Gwent is tied to Galaxy because it's a competive online card game, Gwent makes perfect sense being tied to Galaxy due to that reason alone and because the nature of the game. Gwent Thronebreaker, however, isn't... and should not be viewed as the same just because they share the same name. They are different experiences based around a common concept.

Anything is possible, but I don't see GOG making Thronebreaker depended on Galaxy unless there is some technical reason to do so, and based on what CDPR has stated it doesn't seem there will be.

Competitive online games are nearly always more popular than single player and usually substain a player base a lot longer than a single player game... Gwent would be far better for "pushing" Galaxy (if that is their goal) then Thronebreaker ever will. I guess we will see though, I really don't think GOG would make that mistake with a single player game after promoting Galaxy as an optional component except for online services. It would be stupid on their part.

With all due respect, I don't need the explanation. I'm well aware of all of this.

I think you misunderstood the intent of my last post. What I meant was I can see them tying it to the on-line Gwent game (especially given their statement about 20 cards you can use on-line) and not even really thinking about the fact that it will require the Galaxy client. A complete brain-fart, if you will. Yes, I know that sounds both pessimistic and cynical, but GOG has made a lot of other blunders before that one would think would be completely out of the realm of reason.

Well yea I guess anything is possible sure... but yes that does sound a bit pessimistic and cynical. That would be a pretty big "blunder" and not one I personally see as likley.

And even if they did I'm sure enough people would complain about it in quick force, even me as a Galaxy user would probably complain because I would see it as completly unnecessary.

Ditto.

I did not pose any question. The difficulty is in the phrase "playing it". Sometimes you have more features enabled with Galaxy. Almost all games here don't require Galaxy but you may miss some things. The devil is in the details as always.
You can count me a cynic then too. I don't believe in any greater goal of GOG. They are just in for the money (as everyone else). The only reason they do not have much DRM is because Steam is so much better at incorporating it, they could never compete and need to live in a niche.

I am on windows 7 right now and wanted to run Neverwinter Nights 2 Complete. I clicked windows START--> All Programs --> GOG.com --> Neverwinter Nights 2 Complete..

Now it says "updating Gog Galaxy"

So much for being able to play ANY GAME without Galaxy ;))

NOTE: For those who did not get it, I did not start Galaxy to play NWN2. I tried to start NWN2 without Galaxy but it forced me to open it.

EDIT: Attached a picture showing I played those games a year ago.

Not it doesn't. You can do exactly the same with many games on Steam.

The statement in the OP isn't fully accurate because of exceptions like GWENT and also because of many GOG games require Galaxy DRM for multiplayer (most people seem to overlook this very important point, and give DRM'ed multiplayer a free pass even though it shouldn't have one).

Having said that, GOG is still vastly better than the Steam DRM. And contrary to what many people imply, being able to launch the game without the Steam client doesn't make those games non-DRM'ed. They'd only be non-DRM'ed if the user has the option never to log on to Steam again, yet still acquire new copies of the games that they've already bought.

The "m" in that word is important. Many, perhaps, but not in any way nearly all of them. Many will launch Steam is you try to run the game executable.

Who gave them the right to change my game's shortcuts? I know I did not. Do I have to enter the game's folder every time now to be able to start the game without Galaxy? I can hear you whispering "change the shortcut"... Well, why should I have to bother with that?

It is interesting that I had not even installed those games on my windows 7 system. I installed them when I was using Vista on the partition D. I wiped the C disk, installed Win7 alongside Linux Mint and it looks like Galaxy did that change when it found those games. That's a really creepy behavior.

EDIT: Clarified that I did not wiped the installed games when I wiped Vista.

Erm... hate to break it to you but they don't need your permission. GOG provides updates to us and if we accept those updates (or have chosen to use a program that can auto update games in which we don't turn off that feature) then we really accept whatever GOG wants us to accept.

Because you are playing on a PC where the ability to customize is one of the best things about playing on a PC... the downside is your playing on a PC where the ability to customize means you actually sometimes have to change things to your liking. ;)

And I think you know the difference between being able to do it with many compared to being able to do it with what is essentially the entire catalog (or close to it). I also think you also know the difference between a system that promotes and offers a DRM system and one that doesn't.

So let's not split hairs shall we?

Funny coming from someone who in every thread about DRM does damndest to split hairs to advocate Galaxy

I don't advocate for Galaxy at all... to be blunt I don't give a damn about what people use or don't use. I like Galaxy so I use it. I use standalone installers too when they are more convenient to me. More power to you as long as what you advocate for doesn't intrude on my GOG experience.

I do care about the disinformation compaign that is spread around here in regards to Galaxy, Gwent, and DRM because we all know what that is trying to accomplish. It isn't going to work but if it makes you feel better... have at it I guess.

But lets not pretend someone with the forum title of "GOG sells DRM and microtransactions" doesn't have some sort of agenda in this debate. Last time I checked it was a public forum... don't like my post, don't read them. :)

I did not know that. Can you please guide me to that section in the user agreement?

I can't believe there are still people who are ok with third-party programs making changes on their computers without their consent.