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

×
Community
General discussionThe Witcher III: First PC Retail Version needs Internet(195 posts)(195 posts)
(195 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 10, 2015
avatar
jamyskis: I don't think they've had much of a choice to be honest. GOG have spent the past six years trying to play it nice, adopting a policy of "inviting" gamers to try GOG without trying to force them in. It hasn't worked, and they have been consistently steamrollered by Valve's aggressive expansion policy through games being released with enforced Steam use at retail, enforced Steam use at most distributors.

Fact is that if GOG don't act more aggressively to push their store, all that will happen is that gamers will continue to be lazy dickheads and refuse to use anything but Steam, rationalising their laziness with excuses such as "I want it all in one place", which in turn means that everything available for PC will be Steam only with a possible delayed GOG release as an afterthought.

The only way that stranglehold can be broken is by using similarly dirty tactics. Do I like it? No. Would I prefer a fully DRM-free version at retail? Yes.

But I'll tell you this - the solution may not be ideal, but it's a thousand times better than being lumped with a Steam, UPlay or Origin version on disc.
I quite agree with most of the things you stated, but essentially it boils down to - to become more succesful, Gog should become more like Steam.
As I see it, that's exactly what's happening, and I don't like it one bit. Or, more likely, it makes me wonder why I shouldn't just go with Steam already, what should keep me here?
Shortly after I first joined Gog, there was this huge debate about regional pricing. After the initial outrage, most people (including me) were somewhat mollified by Gog's - "Don't worry, it will be just fine!" commentary, where they allegedly paddled back and promised this and that...
Now, roughly one year later, what has happened? We have full-blown regional pricing now, no ifs or buts about it. It just got implemented sneakily through the backdoor. I don't want to derail this thread, just stating that I've been pissed off about the way Gog handles things quite frequently lately. DRM-free really is the last threshold, and if Gog starts to fold on that as well...

Sorry for the rambling, I'll behave now ;)
Please carry on.
Posted May 10, 2015
avatar
WildHobgoblin: I quite agree with most of the things you stated, but essentially it boils down to - to become more succesful, Gog should become more like Steam.
Let me fix that for you - GOG should become more like Steam, only without the problems inherent in Steam.

Like it or not, matchmaking, social features, achievements and the like are essential components of any modern gaming platform. You might not like it, and I might not put that much stock into it (personally, if I'm forced between a choice of DRM-free or achievements, I'll go with DRM-free every time, but that doesn't mean I don't like achievements), but the fact is that many people are addicted to them. And if feeding that addiction is the only way to make people wake up about DRM, then so be it.

With Galaxy, GOG provides (or will provide, in the case of those features not yet implemented) all of those benefits that people seem to be so obsessed with on Steam, and none of the disadvantages. It dispels this commonly-held misconception that Steam's DRM is somehow "necessary" for the social features.

For example, if I buy a Steam/UPlay/Origin game on disc, that game is unplayable if I buy it used, unsellable if I want to get rid of it, and has zero collector's value if I want to keep it.

Even if Steam wanted to automagically go DRM-free at some point and allow Steam games to be installed from disc (or Steam backup) completely offline, it's become such a monstrosity that it couldn't do that. Most retail Steam games are missing critical data, even if just an executable - the very nature of Steam is to make the disc version useless without a connection to a Steam server and a valid licence on your account.

There's also the oft-asked question of what happens when Steam goes offline. We've had vague promises from Valve that they'll enable a permanent offline mode when that happens, but that's all these promises are: vague, non-binding, meaningless. Indeed, the SSA specifically excludes that entitlement.

Galaxy basically fulfils that promise right now - if you so wish, you have the means to never have to connect again, as long as you keep copies of the relevant (and legal) data. It shouldn't be underestimated how important that is.

(Interestingly enough, UPlay takes a similar tack - if you buy a disc version of a UPlay game, you have everything you need to play the game, minus any essential patches. The difference here is that you aren't provided with the means to escape the DRM - it'll have to be cracked).

While I would hope that other games would use Galaxy at retail and that they would refrain from using this system again, even this system is a remarkable improvement over what we have now.
Post edited May 10, 2015 by jamyskis
Posted May 10, 2015
avatar
avatar
227: Small files have a tendency to be lost over time, though. For example, there's a small tool someone created for Witcher 2 that allows players to restore their Insane saves should they die while the tool is running, and the only links that still exist for it seem to be the ones I've personally uploaded. It's not unreasonable to assume that the unlock file will eventually be equally difficult to find, especially once later prints of the game come out and its importance is forgotten by most.

If you want an even more comparable example, try finding the standalone DLC installers for early versions of the second game (mage's trousers, blue stripes combat jacket, etcetera). These were included in later patches, so the standalone installers disappeared, meaning playing with those items on an earlier version of the game is nigh-impossible. Now imagine that those DLCs are required for the game to actually function.
True, but if I know something is required for my game to function that isn't on the CD I'd back it up, either on another CD / flash drive/cloud account whatever. I have stuff that is hard to find that been backed up for years still fully usable. I feel like as the owner of the game it should be your responsibility to make sure you do that, even if arguably CDPR shouldn't have added that anyway.

Besides we are talking a very small percentage of overall Witcher 3 owners since it's only the pre-release retail copies... and since you have to register your copy, if by chance you did lose it, you could grab your GOG copy (assuming of course GOG is still around then).
Posted May 10, 2015
Total non-sense.
I'm happy I don't give a damn about this pre-orders, pre-donwload, pre-WTF.


CDProject can have a great time developing great games, but they have to start hiring searious sales/marketing staff.
Posted May 10, 2015
avatar
Pheace: To me it's clearly DRM, pre-release DRM.
How about the digital GOG pre-load version? As far as I know, it will have the same restriction: a vital part of it will be unavailable until the official publish date, and you have to download it separately, using a GOG account.

How about if the retail version would not have a DVD at all, but merely a paper with a redeemable GOG code? People say the pre-purchased TW3 retail version has DRM because it will require a GOG account to finally install and play the game, so would a mere GOG code be the same?

The more I think about this, the less it is a question about whether the pre-purchased retail version has DRM or not, but whether it can really be called a physical retail version, at least completely. As far as I can tell, it is 99% a physical retail version, and 1% a digital downloadable game. But after you have the full 100%, you have a fully DRM-free version of the game (still consisting of two different parts, the part you got on the DVD beforehand, and the one you got by downloading on the official release date).

CDPR could have also chosen to send the needed 1% file on a separate DVD on the release date to all pre-purchase retail owners. I wonder if that would have then been considered as a DRM-free retail version, as long as it doesn't require a GOG account? Maybe then people would have considered it simply as a two-stage delivery of a DRM-free game, which it basically is, in both cases.

Now, IF that 1% downloadable part would have to be re-downloaded (or otherwise authenticate the game online) again each time you either want to install or play the game, then it would clearly be DRM. The question whether you can install and play the game 10 years from now in a bunker without an internet connection etc.

The purpose of this all is the same as with DRM, restrict when you can start playing the game. The same could have been achieved by not shipping the pre-purchased retail versions before the official release date, but I'm pretty sure no one would have called that DRM either, even if the purpose is still the same.

To me this is about the delivery vs. usage (installation+playing) of the game. If the delivery needs internet and/or an account at all, does the game then have DRM? Meaning, GOG has no DRM-free games at all, neither does Steam (those listed in the "DRM-free games on Steam" discussion thread), as you need a GOG account to initially receive those games after purchase?
Post edited May 10, 2015 by timppu
Posted May 10, 2015
None of the games on GOG work unless you download them first which requires internet access and a GOG account. Therefore all games on GOG are DRMed.
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
doady: None of the games on GOG work unless you download them first which requires internet access and a GOG account. Therefore all games on GOG are DRMed.
If you don't an internect connection, you can'y download them either.
This is a two stage DRM technology.
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
doady: ...
*slow clap* We have a real entertainer here. The point is not that the game requires a download from the internet, it's that the retail version requires a file from the internet. What is acceptable for one form of distribution is not necessarily acceptable for the other. How would you feel when buying a game from GOG would require you to wait for a disc to be shipped to you that contains the few missing bytes? I think you would be pissed as well.
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
timppu: ...
It is DRM.

First of all you are comparing two different things. The digital pre-load exists to let users download the majority of the game before it releases so the servers won't be overloaded at release and to let them play it shortly after the said release, it's purpose ISN'T TO PREVENT THE BUYER FROM PLAYING THE GAME (of course it prevents it, but it's not supposed to be a playable/release version in the first place, hence the pre-load name). The need to download a file/activate the game on the first retail version IS (it's supposed to be a fully playable version from the scratch).

If you download the digital version on the launch day, you will be able to download the FULL GAME and play, but the same can't be said about the first retail version. If you buy on the said day and try to play it without internet you won't be able to do it at all. So you will always have a funtional digital version (pre-load is just pre-load it isn't a release version), but you will ALWAYS HAVE A NON-FUNCTIONAL FIRST RETAIL VERSION BY ITSELF (you need to download a file, seemingly, everytime you install the game if you don't backup it).

Why do you think Sony and Microsoft don't let them do the same on the consoles versions? Because it would be stupid, if you buy a physical game (disc) it's because you want a functional version YOU CAN PLAY RIGHT AWAY without the need of an internet connection.

If they sold a box only with a code/a card with a code at retail they would be basically selling a digital version (if you think about it, it would be the same as buying a steam/eshop/psn wallet card) on stores so people that like/don't mind having digital games but are afraid of using the credit card online could have access to the game and the DRM would depend to which digital store (if any has it) the code belongs (this is just my opinion of course, some will consider it DRM other not). Edit: BTW, you seem to be misunderstanding another thing, the retail version will have the game on disc and a GOG code for backup, update and other reasons, in the first retail version, if you install the game from the disc, the file you need to download as nothing to do with GOG. /edit

Also, requiring a GOG.com to receive patches (if you bought the retail version) can be viewed as DRM, but requiring the same account to (buy and) download games is not. In the real world you have the physical copy with you (after you bought it) so you can play it whenever you want, in the digital world the game is in the store's servers and they need to check if you own the game so you can download it. In other words, your account represents you in the digital world like you represent yourself in the physical one (with the difference that a game isn't linked to you in the physical world and you can resell, etc).

So once again, a video game company is screwing the paying customers (of the first retail release) so they can delay piracy for a short amount of time. The pirates will have a pirated version to play at launch and the paying customers will have to download and backup a file or then they won't be able to play the game they bought. CD Projekt (owns CD Projekt Red and GOG.com) is the most hypocrite company I ever saw. I prefer a bad but honest company than one bad and dishonest disguised as good and honest.

Sorry for the english, I didn' have much time to structure and correct the text, but I hope I made myself clear.

PS: The purpose of requiring all retail buyers to activate the game on GOG.com to be able to update it is just to shove the website down their throats and make it more popular. This is the so well known CD Projekt's "freedom of choice" people. /s
Post edited May 11, 2015 by hugo360pt
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
But what of enthusiastic fans who preordered the physical copy because they either have internet that's too slow or who have to deal with bandwidth caps to where they can't justify a 20-30 gig download? That GOG copy isn't going to be much use to them even if they lose the file, and I believe we have a few such people even here in the forums.

And while I have a bunch of rare files backed up, as well, I've also had enough files lost to hard drive failures/disc errors over time to make me wary about such things. I'm not saying this whole thing will be a problem for the majority of people, but throwing anyone under the bus is a terrible move for a company whose image is based on being pro-consumer, especially when something like this is only mentioned a few weeks before release.
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
avatar
227: But what of enthusiastic fans who preordered the physical copy because they either have internet that's too slow or who have to deal with bandwidth caps to where they can't justify a 20-30 gig download? That GOG copy isn't going to be much use to them even if they lose the file, and I believe we have a few such people even here in the forums.

And while I have a bunch of rare files backed up, as well, I've also had enough files lost to hard drive failures/disc errors over time to make me wary about such things. I'm not saying this whole thing will be a problem for the majority of people, but throwing anyone under the bus is a terrible move for a company whose image is based on being pro-consumer, especially when something like this is only mentioned a few weeks before release.
But as you made clear in you second paragraph a lot can happen to make playing your bought game not playable, rather if it's because of DRM or not (even though I still see this as DRM free, just not sold fully complete). What if you disk get's scratched or breaks? This just adds one more "what if" to the list really.

In this day and age I find it hard to believe someone can't find somewhere to download stuff, unless your in a third world country... in which case you probably have bigger issues to worry about than a game and lack of internet. And lets not forget were talking in terms of the future, 5 - 10 years from now the internet situation will hopefully be better in many places.

The gaming requirement for internet is going to get more and more depended on one another as we move on, we might as well accept some people are going to get left behind unfortunately. Rather that be DRM, patches, multiplayer, ect... the dependency is getting greater with each passing year.
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
Heh, that's actually an interesting argument that forced me to dig deeper into why this situation bothers me. I suppose it's worth mentioning that it's possible to back up DRM-free discs onto the computer to protect against something like that. Beyond that, the issue seems to be less that some freak accident can keep you from playing the game at some point and more with the developer/publisher's role in making that possibility all the more likely, especially given this particular developer's prior claims about not inconveniencing their paying customers.

I'd say it's akin to certain DRM schemes like Steam's CEG, which don't really affect a lot of people, but can and are thus considered part of the problem because they're an unnecessary hurdle.

avatar
There are plenty of areas even here in the US where the internet simply doesn't work or work well, actually, and the internet companies are often in a comfortable (for them) place where they can overcharge and under-serve, something that I don't expect to change anytime soon given how little competition exists in many places.
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
227: I suppose it's worth mentioning that it's possible to back up DRM-free discs onto the computer to protect against something like that.
True, but the same can be said for the file. :P


avatar
227: Beyond that, the issue seems to be less that some freak accident can keep you from playing the game at some point and more with the developer/publisher's role in making that possibility all the more likely, especially given this particular developer's prior claims about not inconveniencing their paying customers.
I don't know I can see both points really, CDPR does their best to find a good solution for both sides, and I can see their point about being DRM free and not wanting their game to leak early (which I know still happened). This wasn't really a bad compromise on their part.

avatar
227: I'd say it's akin to certain DRM schemes like Steam's CEG, which don't really affect a lot of people, but can and are thus considered part of the problem because they're an unnecessary hurdle.
No where close the same honestly, the file doesn't stop the game from being DRM free or you from doing whatever you want with the game (like share it, ect). Just stops you from playing until release.

avatar
227: There are plenty of areas even here in the US where the internet simply doesn't work or work well, actually, and the internet companies are often in a comfortable (for them) place where they can overcharge and under-serve, something that I don't expect to change anytime soon given how little competition exists in many places.
Not saying that isn't true... I live in a area with crappy internet... just saying there are ways to find areas that have decent enough internet today in most places.
Posted May 11, 2015
avatar
USERNAME:227#Q&_^Q&Q#GROUP:4#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:162#Q&_^Q&Q#I'd say it's akin to certain DRM schemes like Steam's CEG, which don't really affect a lot of people, but can and are thus considered part of the problem because they're an unnecessary hurdle.#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:162#Q&_^Q&Q#
avatar
Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying that this is necessarily DRM. Just comparing the inconvenience caused by each to try and explain the reaction.

To be perfectly honest, CDPR has burned off a lot of good will in the past few months and that probably explains a bit about why some people aren't letting them get away with this. There was this sudden revelation about "locked" physical copies, certain members of the team (I think it was Chris Priestly, actually) claiming that the observations of a graphical downgrade were only because of Youtube compression, some bitterness over the expansions (right or wrong, it happened), the sudden censorship despite previous claims that there would be none, and they even falsely DMCA'ed a Youtube video that didn't have any leaked footage in it. I think a lot of people have reached a point where they feel lied to by a company they thought they could trust, so everything becomes suspect.
Posted May 11, 2015
my 2cents:

I don't have a computer that can run it and am not really interested in the genre, so I won't be getting the game for probably years to come (if ever). :P
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionThe Witcher III: First PC Retail Version needs Internet(195 posts)(195 posts)
(195 posts)