No, because as I understand it it's not so much online activation but a case of some data being excluded from the first retail release rendering it unusable until after launch, much like the preload. According to the FAQ this data will be manually downloadable and not require a code to do so.

The retail version will need the game to be registered to a GOG account for patches & support however, so I expect both versions will be identical after the install process. Think of the initial retail release as being a GOG preload on disc, basically.

Amazing! I clap to you.

Such a passionate write up,rep for you sir.

Constantly lying to customers is "Not ideal?" Even Valve is avoiding that!

It used to be solved by releasing the retail version on release. Genius solution that.

I understand it now too. It's okay as long as you can still resell the retail disc afterwards and the new owner can play the games. The patches are the problem then.

If not, well they just killed physical discs and that is not nice behavior. They should as upfront as possible about it.

Sure.

Even if GOG becomes exactly like Steam or Origin it's still better because it's not Steam or Origin.

this logic is flawless.

At least EA and Valve are not trying to pretend they're something they're not by using such phrasing as "EXPANSION PASS" or "THIS IS NOT DRM GUISE".

So in this regard, GOG and CDPR are actually WORSE, because they're treating their customers as idiots.

The fact alone that you're discussing if this is DRM or not, should be proof enough that this isn't what CD Projekt or GOG once stood for. You can't play your first edition retail copy without internet connection (yes, you can download the file on another computer and carry it around on a stick - hassle-free awesomesauce incoming!) and you can't even "legally" patch your effing game without using GOG (Patches are GOG exclusive? Then it is PIRACY to load your patches from other sites!)...

If you ever want to resell your game, things will become really fucked up. The European Court decided that you are definitely allowed to sell used software. A publisher can't forbid you to do this! A digital store doesn't have to give you the possibility to sell your games (that's why the court decision didn't affect GOG, Steam, etc.), but a DRM free retail disc is a DRM free retail disc and the publisher can't tell you what to do with it. You have the right to sell it. But you're not allowed to sell your GOG-Account and you're not allowed to give "GOG content" to others (3.3 of GOG User Agreement). So either you sell an unpatched and legally unpatchable game, or you'll have to violate GOG's terms and conditions and become a file sharer (selling the game together with a stick containing the patches).

No, technically this isn't DRM... But practically it is just the same. Your DRM free retail disc gets tied to a DRM free "service" that will be legally needed to play a patched game. Let's just wait until someone discovers a not avoidable and game breaking bug that is easily fixed with a small patch /sarcasm

But in this case, if the missing content is freely downloadable, it actually would not be DRM. And that's how I understood the posts in this thread. At the core it's a combined delivery (online and offline) to ensure that delivery does not take place before a certain date. If it is just like this I would hardly call it DRM. It's still not nice but where exactly are they dishonest here? Maybe I have not read everything and yeah they often claim more than they can keep, but where exactly here in this case is the dishonesty? I can't see it.

I would actually say that yes, even technically this is clearly as clearly can be DRM on the patches. And since I only want to buy the game with the patches I can only buy it with DRM on the retail version. The consequence is that the retail version is basically unsellable. That is really bad practice and someone should tell CDP that this results in a lot of badwill and piracy.

The pirated version will have everything included and be absolutely DRM free.

We could hope they fuck up like with Witcher 2 and have to bring out the patches also freely downloadable. But I fear in the last four years they may have become better at offering updates.

DRM, digital rights management, controls when, how and even where you are able to play a game. in this particular instance, you can't play your game before a certain date. how can you not call that DRM? the account binding required for patches and free dlc not even taken in account.

The game isn't released until a certain date, so it literally does not exist to play until that date. They're letting you pre-download a portion of the data in advance for your own benefit of not having to wait to download 45GB of data on release day from busy servers. If you think that is DRM and you don't like DRM, then don't buy the game. It's just childish pedantry in my eyes though.

why the need for an online-activation then? plus you need to download a certain file even when you install it after the release date. you can't just buy, install and play it. you are bound to the conditions of CD Projekt to play the game, hence the DRM.

what? i never claimed something like that. the online-activation is DRM, regardless of any preload. they are undermining and betraying their own principles.

Imagine the following: you work at a software company and you are tasked with delivering the final build for printing. You slip up and deliver a broken build, no one checks it and the broken unusable software is sent out to customers, so they need a day-1 patch to get it working. That is exactly what is going on here, except it was broken intentionally. Does intention alone decide whether it is DRM? At this point we are just arguing semantics, but we can all agree that it is BS. But at least it will only affect the first print, so it's easy to avoid it by waiting a few weeks, the patches thing on the other hand affects every print.

not alone, but yes. intention of course important for the definition of DRM. you can hardly manage something like digital rights without intention. we don't argue semantics here. CD Projekt know what they are doing.

a day one patch might be intentional aswell, but we're talking about activating the game, not fixing it.

At a certain point I think it would have been better to just release the digital version of the game a week earlier than the physical version. At least that small delay people would eventually forget about would allow for truly DRM-free discs that don't require additional files. Now a bunch of early buyers of the physical version are going to have to keep a little file sitting around in case they want to unlock their game sometime down the road when CDPR doesn't feel like keeping the file around on their servers anymore. Or, maybe an updated version introduces something bad (like the ugly depth slice blurring in Witcher 2) and someone wants to play an earlier version without automatically getting upated to the latest version. Early patches for the second game aren't available on their official site anymore, so how much rarer will this unlock file end up being after a year?

It may not be a big deal or technically fall under the label of "DRM," but it's definitely anti-consumer and something that they should have worked out and announced a long time ago.