That's why I bought an xbox back then instead of upgrading my rig ;)

I'm confused. Is this about a PC edition?

Because the PC edition does have anti-piracy measures on it, it's not complete and lacks some more files from GOG to play supposedly?

If it's the console versions, which *were* leaked a while ago, how's that relevant to DRM-Free? Those generally don't have DRM do they?


Edit: From looking around it seems it's the setup install for the GOG game, without the required files, so at least these people won't play until someone pirates the remaining files that won't be out till release.

^This

/thread

What's all the fuss about this alleged graphics downgrade?? Can someone please point me to a site that shows actual PROOF of a downgrade, i.e. comparing early game builds to the release build on the exact same platform with the exact same settings? Please? Seriously. Because as long as there is no proof I'm not buying it and call it BS.

Regarding piracy: I really appreciate how the developers address the piracy problem. They ignore it for the most part. They don't punish those who pay for a license with DRM. This alone was reason enough for me to preorder the game (and I've never preordered anything before). Even if the game turns out not so great (which I doubt) I won't regret the purchase because I support a developer who is against DRM and pro customer.

based on reviews the game is the opposite of not so great. it's better even than I expected. it got a 10 from gamespot.

The people who bought it retail are likely to disagree with you but other than that they're certainly doing a good job on that.

You came to the right place to stop the piracy.

Some people will pirate regardless of DRM or DRM-Free... On the other hand it's annoying to discover that after you pay for a game, others (pirates) get a superior product: ie: DRM-Free. So DRM-Free won't stop piracy nor is it meant to, but instead it offers the same (or even better) quality that pirates get...

The point isn't to stop piracy, it's to convince publishers that DRM has little benefit. That's what I see as GOG's power: the ability to sell stuff even though it's DRM-free is building the way for more DRM-free stuff. At the personal level, well, I don't care to compare myself to pirates anyway.

More than that. Pirates usually get all the content: pre-order stuff, DLC's, the stuff from the collector/deluxe/GOTY...
Try getting a complete edition of any Assassin Creed game, starting with Black Flag. Unless you buy the items and the books, use the app and other stuff...no way to get a complete edition. Meanwhile the pirates get a quasicomplete edition, DRM free. The customer needs to jump through hoops to have everything...And he needs to deal with the DRM. So the piratwe wins, the customer gets burned.:(

Even without the cost, a DRM is going to get cracked and the game pirated on release day anyway.

I'm not sure I have the same opinion on GOG/CDPR stance on DRM as most of the users that posted in this thread.

As far as I understand it CDPR's idea is that any DRM is a bad idea because the following are almost always true:
- DRM costs money to the publisher which has to be added to the game costs and therefore hurts the customer's wallet
- DRM has proven to be an ineffective anti-piracy tool as can be seen by the vast amount of games that have cracks available on day 1 (if not earlier)
- DRM can cause the game to run less than optimally therefore hurting the customer's gaming experience (in some famous examples using a NoCD resulted in significant FPS increase)

In a nutshell (warning, personnal opinion) CDPR declared the concept of DRM an utter failure, and instead of actively fighting piracy went with the philosophy that if a product is good and works fine out of the box then it may be an incentive for the usual pirates to actually buy the game. Zero loss (compared to other similarly-pirated games) and potential profit.

This being said, I used to follow the news from the major cracking groups a long time ago, and I was sometimes surprised by the weirdly-ethical code they used to follow. There was a case a long time ago where all the major groups refused to release a game for the simple reason it did not contain any protection. They even made fun of the "group" that eventually released it. Gonna try to remember which game it was.

Nowadays it seems like people take pride in uploading DRM-free software, oh well...

So? I don't go about thinking: "oh, that guy embezzled millions, and went on to retire in the Caribbeans, why can't I have that?" Sure, software piracy is rather easier and less risky, but if you're going to uphold the law, don't keep comparing what you have to what lawbreakers have. They get everything for free.

A company sets a certain price structure. You can agree with it and get the stuff or don't agree and don't get it. You can usually wait a year or two and get it all for a pretty low price. Black Flag was $10 on a Steam sale, and its DLC and season pass were similarly 75% off.
However, there are enough examples of DRM not being broken on day 1, and publishers claim this helps sales. If that's true, then DRM isn't an utter failure.

IMO publishers should do it like this: as long as the game isn't cracked, DRM is serving its purpose. Once it's cracked, remove the DRM, it's only getting in the way.

Well, having only a few games where the DRM is working for only a few days is the very definition of ineffective, don't you think? Especially if you account for the money and time it costs to have said DRM implemented in the first place.

I'm not saying it never ever works, I'm just saying the investment/benefit ratio is extremely small whereas the potential customer issues/pirate groups trouble ratio is quite high :-)

What about a graphics downgrade? People make much ado about nothing. Play the game first, THEN worry about the graphics not meeting your needs.