Honestly, I see nothing wrong with having to register (this isn't DRM) to get support. Why should the pirates get patches for their ill-gotten gain?

This.

The day that we can get better elsewhere, I might be receptive to (and support) any complaints about concealed/hidden/sekret DRM in CDP's games

EDIT : not even games : patches, and free DLC. Did I say already it take less than 30 seconds to register ? I think I did.

Till then, all this ungrounded whining doesn't sound very reasonable to me ^.^

you keep talking about it being CONFUSING

instal game, push play in the launcher and start playing.

thats it, you did not need to click in the downloads part. if you would have gone to play it first you would have noticed it was ALREADY in english. and as for the dlc, someone also said you could have jus tpushed download and didn' tneed to register either.

You sound just like Stardock. They also spout on about how there's no DRM in their games - unless you want patches.

Sure, it only takes 30 seconds to register, and that's no big deal. But I invite you to come to my house that has no internet connection upstairs where I have one of my gaming rigs and point out to me how this 'non-DRM' is allowing me to update the game on that machine.

Teh issue here isn't that the DRM is mild or easy to deal with. The issue here is it goes completely against the grain of the site's DRM-free philosophy. You want to patch this nice shiny new game that you bought, DLed, burned to separate media, and installed on your off-line rig? Too bad. No stand-alone patches for you. You'll have to wait until we update the GOG installer, which will be weeks, months or years, down the road after the main patch cycle for the game has slowed down.

Sorry, but that's DRM as well. If you're fine with it, that's great. I actually can accept it, so I bought the game from GOG, but I'm not too happy about it since it inconveniences me which is what DRM does.

While I can respect your opinion and probable goal, aiming for an ideal situation in an ideal world, I can't agree with how you proceed to achieve it.

Anyway, I will play along for a while longer.

First, I would like to kindly request a source stating that the subsequent patches of the base game and DLCs were to be provided as 100% DRM free content. I think one would be hard-pressed to find any official one, because, to my knowledge, CDP has NEVER expressed such a statement.

On the contrary, I believe they have made it crystal-clear since the beginning that the game would be released as DRM-free on May 17th, in an effort to preserve people that legally purchased the game from the heaps, the MASS of issues, strictly due to proprietary protection solutions (DRMs), that have inevitably appeared with other games in the past.

I can speak from personal experience in the matter (I am still waiting for my bug-free ME2 and DA:Awakening games, among others), and there is an impressive literature all over the web to convince ourselves that the less DRM, the better gaming experience for PAYING customers.

Basically, CDP wishes their paying customers to first enjoy their purchase, BEFORE even asking for a slight effort to keep their product up to date. If we as customers chose to consent to this slight effort, we are to receive additional, FREE content, as DLCs.

Therefore, it isn't an issue with any DRM present in the life-cycle of the product, while it shouldn't be. It isn't an issue with a broken contract (or even promise) between CDP and us, their customers. It is an issue of you interpreting something for that it has never been.

The base game comes with no DRM whatsoever, the patches and subsequent DLCs do not. Everyone had (and still has) the choice not to abide by such a rules before purchasing the game.

Even then, while this is not (yet) the 100% DRM-free world we could dream of, one would have to be particularly deceptive not to admit that TW2 actually comes very close to it, which is commendable on its own.

Fine.

Now, your main issue seem to be is that you cannot register the game on a computer that has no access to Internet. I can understand that.

What I don't understand is what prevents you from moving your computer downstairs, the time to register your game, download the extra content, and then move it back upstairs ? What prevents you from looking for a solution to connect a computer, that you obviously seem to dedicate to gaming, to the Net ? What prevents you from playing the game on another computer, connected to the Net ?

Basically, I can't help but feel that the true motive of your message is not to promote the debate, encouraging companies to deliver as DRM free games as possible in the future. It seems to me that you wish to argue, for the sake of arguing.

In my opinion, it is unreasonable to expect a gaming computer not to be connected to the Net in 2011. It is unreasonable to expect companies not to attempt getting their customers to register their games, to keep them up to date, especially if they're up front about it, like CDP has been.

A more interesting debate could be to know whether even mild DRMs, like a non-mandatory single-time online activation, should remain in games over time, while companies can disappear over night, or just refuse at one point to further fix the bugs of their products (à la Bioware) ?

If we are going into semantics here then the statement about being DRM free should say that the "base game" is DRM free.

Thats like putting fine print into contract which you don't even see and can't read without magnifying glass.

why dont people try to take a single 101 C++ class to know how hard to program things. Just crybaby they are, pissed of at anything possible. It is as if their $50 is $50000.

Come on, you only need to be online to download DLCs. Otherwise, train yourself to have a peace of mind - mediate or sth. Gerald does that a lot.

If we're on semantics, maybe people should learn the difference between DRM and Copy Protection.

Yeah but to download patches and Dlc the download system needs to work and for me it does not. (see Above for reasons). Therefore how am I ment to patch my game if the patch/DLC server is poor/broken/doesn't work? In the olden days I could just download the patch seperate or via a game mag disc and install. Now I am at the mercy of this Drm lite system. In truth it feels like a punishment to the paying customer. Not as draconian as most but a drm system non the less.

I recognise it's early days and they may not have expected the deluge of people to decend on the system, hence why it isn't working or forums needed taken down. Alternatively, they knew it was broken but had a set release date. Took the forums down to stop all the bitching and complaining. ( far fetched? you decide)

Please.

Whether or not we give CDP the credit to have shown up front about the activation thingie, or to have used the right semantics in their EULA or not, I don't think it's truly the issue.

I can understand people wanting the guarantee :

- not to get malware installed with their legally purchased games
- to have a working game, when it installs
- to be able to play the game whenever at their convenience, over time, even so should the company disappear

That are good arguments, in my opinion.

I am sorry to say, but criticizing CDP about DRMs while they're currently going out of their way to pioneer a new way to distribute games to customers, sounds like pointless bickering to me.

I fail to see how it could help in any constructive way or fashion to achieve the above.

That sounds like a perfectly valid argument/issue to me.

I have the same issue atm with TW1.

http://www.gog.com/en/forum/the_witcher/the_witcher_retail_cant_register_it_online_and_cant_update_to_enhanced_edition

Just interested. What new way are they pioneering of distributing games? Don't get me wrong I am not sitting here raging at my screen, just mildly perturbed at my limited free time falling at the feet of progress shall we say.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think they're THE pioneers about it (Coelocanth mentioned Stardocks above, rightfully so), but releasing an AAA game the first day without any DRM can be considered a pretty bold move from a company.

I also think they intend to keep it that way for their future games, depending on how well it works for TW2, of course.

Not sure I understand what you mean by this. How I'm proceeding is to point out to CDPR that I feel this is DRM, although extremely mild. I bought the game from GOG in order to support the great stride they took in providing an almost 100% DRM-free gaming experience, despite what I feel is a back-door DRM on the game.. But I am pointing out the them (and have on their old forums) that there is still a component of DRM on the game, even the GOG version. I've not been belligerent, combative, or rude about it. So how do you suggest I, and others with a similar concern, proceed? Stay mute and pretend there's no issue at all?

And I do commend them for it. However, as noted, the DRM (Digital Rights Management - and I'm not sure how you feel that forcing an internet connection as well as a validation key in order to access servers for patches is NOT[/b} managing digital rights) is there and it causes issues for some game buyers.

I'll not get into the issue of whether patches were promised DRM-free. When you buy a game, you expect you'll be getting patches free in order to fix that game. If you don't have this kind of expectation, then I think our conversation on this point can go no further. Slipping DRM onto the patching process is disingenuous at best, considering the supposed anti-DRm stance of the developers. This is further compounded when you realize the publishers don't have a say in that, since it's not coupled with their desired retail DRM scheme and or whether and the files are not hosted on the publisher servers (these being Atari and NB).

nissa: Now, your main issue seem to be is that you cannot register the game on a computer that has no access to Internet. I can understand that.

What I don't understand is what prevents you from moving your computer downstairs, the time to register your game, download the extra content, and then move it back upstairs ?

Nothing 'prevents' me (other than the hernia I'm dealing with at present, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that's been fixed). But is this a reasonable expectation for every patch that comes out, when it would be solved easily by releasing a standalone patch that could be burned to a USB stick and installed from that? From a company that purports to hate DRM and doesn't want to inconvenience customers with it? I'm seeing a light disconnect here, personally.

nissa: What prevents you from looking for a solution to connect a computer, that you obviously seem to dedicate to gaming, to the Net ? What prevents you from playing the game on another computer, connected to the Net ?

Nothing. I do have a rig(my main gaming rig) that's connected to the internet. I have a secondary one upstairs on which I often play as well. But this is not connected to the internet, nor is there a connection up there handy enough to connect the machine to.

nissa: Basically, I can't help but feel that the true motive of your message is not to promote the debate, encouraging companies to deliver as DRM free games as possible in the future. It seems to me that you wish to argue, for the sake of arguing.

I'm sorry you take it that way. My motive is actually what you describe in your first sentence: to promote the debate and courage companies to deliver as DRM-free games as possible in the future. I give CDPR huge kudos for providing the version here on GOG for those of us unwilling to put up with the retail version's DRM. Please don't think that I don't acknowledge how far they've gone. But I would also think it should be obvious that if you don't point out that 'hey, you've made a huge step in your DRM-free appraoch, but you're not quite there yet', you'd be doing a disservice to your intent to get future games as DRM-free as possible.

nissa: In my opinion, it is unreasonable to expect a gaming computer not to be connected to the Net in 2011. It is unreasonable to expect companies not to attempt getting their customers to register their games, to keep them up to date, especially if they're up front about it, like CDP has been.

I disagree. It's not unreasonable to expect that the majority of computers are connected to the internet in 2011, no, but it is vastly unreasonable to think they all are or that there's not a significant minority of people that aren't. Should you really just brush thta minority under the rug and shrug your shoulders with a "Too bad. Get with the times" attitude?

nissa: A more interesting debate could be to know whether even mild DRMs, like a non-mandatory single-time online activation, should remain in games over time, while companies can disappear over night, or just refuse at one point to further fix the bugs of their products (à la Bioware) ?

I find it more interesting to see how every single DRM scheme is cracked (usually within days, if not hours), and yet there's a contingent of publishers and developers that still insist it's necessary. This despite the evidence that DRM never, ever works.

*edit* Apologies for the bolding. Have to head to work and don't have time to fix it.

My apologies if you feel that I gave you intentions you may not have.

It was clumsy of my part, and probably doesn't help anything that I try to convey either, trying to convince people to be supportive of a company that at least TRIES.

I realize that CDP's stance on DRM might be perfect for me as it is, provided we have the guarantee to be able to play the game in the future, independently of CDP's business status, but it might not be just perfect yet for everyone else.

In my mind, your opinion (or someone else's) will (and should) always weigh as much as mine, even if we disagree, provided they're sincere about it, of course.

Please have a nice day ^.^

To be fair in regards to patches, i'm pretty sure you don't need to register at all for patches. As there is a separate patcher.exe you can run, and I ran before I had registered my game. This checked my version and reported it as up to date. So all this "register for patches" stuff people are spouting is nonsense. Also they have not yet actually released a patch yet post launch. So what's to say they won't have a section on the website that will let you download patches from there? Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this stuff.