Right.

This is pretty much what was done with BioShock. And that's the game that started my burning hatred of DRM. Seems to me CD Projekt is now doing what tons of other companies do with respect to DRM: moving the goal posts. "Oh, no this isn't DRM, but the other guys? They're using DRM, sure". I can't see this ending well.

If they are so fearful about someone playing pre-release, not shipping the retail copies before the release would solve the "problem" (which problem?) without any DRM...

And when would people that bought retail be able to play the game?

Maybe it's not DRM, but not very customer-friendly either. Yes, in this time and age you can assume that most people have internet access and would need it to play a functional game anyway due to all the usual patches etc. Still, I'd be pretty annoyed if I bought a game in a retail store only to find out that it won't work unless I download something from the internet first. I hope they use big bold letters when they put that info on the box.

Personally I think It's also a bit dodgy to try and justify this while at the same time criticizing other publishers who have "reasons" for their implementation of DRM and just want to prevent bad things from happening with it, too.

I agree that it's a pretty scummy move in light of all the hoo-ha CDPR was making about the game being DRM-free, but at the same time, they've implemented it so that the game can be kept as a legitimate collector's item, legitimately resold (unless you redeem the GOG code, in which case you're bound by the honour system not to redownload it), and future pressings will not include this system.

I'm personally bugged more by the need to register the GOG code to get patches.

Still, as less than ideal this system is, it's still a hundred times better than having Steam, UPlay or Origin tied around your neck like a noose.

When they have it, of course the moment shops have it would depend on distance and postal service if you make the release day the actual release day from the factory and not this shop thing that is usually meant. I guess this is due to every shop being able to sell it on release and not having to wait for postal service.

If you have to activate it online anyway for being able to play and need to log in on GoG.com for updates, what's the point in buying it physical?

I remember someone here defining DRM as "If i am sitting locked up in a bunker, with no internet available to me, I should be able to install/play my game without issue".

Doesn't sound like this would apply to that definition? Will whatever is downloaded be able to be stored/set aside for future installs?

Requiring an account for updates/DLC though. That's Stardock SINS definition of DRM-Free.

It's already been pointed out that future pressings will not require this download.

As for updates, that will depend largely on how stable the release version is.

Yeah, we know that Brad Wardell was full of shit and that he simply rode the DRM-free train for PR value with no intention of following up on it. I just hope GOG isn't going to go down this road.

People call the "slippery slope" concept a 'fallacy', yet it has proven time and time again to be a rock solid model.

The first part of your quote is why I'd call it DRM; or at least in intention so close to what DRM aims to do that I'd feel there's only just a paper width, philosophy wise, between this and other schemes.. The intention is very much to manage digital access - in this case to prevent a leak - and to prevent early doors piracy. Just as any other DRM scheme.

And yet - there's some strong indications that the majority of people that do pirate won't pay for a title no matter what. Piracy's been around for so long that that's really a given - long before the internet, even. And yes - you can keep the file forever, in theory, but it still is an added inconvenience; and scenarios where it might even prevent someone from continued access to the game. [Files do get corrupted, even if backed up; if the copy is no longer downloadable from source - and you don't know anyone that has / have access to a copy from an alternative source - you end up with a useless disc.]

It will be interesting to see if their servers handle the load on release day of all the people trying to grab that install file. Maybe there won't be that many. Maybe there will. But this is exactly what happened with Bioshock (servers were overloaded) and people were locked out of playing their legitimately purchased retail game on day 1. Not a good scenario. We'll see how this plays out.

Yes, as far as I understand. You can download the file from another PC, carry it around on an USB stick and activate the game on a PC without internet access.

I gotta say, I'm a bit bummed, but I don't think it's a tragedy. But like jamyskis, I hate that they make a GOG.com account mandatory for DLCs and Patches. Why, exactly, can't you release via numerous channels? That's just stupid, and makes CDP lose a lot of goodwill they earned with their customers.

How many games in this day and age are able to stand alone without at least a patch or two? There are many games considered classics now but were barely playable when first released. Not saying The Witcher 3 is going to be one of these mind you.

If no account is required then anyone can download it. Why should CD-Projekt pay for serving tens of gigabytes per game to pirates? Worldwide file delivery that is fast isn't free commodity.

If I remember correctly TW2 had 10 or 15 gigabyte patch. If you check amazon prices at http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/, 1 GB will cost you from 2 to 10 cents even if you transfer petabytes per month total which is crazy big volume. so one such patch can be as costly as 1 dollar. Now multiply it by millions of pirates and tell me who should pay for this.

if you dont like it, don't register. im sure without hour or two the patch will be on torrents...