(*) stuff like online-multiplayer and server-based achievements?

By that definition, GOG customers already don't get the "full" gaming experience, depending on the game(s) they buy here.

I couldn't care less about any of the above and the same goes for "stuff that would be nice to have, even though it is not necessary".

If I can play a game whenever I want (without having to be online and/or log into some server first), I consider a game to be DRM-free.

What, if anything, would not lead us in circles?

Everything you said can be dismissed with "it's just a shirt bro." Or "they never promised that." Or "just use the console." Or "I don't care, and lol CDPR doesn't either."

Or "lol, why would you ever trust a corporation."

Forget trust, the only thing you can trust is black on white. And even then only if you're prepared to involve the authorities or lawyers. Forget CEOs' pleading and PR bullshit, you're not being talked to as an individual coming from an individual, but as a faceless face of a corporation who isn't accountable to the individual. For the same reason, they will not respond to your question. Surely by now you've seen enough of the world to know how it is?

"DRM-free" is the only promise one could technically hold GOG or CDPR accountable for (as it is black on white), so at least it is not unreasonable to discuss whether they have broken that promise.

Of course, even that is futile since the term has no universally accepted definition and indeed GOG has made up their own definition since long ago, and they have since then clarified that they're OK with gated content.

Any piece of technology that is built into the game, that manages the player's ability to access game content after it has been purchased/downloaded is DRM. Also, DRM is a mechanism, not content in itself. For even the most trivial cosmetic hat to be locked requires the same DRM mechanism to be present that would be required to lock the entire game.

I certainly consider online-multiplayer that requires a 3rd-party server to be DRMed multiplayer. The practical effect is that the MP mode is not preservable and will go away, once that server is taken down. Another way to look at it is that the MP server application is actually part of the game - therefore the developer is effectively withholding a part of the game you have purchased (so they can control it). I would not personally accept those terms of purchase.

I think the reason for this massive DRM definition confusion and us arguing amongst ourselves is that CDPR have now introduced indirect-Micro-Transactions into the game.

DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. It's a system that determines whether a user has the right to access the content that they are trying to access. Vanilla Cyberpunk 2077 "My Rewards" were protected by online DRM via a mandatory GOG Galaxy requirement, but they were granted for free without any additional nonsense. It was DRM and nothing else.

Now with Phantom Liberty, they added indirect-Micro-Transactions. Some are for owning and having played Witcher 3 and Gwent. Some are granted by Amazon Prime. Some are granted by Twitch drops. Some are granted for purchasing and gifting Twitch subscriptions. That last one annoyed everyone in particular, even those who used to argue that original "My Rewards" were not protected by DRM.

CDPR used to stand against both DRM and Micro-Transaction, however they have now implemented both.
DRM is bad. Micro-Transactions are bad. However the two are not the same and should not be conflated. One can exist without the other:
A) If they had granted us all this content for free, like in Vanilla Cyberpunk 2077, it would have been DRM and nothing else.
B) If they had generated offline installers for all of the "My Rewards", including the new ones from Twitch, then then they would have been DRM-Free indirect-Micro-Transactions.
C) If they had simply granted us all this content for free and generated or integrated them into offline installers, without requiring Galaxy, there would be no DRM and no indirect-Micro-Transactions, just like in the good old days of The Witcher 2.

I would be happy with B or C, though obviously C is better. I am not happy with the current state and I would not be happy with A either, although it would be better than the current state.
That one annoys me in particular. The GUI of the console is not present in the game, unlike with The Witcher 3, so it requires a mod just so we could have an interface. The console method is essentially a crack for "My Rewards".

The whole point of me purchasing from GOG is that I expect all of my purchases to come "pre-cracked". If I now have to start cracking my games myself, I may as well go back to Steam and their far larger library.

Honestly, the only people I ever come across who seem to have a big problem with the definition of DRM are those who seem to want to convince themselves that "it's only a little bit, so it's ok". "It's only a cosmetic hat, an optional outfit. What difference is that going to make?"

They seek to use the semantics as a shield to protect their convenience; to justify believing what they want to believe and carrying on doing what they have become accustomed to.

In actuality, there is absolutely no grey area with DRM - no room for argument. A door can't be half-locked - either it has a lock on it, or it doesn't. If your ability to access content is being digitally managed, then by definition --> it is DRM.

Well said. have a plus one.

I would personally classify that as 'micro-DLCs', but I agree that would be fine. As long as they don't contain anything that allows them to be remote-controlled post-purchase, then there is no DRM.

I will just close out this argument with the winning one. A gog.com employee responded to me a few years ago saying CD Projekt RED is gog.com. That gog.com employee's name is Judaliscariot. You may of remembered him talking to me at one point about this. Search up my post history if you want to find it. I have no time to look for it.

Ok, so let's ignore CD Project's own website, the Google results, the Wikipedia, the NoClip documentary, etc that paint a clear picture of GOG and CDPR being sibling entities, both of which are owned by CD Projekt SA, because "Trust me bro".

That's like saying that Bethesda Game Studios, ZeniMax Online Studios, id Software, etc are all the same. They are not the same, they are sibling companies all owned by ZeniMax media, which is in turned owned by Microsoft now.

So, sure, you win. This time I will certainly no longer respond to the discussion about CD Projekt's corporate structure. There are bigger problems to talk about.

By the way,

Cyberpunk2077PhantomLiberty Telegram channel name is on sale at Fragment, just check it out.

I said if technically possible ...

That's fine for you but it does not change the fact that you don't get them if you don't subscribe or use the client so for those of us who do care it does matter. If you aren't affected that is great and therefore there's no need to post because you already have what you want.

Once again - definitions don't change facts. Fact is you need to subscribe or use a client to get the items so if you are interested in them (which you are not) you are screwed or forced to act against your principles.
You can dismiss everything if you like - you just need some creative explanation. What I wanted to say is that CDPR knows how GOGers (or at least those of us who are a bit longer here) are ticking and they still decided to not care and yet they still ask for forgiveness and trust ... that's all.

I tried that (running the game with network disconnected). It still crashes like before for me.

I can't help but imagine these sentences against the background of a discussion between religious zealots. Of course, that is completely out of context - isn't it?

All the best

phil

Some things genuinely are black-or-white issues - not everything has a grey area. I don't think simply pointing that out equates to 'religious zeal'. Can a bike be half-locked to some railings?

The point I'm making is that I often see DRM being mis-characterized as a 'grey area' issue, when it really isn't. It's essentially the opposite of the 'black or white fallacy'.