DRM-free is about having the game run and install more efficiently because you don't have to run complex decryption processes. No one had a problem with DRM until it started becoming intrusive and reduced stability.

A predominantly online multiplayer game will need to use a matchmaking service of some kind that is secure and promotes fair play. In this case, using the inhouse Galaxy infrastructure makes the most sense. This consequently results in a requirement to register with Galaxy. You can't just use Steam's or EA's multiplayer service. You'd have to make an agreement with them first, which involves paying them money. You think all these services are shared?

You are forcing ideals that are misguided. I like the fact that you hold CDPR to high standards but be realistic. I don't think there is a multiplayer game out there that doesn't require you to register an account. Don't call registration DRM and then try to make it an issue.

Wrong. Just because you didn't have a problem with it, doesn't mean that no one had a problem with it. You are not everybody. DRM-free means free of Digital Rights Management. (That's what DRM stands for). That means that no one uses digital means to restrict the rights to use the game. A forced online registration, however, always restricts the use of the game and therefore is DRM.

And wrong again. Just because you like the use of a matchmaking service, doesn't mean that a game needs to force that service on it's users. I am perfectly happy to play with my friends in a LAN or via a server that one of us sets up. That doesn't need any matchmaking service. And wrong again. There are multiplayer games that offer LAN-mode or the option to set up a private server. That even used to be the standard and those are the games that can still be played now. No matter whether the original matchmaking servers (which were often offered too) still exist. That is the point of DRM-free. It makes you independent of the publisher. A DRM-free game can still be played in 20 years, given a suitable PC, and it can be played without internet connection. In the case of multiplayer for example in an intranet or LAN.

GOG used to offer only truly DRM-free games and in the past they even rejected games because they tried to enforce the use of a third-party registration. But then they watered down their stance on that and then came Gwent and DRM-ed multiplayer games became the norm. Because yes, for Gwent DRM was necessary, because it is based on micro-transactions and GOG needs a way to track those. After that there was no basis for rejecting multiplayer DRM anymore and many younger or uneducated players even believe that DRM is strictly necessary for multiplayer. But yes, I am sad that GOG ditched the standards that they used to stand for. I think that each GOG multiplayer game should also offer LAN and/or a dedicated server option. But unfortunately I am in a minority even here on GOG with that view. Everyone else seems to gobble up that 'It's multiplayer so it's not really DRM' myth.

I'm going to have to clarify that I meant multiplayer game that provides a matchmaking service. There are no such games that don't require you to register for such a service. Of course multiplayer has been around without registration - no one would claim that.

Would you consider registering for battle.net in Warcraft 3 DRM? By your logic the original dota at the time was locked behind DRM because you were 'forced' to register an account in order to play it.

GWENT is built around matchmaking so, to me at least, it should follow that you need to register for it. Go ahead and call it DRM if you want. I disagree.

And to further my point about 'nobody had a problem with DRM until it started becoming intrusive' ('nobody' is used as a hyperbole here so you get no points), DRM is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm all for companies protecting their intellectual property and sales to the point where it doesn't affect the paying customer.

What DRM does not affect the paying customer? The whole thing about DRM is that pirates essentially get the better product...

If I'm forced to do this, it's kind of DRM. WC3 would be perfectly playable in LAN without any internet connection. Matchmaking can be an optional service for internet players.

Any game that does not need data stored on central servers (which is all games which don't use real money to upgrade your account) could come with a private server version. This also makes the games preservable, allowing to play them MP as intended when the central servers are shut down eventually.

No they didn't, they always said that the "DRM-free" promise was for single player only, and several older games released on Gog required either online registration or even online activation (e.g. Two Worlds) for multiplayer and that years before Gwent or even Galaxy was even a thing.

Not to mention all the games where the multiplayer was simple disabled / removed on Gog.

Is there going to be a physical copy of the standard edition that has a GoG key?