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

×
avatar
paladin181: That doesn't mean it's intentional. It certainly could be a bug they have no idea how to fix and no interest in fixing. Hanlon's Razor. Don't ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.
avatar
Time4Tea: I'm not sure it can be explained by simple incompetence, when a store that claims to be 'DRM-free' has been notified of a DRMed product and apparently has no interest in doing anything about it. Incompetence I can forgive (to an extent), but to me that seems more like wilful dishonesty.

The possible solutions include simply de-listing the product, which can be easily done by GOG alone. If GOG is turning a blind eye to DRMed products on their store (and not for the first time), then they are complicit.
GOG does have a flexible definition of DRM-free, so it's all good from their standpoint, I suspect.
avatar
Time4Tea: I'm not sure it can be explained by simple incompetence, when a store that claims to be 'DRM-free' has been notified of a DRMed product and apparently has no interest in doing anything about it. Incompetence I can forgive (to an extent), but to me that seems more like wilful dishonesty.

The possible solutions include simply de-listing the product, which can be easily done by GOG alone. If GOG is turning a blind eye to DRMed products on their store (and not for the first time), then they are complicit.
avatar
richlind33: GOG does have a flexible definition of DRM-free, so it's all good from their standpoint, I suspect.
I think that is the primary problem with even discussing what DRM free or DRM is, everyone has a different interpretation of what it should be and it's that disconnect that makes having a reasonable discussion impossible as it normally just boils down to placing people in the wrong camp just because there definition of DRM free doesn't meet another persons definition of DRM free.

This is a serious problem as earlier in the thread people couldn't even agree on the definition of what a Boycott is, frankly this is the main reason I hate trying to have a serious discussion in pure text only, things can easily get misinterpreted or read completely wrong.
avatar
richlind33: GOG does have a flexible definition of DRM-free, so it's all good from their standpoint, I suspect.
avatar
wolfsite: I think that is the primary problem with even discussing what DRM free or DRM is, everyone has a different interpretation of what it should be and it's that disconnect that makes having a reasonable discussion impossible as it normally just boils down to placing people in the wrong camp just because there definition of DRM free doesn't meet another persons definition of DRM free.

This is a serious problem as earlier in the thread people couldn't even agree on the definition of what a Boycott is, frankly this is the main reason I hate trying to have a serious discussion in pure text only, things can easily get misinterpreted or read completely wrong.
For me it comes down to intention, which usually isn't too hard to suss out. I can live with DRM if it isn't intrusive, but at this point there aren't that many games that are worth getting, with or without DRM.
avatar
Time4Tea: I'm not sure it can be explained by simple incompetence, when a store that claims to be 'DRM-free' has been notified of a DRMed product and apparently has no interest in doing anything about it. Incompetence I can forgive (to an extent), but to me that seems more like wilful dishonesty.

The possible solutions include simply de-listing the product, which can be easily done by GOG alone. If GOG is turning a blind eye to DRMed products on their store (and not for the first time), then they are complicit.
avatar
richlind33: GOG does have a flexible definition of DRM-free, so it's all good from their standpoint, I suspect.
That's the point. GOG is by now officially OK with anything publishers want to put in their games. Only if a big outcry happens, they reconsider. Before the massive push-back from the community, GOG was totally OK with the DRM in Hitman, for example.

Ponczo even officially stated that GOG believes that developers/publishers should be allowed to protect their games however they want, as long as that doesn't affect the game in a major way. Whatever 'major' means. Locking an entire DLC behind DRM apparently isn't major enough.
avatar
Krogan32: ...
avatar
paladin181: Call me crazy, but I'll actually miss you.
I won't, but truth be told: This ragequit is one of the funniest things that happened on this forum for quite some time.
avatar
richlind33: GOG does have a flexible definition of DRM-free, so it's all good from their standpoint, I suspect.
avatar
Lifthrasil: That's the point. GOG is by now officially OK with anything publishers want to put in their games. Only if a big outcry happens, they reconsider. Before the massive push-back from the community, GOG was totally OK with the DRM in Hitman, for example.

Ponczo even officially stated that GOG believes that developers/publishers should be allowed to protect their games however they want, as long as that doesn't affect the game in a major way. Whatever 'major' means. Locking an entire DLC behind DRM apparently isn't major enough.
I agree with ponczo. The difference is I don't think such games should be on a service that advertises itself as DRM free. Publishers and developers can use any means of protection they choose. But here it should be none.