Yeah, that is definitely a deciding factor for me in purchasing Cyberpunk - I don't want to support bad practices. Now I very much regret my decision to buy Witcher 3, and I guess I will now have to scrutinize everything that CDPR releases from here on.

On a more general note, if GOG can't remain DRM-free then in my eyes they will practically be no different than other gaming storefront and I won't have much of a reason to buy from here anymore. I really hope it doesn't come to that.

For what it's worth, since the discussion is tired and well-trodden... I, for one, really like the idea. I liked it with Cyberpunk, I like it with this. In my book, it adds to the feeling of being valued as a customer for CDPR to reward us for playing their other games and supporting them. Frankly, I was disappointed that they didn't give us more rewards for Cyberpunk as time went on like the FAQ originally claimed.

It's not DRM (no matter how much Boycott Squad wants to say it is), it has zero impact on the gameplay, it's just a nice little bonus to reward CDPR fans for their support. If you don't like it, don't use it, simple as that. Crying about it is just immature and ridiculous.

First of all: I don't boykott at all, but you are definitly wrong there.

DRM isn't defined by it's impact on gameplay. DRM means that there is a licence check at runtime for either all or partial content. That check can also happen offline, for example by checking if certain licence files are present on the system. Most people however are only worried about online DRM.
Anyway, since the Witcher now performs licence checks at runtime, it's no longer DRM free. QED.

Support was already shown by buying the game.
They could have given the same rewards via shop functionality, doing a check if the other game is owned and then registering a downloadable DLC which also works offline without such checks.

You can sweet talk it all you want and I actually share your opinion that it's not worth all the fuzz, but the game does contain DRM controlled content now, that's a fact.

It obviously does have some impact on the game otherwise why are you so pleased to get it? It is obviously also DRM because there is no offline installer to download. It seems a bit bizzare to thank people for buying a DRM-free game by adding DRM to it. Why does having to sign in with Galaxy every time you want to install these items (or even to start a new savegame with them I think?) make you feel more valued than having the convenience of getting a proper installer?

But since you say people are crying, immature and ridiculous I'm guessing you don't actually care about any of that and are just looking for a fight.

Yeah, all the GOG customers who care about DRM-free gaming and/or don't use Galaxy are feeling extra super special valued right now.

They are not rewarding you for playing their other games and supporting them, the "rewards" are exclusively tied to the use of gog's client. You can buy the entirety of gog's catalogue right now, including every single RED game, and still not measure up as a "valued" customer worthy of "rewards" if you simply choose to play the games without using the client - and not using the client is a prerogative that gog would have us believe they've secured for us, their customers, not only by virtue of gog's drm-free policy but also with reiterated statements over the years outlining that the client is 100%, completely, totally optional. Well, now it's clear that the client is optional but at a penalty.

It is DRM because DRM is not a subjective appreciation regarding how much each of us cares, or not, about the gated content, it is about the existence, or not, of gated content and the existence of gated content in this instance is undeniable.

Customers doing what they can in order to try and make companies stick to their word is neither immature or ridiculous since the implication of the implementation of "rewards", for TW3 and 2077, is a troubling one at two different levels

1- the continued DRM creep - which impacts the trust customers can place in gog's expressed commitment to drm-free policies.

2 - gog's and red's continued willingness to create a state of affairs in which you effectively have two types of customers: customers more worthy of appreciation and "rewards" and customers less worthy of appreciation and "rewards" even though they've all supported gog and red with purchases of the games.

As others already expressed, it is not about amount of locked content behind online activation, it is about presence of online activation mechanism which is kind of DRM.

I said it before and say it again: I came here for the DRM-free gaming,

'DRM free' as in aside from my my account-verfification for access there are NO dependecies for the software in that account. End of story.

(Not much.)

It's DRM, no matter how you try to set the reality distortion field. Please stop trying to muddy waters and gaslight people. What it is or is not and how much it does or does not "impact the gameplay" is completely unrelated to the discussion of if it is DRM or not. Your persistent denial of basic facts here is not a good look to be wearing. It's not a matter of opinion, either.

As for the part of the first, please get over yourself. And also realize that the entire system could be implemented in a DRM-free way. They have the power to add DLC to people's accounts based on other titles (see: Hard West for one example, but it's been done multiple times before).

The "tired and well-trodden" is strictly because of denialists, apologists, who keep trying to make square things circular, clear things opaque, and declare that pink is not a warm color.

Wasn't going to respond to any of the replies to my comment but I had to address this.

Calling people like myself a denialist or an apologist is disingenuous and blatantly false. Yes, I do like CDPR but the reason I defend stuff like this is because y'all are wasting so much energy on a complete non-issue. You're cluttering up discussions with drivel about how a cosmetic reward for playing other CDPR games is somehow betraying DRM-free.

We've had this discussion countless times on this forum but it doesn't change facts: DRM is NOT what you and the others here are claiming it is. Is it potentially negative? Possibly, but it's not DRM. Trying to shoehorn your displeasure with GOG into a false definition of DRM to try to discredit them in hopes they'll listen to your minority comments is incredibly immature.

Again, nobody says you have to like it but throwing hissy fits and claiming it's DRM because you don't like it is absolutely ridiculous and it wastes everyone's time, especially since this discussion has been done to death, resurrection and final death.

It's DRM. There's no way of denying it. Please, for your own sake, stop. Even the otherwise most ardently "I'm OK with this" people acknowledge that it is indeed DRM.

I'm not claiming it's DRM because I don't like it. I'm claiming it's DRM because it is DRM and fits every plausible definition of DRM anyone can come up with.

(Also: it's not a "non-issue". It's irrelevant that it's "cosmetic". It's certainly not actually a "reward". And your calling it a "hissy fit" or "immature" is an attempt once to make me seem irrational. You call theses posts "clutter" and "drivel" in another attempt to make them seem as valueless.)

Online activation is DRM, there are no doubts about it. Main problem, which only few of us recognized is, that adding some cosmetics under online activation opens door to bigger things (i.e. single player) under DRM. If people do not mind small things, why they would don't like big ones, right? People who consider value of DRM free principle, have no other choice than defend it or lose it.

I suspect your persistent ongoing confusion is caused by mixing up two different arguments:-

1. Is x content DRM'd?

2. If I personally don't want x content, then does it matter to me whether it's DRM'd or not?

If the answer to (subjective) 2 is "no" doesn't automatically make (objective) 1 "no" too for the same reason if I used LibreOffice, that would not mean that someone else who is using Microsoft Office wouldn't need to activate it simply because using MS Office is "totally optional" to using Windows...

And the bottom line is, if the single player content is gated online, and if that content would disappear if GOG ever closed shop (because the online-only content has to be fetched via a proprietary client on every OS reinstall each time), then yes it very obviously is DRM'd and you genuinely are in deep denial about it. Nowhere is your fallacy more obvious than your earlier criteria : "it has zero impact on the gameplay", ie, your argument is whether you "like" it, not how it's actually accessed (which is what DRM actually is in the real world...) Same with "I was disappointed that they didn't give us more rewards" which openly contradicts how "unimportant" you claim the content is if you're demanding more of it...

Edit: Likewise for many people the larger issue is "As the host of 'The Home of DRM-Free', GOG / CDPR should be setting an example not trying too hard to become Ubisoft / EA in all the wrong areas" and it's sad how Square Enix can get DRM-Free more right in mid-late 2010's titles than the DRM-Free store's own host owner for including "but it's only cosmetic / doesn't affect the game" pre-order reward bonuses for everyone without any unnecessarily divisive BS...

^ Isn't that the problem? Lots of things don't affect gameplay, eg, soundtracks, HD texture packs, widescreen patches, etc, yet there's no need to gate any single player content online purely for the sake of it. At the end of day CDPR got "rewarded" when they got paid, and there are better ways of CDPR rewarding customers than to constant pitch half their GOG user-base against each other. That the argument has been "done to death" on a "well trodden path" ironically highlights how much of a negative reward system it is vs the many other examples of game rewards that other publishers got right in the past.

You mean you know you're wrong and couldn't think of a way to respond that wouldn't involve admitting that so picked out the closest thing you could find to an insult and continued trying to start a fight using another overly antagonistic post.

Saying that of people like you is perfectly reasonable because that's what you're doing.

And why are you wasting to much time and energy and cluttering up the forum with this non-issue that's already been discussed to death? You could just read the thread to see perfectly good reasons why it's DRM, what's your reason to say it's not other than "I like it and think it's fine"?

I really like GOG, my displeasure with them stems entirely from them increasingly allowing DRM and pushing away from offline installers and towards Galaxy, a similar feeling to a lot of people here I believe. Quite the opposite to what you're saying.

I saw nothing at all in mqstout's response to you that was disingenuous, immature or even vaguely resembled a hissy fit. Nobody has claimed it's DRM because they don't like it. You're claimimg it's not DRM because you do like it so perhaps it's you who needs to stop wasting everyone's time.