This may be of help to you.

Your point is thoroughly pointless because gov't regulations distinctly distinguish one category from the other. So Galaxy, for example, is regulated as a service, *or* a good, not both.

Okay this was fun... you keep on thinking Gwent and Galaxy aren't software and I'll go back to you know coding software. Have a good day.

That pertains to resale and distribution, not personal use, which is all I'm concerned with.

I think no such thing. I'm merely trying to convey to you that as far as regulating bodies are concernered, software and services are regulated as either one, or the other.

But hey, maybe I was skipping school the day they went over the "durable services" category, for things that are both goods *and* services. Yeah, that must be it. lol

I'm sorry you did not insinuate Gwent wasn't software? The regulating bodies having zero to do with what the original point was.

Gwent is software. If it's also a service is irrelavant, at-least to what I was trying to get you to understand. You have taken us into an entirly different discussion. One I do not care to have.

Why didn't you ask me, since I am the author of that post?

Anyway, that statement is strictly a regulatory distinction. If you want to pretend that it isn't, that's your business.

I pretty much did. I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. I was simply reffering to what you seem to be insinuating, that because Gwent is a service (and I can agree with that, the online part anyway) that is can't be software. Which simply not true.

I don't care to look at this from a regulating body (ie law point of view)... I'm not layer. But in the computer world Gwent/ Galaxy, etc is software. No doubt about it.

No, you didn't. You made assumptions that were incorrect and wasted a good chunk of time.

The reason Microsoft is now referring to Windows as a service has to do with gov't regulation, and the microtransaction model employed by WB, Square Enix, Valve, etc, etc.

The term "microtransaction" is being used in this thread in the context of the *microtransaction model*, and it is the authors' prerogative to use words as they see fit because words commonly have more than one definition. But if we're not really interested in the author's intention -- mostly or only our own -- all we end up doing is being argumentative, and the possibility of exchanging thoughts and ideas goes by the wayside.

If you didn't get where I was coming from with: That's on you. Next time clearly define what you mean. What I was focusing on was clear as day. You took us down this rabbit hole. As I said, have a good day.

Wrong, because *you* assumed something you didn't know to be true, which turned out to be incorrect. And you did not ask a question, you made an arrogant assertion, evidenced by the lack of a question mark, and now claim that I was unclear, in spite of making several clarifications that were sufficiently clear for anyone who isn't willfully obtuse. o.O

Say again: Granted that should be "what are those games files I download then if not "software"?... but I was typing quickly. Still quite clear it's a question. When you make a statement... people are going to assume things based on that statment. You wanted to focus on anything but what responce I was trying to illicit from you or what I was trying to focus on.

In the end, I pointed this out based on what your orginally said. Now you do what you generally do. Deflect to something else.

It's not usally in my nature to drop things, but I'm afraid I may die before we ever settle this. So I'll offically end it . Bye.

Stop with the online games that require a site account are DRM, it's no more DRM than the Login used to post on this Forum.
More to the point, it detracts from what is actually wrong with Gwent.
Which is that it's a Free To Play, Collectable card game, funded by Microtransactions.

The original Gwent was part of a great Buy To Play game, it also was a collectable card game, it needed no Microtransaxtions.
This Gwent could have been another Buy to Play game, where collecting was part of the singlwe player game, and cards could have been winnable, as in the W3 version, but from other players.

The only way to show you won't accept such practices, is not to buy the games using them.
I also believe in crodfunding, buy only with direct to devs funding methods, and only for !00% crowdfunded projects.

I won't buy Games In Development, because all my funds don't go towards the project.
I won''t buy any microtransactions, because it's DLC, and Ironically W3 set the standard,. DLC is free, not worth buying, or sellimg.
I won't buy any Multi-Player Game that requires a store client, if the game can''t go online without a store client, it not acyually a MPG.
I won''t buy any pre-orders, I buy games, not promises of games.
I won't buy Games that require Galaxy (SPGs, with Multiplayer mode, I only play SPG part anyway). MP modes I won''t play, and ignore.

I will buy Single Player Games, that have an offline installer, and no Galaxy needed.

Only one way to keep me buyng GOG games, keep Galaxy optional. and SPGs DRM free.
I vote with my wallet, not bu moaming here, if enough of us do, their will be more games I'm willing to buy.
If not. I buy fewer GOG games, I know the cards in my deck, and I'm not adding any more, whatever the price.

I'm going to go and vote to bring more classic PC card games here like Magic The Gathering.

Yes, it is. A good part of DRM-free is that there is no online service require to play the full features of the game. The publisher/developer/distributor could all vanish -- the Internet could vanish -- and you can still play the game.

However, yes, thank you for bringing it back to this. I don't get why this thread is filled with people so poisoned by the industry that they think "card game! with PvP! that MUST BE a f2p game to work!"

(I did not read the rest of your post.)