It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
Auron111: @B1tF1ghter Not sure why your post is shown as "low rated"
For example because:
- some people think long-post == bad, "I hate reading more than few sentences so I will downvote"
- some people have "opposite day"
- some people get hurt by truth
- controversy (regardless if it's true or not) == downvote
- some people just want to downvote me "just because"
- "I see it was downvoted so I will downvote too regardless if I agree or not"
- "I don't like post / poster so I will use my bot network to downvote it to oblivion"

GOG rep system is notoriously fundamentally flawed. You should not be paying any attention to it.
It's worse than Reddit (far worse).

avatar
Auron111: -------
Well this is the definition from the Encyclopedia Britannica
Digital rights management (DRM), protection of copyrighted works by various means to control or prevent digital copies from being shared over computer networks or telecommunications networks.

So if we are going to go by the actual definition of what DRM is ... then as long as you can share your digital games (which you can) then you have DRM free games from GOG.
-------
Okay, now hold on, I will try to adress the "DRM definition" thing because it's better to do that now and strighten things up before it blows up in my face (through more misunderstandings).

The problem with book definitions of DRM is that they mostly refer to what DRM was SUPPOSED TO be and not what it actually is.

The britannica definition is incomplete at best.

Perhaps you didn't really experience it (or perhaps you did but you don't realize what I'm about to say, I don't know) but DRM mostly blocks legitimate customers first and foremost.
It doesn't stop piracy as a rule.

The definition you quoted misses quite important thing:
DRM is not only about sharing but also about obtainment as well as usage.

If extra content (say those t-shirts from CP2077) are gated behind something like account login and online external-server-based verification (like in case of CP2077) then it is a form of DRM.
It is by design preventing legitimate customer from accessing that content "normally".
It's a form of obstruction. With current DRM schemes used it is often disallowing and discouraging legitimate customers from legitimately obtaining the content.
Many DRM forms are intrusive.

DRM nowadays is basically an art of inconveniencing legitimate buyers and smuggling out more of their private data.

And yes, locking in-game items (a DLC, btw a DLC doesn't have to be sold alongside base game in store, it applies to in-game purchases too) behind "you need to login to this external site/account/connect-to-server/go-online and so on" IS a form of DRM.
I really don't know how to explain that to you and many others that do not understand.

Basically DRM == any form of obstructing sharing AND obtainment and usage of any software content.
So things like:
- Galaxy being MANDATORY to get some in-game items *
- offline installers being outdated and Galaxy being again MANDATORY to obtain up to date versions
fall under that definition.

* Seriously. It adds even more to the insult that the whole way CP2077 "my rewards" works is that it DOESN'T give you some form of DLC installer file (that you could use for offline gaming) just most probably modifies a value in your savefile. And you need to connect to servers AND login FOR THAT.
It's BS. It's othercomplicating things and making it IMPOSSIBLE for offline users to get 100% of game content.
It has become MANDATORY to use "always optional" Galaxy client to have complete experience of the game.
And what items these are DOESN'T matter. It's about principles.

That britannica definition is also massively flawed as-is:
- first it doesn't account for ALL sharing methods (by this definition if you copy the game and share it on a disk or flashdrive the definition is not even applicable)
- it doesn't say who it is protected from.

Also, they used some clever wording there.
One of keywords is "control" and since that can get overlooked by average reader, misunderstood and brushed off:
it applies to obtainment and usage.
Whoever wraps software in DRM decides how can you as a legitimate customer use the software (for example forcing you to go online to play a singleplayer games, ergo Ubisoft and other examples, such as IOI and Hitman 2016 since you cannot play majority of game content without going online in that singleplayer game).
De facto legitimate customers are more restricted than pirates since pritated copies are usually patched out to be able to play all content offline (not exactly in Hitman 2016 case fyi).
high rated
avatar
B1tF1ghter: So if we are supposed to be reading between lines to come to the conclusion that GOG which allegedly wants to mass market their future Witcher mobile game in "cash market" (aka China) and they potentially obliterated Devotion release to not get blasted by Chinese gov into retreating from Chinese market, well, then why not just block it on your "GOG China" since you clearly are more than likely to release your "Witcher mobile" on it and not on "main" GOG in terms of it's distribution specificly in China?
I strongly suspect the reason GOG lost the ability to do exactly this is because they managed to hire some of the most absolutely toeheaded, mouthbreathing, rock-dwelling hyper-cretins possible to run their PR, and one of them went and blatantly, proudly advertised a Taiwanese game release right there on friggin' Chinese Twitter.

The moment that happened you just know that the 'many complaints from gamers' almost certainly came from a deluge of Wumao scum and Chinese residents pretending to be offended in a shameless attempt at gaining cheap social credit score points by defending their fearless stuffed bear.

This of course leading to GOG shitting themselves and making everything worse because they never stop to think before they react.
Post edited February 04, 2021 by ReynardFox
avatar
Auron111: And when looking at the About GOG page I see the following :

Owning the things you buy
We don't believe in controlling you and your games. Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming.

Now just based of this alone, since you have offline installers for your games that never require to be online to play them or prove you own then. Then GOG is fulfilling its DRM Free promise as they promise nothing more.

Now this is simple for 100% single player games, you download you install you play job done (Rebel Galaxy)

Games with built in or heavily focuses on online play however are obviously different as they want you to play the online component. (No Mans Sky)

So from what I can gather, people are saying No Mans Sky has DRM in it because if you want certain things you have to be online which you can't get playing offline without editing your save ??
If this is correct.. well that is not DRM. You are still able to play the game from start to finish offline without going online which is what GOG class as DRM Free. If you don't want to play all aspects of the game you are not going to get all the rewards it is that simple and no you are not entitled to everything just because you don't want to play online.
Yes we are entitled to a 100% DRM-free game. Did you know that if you opened up your own storefront selling DRM-free games, the standard to be featured on GOG's "sister site" FCKDRM.com is to be a "100% DRM-free" source of media. Not 99%. Not "well at least singleplayer is DRM-free". Not "it's only cosmetic content that's locked behind an activation, what's the big deal". 100% DRM-free. Meaning yes, ironically, GOG's own storefront fails this criteria due to numerous offenders already laid out in this topic (and I see you have avoided mentioning GWENT which is an online-only game...but let me guess...that one doesn't count either because it's "free" to play).

avatar
Auron111: A good example of this would be Dark souls, you can play the game from start to finish online or offline making it DRM Free. However say it had a PVP covenant with rewards but you don't want to play online... then you are obviously not going to be getting the rewards are you ?
No one that I know who plays Dark souls would consider this DRM because it isn't, and no would say it should be made available to those who want to play offline.
Why should any of us care about the anecdotal evidence of people you know who play Dark Souls...I would simply say they would be mischaracterizing the issue. In other words, all of the "reductio ad absurdum" attempts like this in your post can simply be accepted...i.e., yes, we are actually saying we would consider (at least that online portion) to be DRMed. Instead of making excuses for why it's not really DRM, or is "DRM-adjacent" or some such thing, I would rather just demand better.


avatar
Auron111: Now about the ... weird argument against the Galaxy launcher ... GOG Says the following:
Galaxy is the tailor-made optional client that adds features like cloud saves, update roll-backs, crossplay, achievements, is a convenient way to install & update games, and stay in touch with friends.

Now I do agree that offline installers should not be ignored but updated as soon as they become available on Galaxy.
However if people get rewarded for using an optional software makes you feel like a second class customer....then that is a you problem sorry ..that is a rather petty reason to complain.
GOG can say whatever they want. My reading of FCKDRM.com is that GOG is saying, by proxy, that they are a 100% DRM-free storefront which I do not believe to be the actual reality, based on ample evidence pointed out in this topic. The problem is that resource after resource is poured into this "optional" client and the number of games requiring it for multiplayer (as opposed to multiplayer without such restrictions) has increased over the years. If I understand correctly from other users, GOG has previously done things like make pre-loading the Witcher 3 possible for offline installers, but not with Cyberpunk, and given away The Witcher 1 free, without restricting it to Galaxy only. That they are no longer doing that, is imo cause for some concern.
low rated
avatar
B1tF1ghter: So if we are supposed to be reading between lines to come to the conclusion that GOG which allegedly wants to mass market their future Witcher mobile game in "cash market" (aka China) and they potentially obliterated Devotion release to not get blasted by Chinese gov into retreating from Chinese market, well, then why not just block it on your "GOG China" since you clearly are more than likely to release your "Witcher mobile" on it and not on "main" GOG in terms of it's distribution specificly in China?
avatar
ReynardFox: I strongly suspect the reason GOG lost the ability to do exactly this is because they managed to hire some of the most absolutely toeheaded, mouthbreathing, rock-dwelling hyper-cretins possible to run their PR, and one of them went and blatantly, proudly advertised a Taiwanese game release right there on friggin' Chinese Twitter.

The moment that happened you just know that the 'many complaints from gamers' almost certainly came from a deluge of Wumao scum and Chinese residents pretending to be offended in a shameless attempt at gaining cheap social credit score points by defending their fearless stuffed bear.

This of course leading to GOG shitting themselves and making everything worse because they never stop to think before they react.
In that case shouldn't it be impossible for GOG to process all those that fast based on the premise that "oh there is pandemic so our support is overloaded and min waiting time is DAYS"?

One of 2 things could happen if we are supposed to BELIEVE the whole "many gamers" lie:
- GOG preemptively acted just after reading very low volume of "complaints" as they didn't manage to process much in these literal few hours between announcement and taking the game down ( mind you, a reminder to everybody, game page was actually live during that time https://web.archive.org/web/20201216104008/https://www.gog.com/game/devotion )
- GOG treated tickets from china as higher priority than entire elsewhere and SOMEHOW processed those "messages from many gamers" in just few hours (at the cost of delaying entire elsewhere tickets for that time).

Of course that statement was almost definitely not true and the reason was definitely different.

Anyway, I would like to know:
- how many complaints did it take "according to official version" (ergo I want to know more details of that lie since, you know GOG, with that below-bare-minimum level of details given that lie doesn't hold up either way)
- let's say the "many gamers" would be real - so like, everybody is going to ignore the "gamers" word used? Like it's explicitly not using word customer. What kind of twisted thinking is it to place a group of allegedly individuals who are implied to not even be proven related platform customers above official stand of authorities that have a final word? Like, seriously, GOG afaik didn't get any "warning" from chinese gov or anything.

Seriously, there is SO MUCH wrong with that official statement of GOG that it can be disected and discussed for weeks (as evident).

edit: fixed clarity
Post edited February 04, 2021 by B1tF1ghter
low rated
avatar
Captainchicken84: This is how people are attcked by gogs troll army, when they mention devotion under their (gogs) posts:

https://ibb.co/QMWFdy1

https://ibb.co/QMWFdy1

https://ibb.co/ZTXxbgq

https://ibb.co/16PLTG5

https://ibb.co/6Xhk3sK

https://ibb.co/WVZMwLR
Found a new one for ya in today's tweets: https://twitter.com/CoatiGato777/status/1357353836806029313

His account has GOG retweets all over.

Edit: "Low rated"

I see he's been here.
Post edited February 05, 2021 by WeirdoGeek
low rated
avatar
Auron111: A good example of this would be Dark souls, you can play the game from start to finish online or offline making it DRM Free. However say it had a PVP covenant with rewards but you don't want to play online... then you are obviously not going to be getting the rewards are you ?
No one that I know who plays Dark souls would consider this DRM because it isn't, and no would say it should be made available to those who want to play offline.
avatar
rjbuffchix: Why should any of us care about the anecdotal evidence of people you know who play Dark Souls...I would simply say they would be mischaracterizing the issue. In other words, all of the "reductio ad absurdum" attempts like this in your post can simply be accepted...i.e., yes, we are actually saying we would consider (at least that online portion) to be DRMed. Instead of making excuses for why it's not really DRM, or is "DRM-adjacent" or some such thing, I would rather just demand better.
You can't really take a well-defined concept, put your own spin on it, run with it and expect people you're opposing who use the original definition to take it seriously. If we want a "100% DRM-free" demand to mean anything, there has to be consensus on what that means, which is shared not only by the people demanding it, but also by those of whom it is demanded, i.e. GOG. This is especially true because GOG were the ones promising it in the first place.

If the reasons it's there don't include protecting the rights of whoever is involved in selling the product, i.e. fighting piracy and similar concerns, then you can be pretty sure the industry will not consider it DRM.

Being able to play from start to finish, whether online or offline, is irrelevant to this definition. So is having an online PvP component. What defines it is whether there is a system in place that is designed to prevent illegitimate use.
Hunie Pop 2 will be released uncensored everywhere *except GOG*.

https://www.huniepot.com/post/642236167309459456/huniepop-2-release-faq

I've abandoned GOG since this place backpedalled on Devotion to appease the CCP so I just came back to laugh at you.
Attachments:
low rated
avatar
Time4Tea: I would like to announce that I have decided to boycott GOG for 2021. This is in response to several decisions the site has made over the past year that I believe have been deeply misguided:

Firstly, the continued slippage of GOG's DRM-free values. The promise of 100% DRM-free is what the site was originally founded on and yet GOG seem to be allowing this principle to be increasingly eroded. The games No Man's Sky and Absolver are two examples of games that include single-player DRM, which GOG is aware of and has failed to address. CDPR also seem to continue to believe the rules on GOG don't apply to their own games, firstly with Gwent and more recently the DRMed single-player rewards built into Cyberpunk. In addition, GOG's recent deal with Epic appears to be a cover for GOG to start selling DRMed games.

Next, the continued heavy pushing of Galaxy and the lack of maintenance of the offline installers. Several times in recent months, GOG has given incentives only to Galaxy users in the form of bonus content or free games. This has the effect of making non-Galaxy users feel like second-class customers. Also, there many well documented cases of GOG neglecting to update offline installers, even though they are updating the Galaxy versions, so they clearly have the updated files. This is not acceptable - offline installers are the core of the DRM-free concept. All of this points to a worrying trend which may ultimately lead to GOG abandoning offline installers entirely and making Galaxy mandatory.

Lastly, the recent debacle with Devotion. I won't repeat everything that has been said about this in other threads, but GOG's decision to be complicit in imposing Chinese censorship on non-Chinese users is simply unacceptable. The game needs to be released on GOG immediately.

Actions I would like to see GOG taking:

1) Release Devotion immediately.
2) Remove Gwent, No Man's Sky, Absolver (and any other DRMed games) from the store.
3) Remove DRM from the bonus cosmetics in Cyberpunk.
4) Cancel the deal with Epic.
5) Stop providing free games/incentives only to Galaxy users.
6) Assign adequate resources to maintenance of the offline installers.

For me to make any purchases on GOG this year, #1 needs to happen and at least a couple of the others. I.e. I want to see clear signs of a change in trajectory of the site, away from it's current misguided direction towards being a weak Steam competitor and back towards the principles it was founded on. I had been planning to spend $150-200 on GOG this year, but instead I will be spending that at Zoom Platform, to help build up a viable DRM-free alternative store.

Is anyone else intending to boycott GOG? Who is with me?

Edit:

People who are boycotting, to whatever degree they're comfortable with:
1) Time4Tea
2) Lifthrasil
3) mrkgnao
4) joppo
5) kdgog
6) Ancient-Red-Dragon
7) ReynardFox
8) Seceroth
9) TencentInvestor
10) pearnon
11) Leevi
12) gloombandit
13) fronzelneekburm
14) MajicMan
15) Chaossaturn
16) john_hatcher
17) Grahor
18) Orkhepaj
19) rjbuffchix
20) B1tF1ghter
21) _Auster_
22) HappyPunkPotato
23) llamas
24) rtcvb32
25) Setilla
26) fr33kSh0w2012
27) Hexchild
28) GreasyDogMeat
29) GlorFindel
30) Vendor-Lazarus
31) DevotedTitan
32) Zegpi
33) gargus
34) DrearierSpider
35) WeirdoGeek
36) Zorzy
37) Kohleran
38) plagren
39) Lesser Blight Elemental
40) Captainchicken84
41) dycaite
42) Amiko Novich
43) gloombandit
44) Agent-94
45) evilprotoss
46) TrueBlueGamer
47) faldofas
48) kaileena
49) ShadowXOR
50) Adoru
51) g00dbye
52) LordJF
53) nevasith
54) TormentFan
55) ApeKing
56) Dalswyn
57) aiMute
58) lazydog
59) Shendue
60) classic-gamer
61) nevasith
62) ResidentLeever
63) nightcraw1er.488
64) DesmondOC
65) AstralWanderer
66) Cavalary
67) hollibolli1970
68) sebastelian
69) FateIsOneEdge
70) theseawulf
71) QueenAdrian
72) A CRICKET RIDING A TUMBLEWEED

People who are sympathetic to the concept:
1) Breja
2) TerriblePurpose
3) morolf
4) DukeNukemForever
5) McMicroDonalds
6) WinterSnowfall
7) flanner
8) Dogmaus
9) GamezRanker
10) PirroEpirote
11) Paliper
12) W3irdN3rd
13) FiatLux
14) MasterW
15) InSaintMonoxide
16) Jorev
17) TheDcoder
18) shih1976
19) Djungelurban
20) Wishmaster777
21) Kyousuke
22) Darvond
23) viperfdl
24) The_Puppet94

(current as of post #993)
You have made some good points, however, I am, and always will be a GOG supporter for life.
avatar
RETRON84: Hunie Pop 2 will be released uncensored everywhere *except GOG*.

https://www.huniepot.com/post/642236167309459456/huniepop-2-release-faq

I've abandoned GOG since this place backpedalled on Devotion to appease the CCP so I just came back to laugh at you.
lol, pathetic!

Absolutely pathetic.
high rated
avatar
RETRON84: Hunie Pop 2 will be released uncensored everywhere *except GOG*.

https://www.huniepot.com/post/642236167309459456/huniepop-2-release-faq

I've abandoned GOG since this place backpedalled on Devotion to appease the CCP so I just came back to laugh at you.
avatar
fronzelneekburm: lol, pathetic!

Absolutely pathetic.
Yep. I'm inclined to agree. There's one more reason added to the list of why I'm not going to be inclined to support GOG anymore.

Meanwhile, this wish is #5 on the "most voted (this week)" list:
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/uncensored_versions_of_games
high rated
avatar
oldschool: I am, and always will be a GOG supporter for life.
It's just a fucking store. Stores have customers, not supporters. Why would anyone label themselve a "supporter" of some corporate business venture? Not to mention an apparently unconditional supporter?
Post edited February 05, 2021 by Breja
avatar
Auron111: Now I do agree that offline installers should not be ignored but updated as soon as they become available on Galaxy.
However if people get rewarded for using an optional software makes you feel like a second class customer....then that is a you problem sorry ..that is a rather petty reason to complain.
avatar
B1tF1ghter: Oh yeah, "how dare you compain that we claim one thing (ALWAYS optional Galaxy) and do something different (Galaxy MANDATORY to get some additional content or the most up to date offline installers)".
Sigh.
Just a correction here: it's not that you can get more up-to-date offline installers through Galaxy. The offline installers you get are the same, be it through Galaxy or from the site.

The issue lies in that directly installing a game through Galaxy gets you the most updated version, while Gog can go weeks sitting on a patch without putting the updated files in a new offline installer. The Galaxy installer for a game (i.e., the one you get from clicking the HUGE blue button) doesn't have a problem because it is just a stub to "tell" Galaxy to download the same files you get if you pick an out-of-date game in Galaxy and tell it to update.
Post edited February 05, 2021 by joppo
high rated
avatar
oldschool: You have made some good points, however, I am, and always will be a GOG supporter for life.
Ok, so you're happy to give them a green light to do whatever they want then? You've basically just declared there is nothing they could possibly ever do that would make your support for them waver.

Lucky them, to have a customer like you!
high rated
I dont want to boycott, but I am dissatisfied with the handling of the situation done by gog.
avatar
RETRON84: Hunie Pop 2 will be released uncensored everywhere *except GOG*.

https://www.huniepot.com/post/642236167309459456/huniepop-2-release-faq

I've abandoned GOG since this place backpedalled on Devotion to appease the CCP so I just came back to laugh at you.
Unbelievable. How far CDP, CDPR and GOG have fallen. I remember when I came to GOG to GET THE UNCENSORED version of the original Witcher.

Every other store gives you the option for censored or uncensored - as it should be, people free to make their own decision.

CDPR/CDP/GOG is done as an independent company. CP2077 has turned a profit, but isn't going to have the sales volume or length that the Witcher series has to carry the company for another 8-year developed project that 90 percent of buyers won't pre-order from CCCP-R ever again.

Steam, Tencent, and now the Epic Store are going to wipe out GOG as GOG is determined to put itself out of business with continuing decisions like this.

They will either be bought by another company or go the way of THQ and Acclaim - go under and many different companies buy their assets and IP.
Post edited February 06, 2021 by MajicMan