Unfortunately the firewall blocking method only worked the day I tested it (started the game three times without a problem). The next day - even after blocking the executable (and yes, I only blocked the main exe but tried to add the others as well when it did not work anymore ... which also did not help) game still crashed before main menu. The only thing that really helped me in the end was the workatround from the support posted in the other thread. Fingers crossed for 2.01 that the crashing problem will get fixed. I know not everybody experiences the crashing issue but unfortunately I am among those who do.

I entered the PC gaming arena in '95, when CD's were the standard. So, if I missed other DRM styles before that - yes, that's DRM too. Want to enlighten me on any other DRM forms say before what CD's has in 90's?

Anything that stops me from playing my single player game offline is DRM, more or less - especially an app/program; DRM like Starforce Tages & Securom; game needs certain servers; launchers and/or client-app stuff (like Steam, GOG, etc) - yep, DRM.

What was that workaround?

https://www.gog.com/forum/cyberpunk_2077/a_fix_for_the_crashing/post1

(The part under the bolded "Update" helped me)

Thanks a lot, that workaround helps in my case too! That renaming to null did the trick (since I already disabled GameServicesGOG.dll before.

No, this whole discussion is entirely futile without a proper definition of DRM, so there is no way to "enlighten." We're already deep down the path of everyone coming up with their own "that's (not) DRM for me" definition.

If you look in the literature, you probably don't find any definition of DRM that agrees with yours. Many definitions of DRM make it a very broad umbrella term for any and all digital mechanisms that attempt to control what you can do with the "protected" thing. This isn't limited to things that "stop you playing offline." Of course you can also find definitions that suggest some kind of online license management scheme is an inherent part of DRM systems, but that is far from universal. In fact, things like CSS are almost universally accepted as DRM, even though it does not involve any kind of online component and does not prevent offline use or or even copying.

This discussion about what constitutes DRM reminds me of theft protection measures in retail stores. While they can deter most people from committing petty theft, once the products are on the counter, the protection gets removed. Games and software, on the other hand, remain protected even after a customer has acquired a license, effectively exhausting the rights of the developer and publisher to control it. It's as if they are saying, While you have paid for it, you could still be a thief, so we must prevent you from becoming one. Meanwhile, a couple of groups happily crack any protection, remove the need for clients, and illegally share the games on scene websites, newsgroups, and file-sharing apps.

Instead of defining what constitutes DRM on an individual basis, or going by any official definition, the real question should be why distributors of games and software should be allowed to retain DRM-measures after a game's license has been bought and paid for, (which developers and publishers seek to limit or prohibit) or what else someone can do with their legally obtained license and files. More importantly, it should be considered whether customers should turn to consumer protection groups and their legislators to make changes to laws in their favor. No more should it be assumed that customers are potential thieves, justifying stringent protection (Denuvo etc.) that often limit actions otherwise granted by laws.

The EU has already enacted several new consumer protection laws in our favor, and that's why I believe that the logical next step should be to challenge the limitations imposed by distributors of games and software. Instead of assuming that customers are potential thieves, these laws can serve as a foundation for advocating for even more comprehensive protection of consumer rights in the digital realm.

Even that isn't freed from the need to define "limitation", whether it is called DRM or not.

If companies are forced to remove artificial client-side limitations and react to it by implementing "online content" in their next title, are they in the clear? Is it just online content or a limitation? Moving everything online is the most stringent protection you could imagine, and I don't see any country ever banning "online software."

I would not hold my breath for any kind of consumer rights on this front.

Certainly I'll think twice about preordering a game from CD Projekt because of this relaese.
The witcher 3 had a great track

oh, this is all just the t-shirt crowd at it again

lol

Yes, I can't see any government banning mandatory-online single-player games like Diablo 4. And that is the ultimate DRM heist, where the entire game is being withheld from the player, so the developer can control it and drip-feed it to you through a small, DRM-gated tube.

'Streaming' is another obvious alibi. I.e. "This game uses a streaming model for distribution."

So it is really going to be down to consumers to make a stand and refuse to accept such nefarious practices.

If they keep going that route, this will be my last CDPR game and i am just happy i do not really feel the urge getting me those Blizzard games.

I just got to many "better" games to play and countless of other interests in my pretty rich life... so i will not bother with any customer-hostile practice in general anymore. There is always something equal with a more friendly approach around the corner.

Maybe they can boot 10% of their devs at some point, another time... if they feel like and in term the shareholders may start to smile after... i simply will not bother anymore at some point.

Just canceled my preorder from Lord of the Fallen as well, as i think there is to much "fear of missing out-mechanics" and my valuable coins should be saved. They are just upsetting regular buyers with, not buying it is the best answer.

The team was "looking into it right now" ... which was on 09/26/2023 .... now we have 10/31/2023. Makes me wonder if "the team" might need some new glasses ... or rather a refund request because right now - a month later - my pre-order bonus is STILL not available as offline installer which means GOG and/or CDPR has not yet fulfilled their part of the purchase contract I made with them. Mr. Clown: promises are meant to be kept and not just said to silence your customers. So please tell us how long it will take until this gets finally fixed.

Interestingly enough, the Vigilante does appear as an actual DLC entry on Steam, just not on GOG.

I've been waiting for all of the Amazon Prime rewards to be over, before I start playing, so I've not tested it properly, but I think I should test this anyway...

I do have an entry in my GOG Order History and I do get the car for free from the lottery if I launch via Galaxy.
I'll need to test this on an isolated machine via an offline installer now and see if I still get it or need to buy it.

Depending on the result I get, the possible conclusions may be:
A) The car is Galaxy-bound, like "My Rewards".
B) They accidentally enabled the pre-order bonus (lottery) for everyone. I'd be fine with that TBH lol.

I'll update this once I've tested it.