I don't play it, those who do might answer better, but according to this news post it seems this is normal.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/public_beta_for_gwent_the_witcher_card_game_begins_soon_75f3e

It's a beta of the multiplayer part only, mostly to test Galaxy platform with a maximum of players... so yes to be able to test Galaxy using Galaxy is kind of a requirement...
I am pretty sure that a DRM-free / offline single player part was mentioned when Gwent was originally announced months and months ago, long before the close beta even start; don't remember if it was a forum post, side news or in the press release.

I hope that a blue will come soon to confirm/clarify it.

Hope you're right - I've been keeping a half an ear with it's development - if it was mentioned in a video there is a good chance I missed it. I tend to read more than I watch.

I sent a message to fables22 to ask if she could clarify it. But given that it's an holidays in several parts of Europe we probably won't have an answer from the devs before Friday or Monday.

You guys want to know how we can settle the debate about whether Gwent is DRM-free or not, without arguing about definitions? By seeing what GOG has to say about it.

On the page of every other game on GOG, next to the price, it says "DRM-free".

On the page of Gwent it does not.

I'd say that bloody settles it. By their own (silent) admission there is now DRM on GOG.

If that's the case, please, explain the above to me.

It's a beta for the multiplayer parts of the game, to test the multiplayer part of the game, both the online infrastructure and the balance, so yes it is online. (And again it was announced nearly a year ago, not sure why some act like if it was a surprise or anything)

Wouldn't it be possible to wait for them to clarify / confirm / explain about the single player part before going into full blown crazy-hysteric-headless-chicken-end-of-the-world mode ?

Nobody is going crazy. Its a simple statement of fact. Gwent has a game page - therefore it is a product here. Currently this product is online only (forget about promises or stage of development etc. we are talking about here and now).
Therefore there is a product available on the store right at this moment which is always online. At some given point in the future this may change, who knows, but right now as of this moment, the product is in direct competition to the text given in the policy.

There is no hysteria in that at all, just simple statement of facts as they stand. In the future this may change.

If you are saying that because there is the term "beta" or "indev" or something similar attached to a product, then that is exempt from this, then that is a different matter, as you could argue any game ever released is unfinished, and so any amount of online or DRM's things could in fact be passed of as it just being a facet of being indev?

True, a blue may come out and say now that in 6 months a Single player offline version will be made available, this does not change either the situation as it currently stands, nor the continuous damage they are doing amongst those of us who came here to get away from other stores, always online requirements, or micro purchases, or DRM, or clients, or social media, or half finished or abandoned titles or any of the other number of things brought in over the last few years.

Thank you very much. I very well understand what kind of game this is. But maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills? I wanted to know where and when we asked about it (we = the GOG community)? Because the only thing I remember is a survey from 2013 where multiplayer-only games were rejected by the community.

Or are you talking about we as the gamers worldwide? And we asked for it, because of the huge success of Hearthstone and similar games? In that case GOG should also start selling games with DRM, because we asked for it.
Like you said yourself, it was announced a year ago. Don't you think they had more than enough time to clarify / confirm / explain the single player part?

Even GOG isn't trying to sell this as being DRM-free. There is no indication of a DRM-free version coming. And even if there was- this isn't it, and yet it's a product available here. What more do you want? What more do you need? Why are some people so dead-set to ignore reality?

yes it is normal

Sometimes I wonder if it's just because English is not my native tongue. But again you seem to misunderstand me. People don't care about the name giving or definitions they do however care about the fact that it's there at all. Meaning that it does not matter if you call it DRM or not it's simply something that people don't like. And because they don't like it they argue and are expressing their opinions. Please someone tell me that it's clear what I want to say with that. Otherwise I'd have to write in German and you'll have to use google translate to understand it.

Hasn't GOG said their definition of DRM only applies to single-player content? I mean, playing the multiplayer of various games here requires Galaxy.

ROFL! Since when is GOG actually participating in any important discussion that soon? At least wait one or two weeks - that is the usual time they need before even taking action. You know writing a quick post to clear everything up is very time consuming ... well, wait ... actually it's not.

(Yes, again I am complaining about the lack of GOG feedback - they simply will never learn to speak to their community.)
I think that is exactly the problem. So far the game page is stating that you need to be online. So far nobody knows if this will change when SP is added.

+1

+1

So, calling external link a "download from GOG.com" link is a DRM-free practice now?