I'm with you on that, I'd just love to see more unity against DRM regardless of our differences! And yeah, if you ever travel to the US, definitely see if you can find an IHOP haha

I didn't buy anything yet since I just spent a huge chunk of cash on a PC upgrade but their current space games sale has me very tempted haha

Lol brilliant!

I was talking about 'Make Up Your Mind Day' at the end of the list: that seems to be a joke, by the people maintaining the list.

I agree about raising awareness of how ridiculous DRM is, I just don't know if 'The Day of ...' is the proper way, seeing how this 'Day of ... ' thing has quickly inflated. It would be better if it would be reserved for really important things like Women's Rights on Women's Day, a day against the stigmatization of mental illness or like the 10th of December: Human Rights. Far more important than DRM to make a day for on the 10th of December, like someone already pointed out in this thread.

No worries....I was more so talking in general, and mainly urging that we all try to avoid becoming disrespectful before said line might be crossed. :)

I don't want anyone to abandon what they want......but more so to be happy for/willing to take what we(anti drm types) can get when we do get such. Even small positive steps towards drm free can be a good thing, after all. :)

It isn't......but I sort of agree with the stance re: 2077 content for a few reasons:

1. (to me) A bit of cosmetic content is but a minor annoyance compared to things like streaming locked gaming content/intrusive drm like securom and denuvo/etc.

2. I don't see incentivized(pre-order/etc) bonus content as drm.....as that content is more or less additional content given to those customers who fulfill a certain condition(ordering early or using galaxy in this case) and not initially meant to be in the main game for everyone. Now if it had been cut from the main game content

No offense meant if this comes out the wrong way, but this sounds like Magmarock when they said(in the smut and censorship thread) that people who want lewd gaming content should go elsewhere for what they want and such content should be kept off Gog.

We(me, you, everyone) need to remember: Gog is here for us all......none of us should expect any store/site to cater 100%(or close to it) to our sensibilities and stances.

Some might not see some things(ex: like me and the cosmetic stuff in 2007) as DRM, and some others might be ok with some things(ex: again, like me and the 2077 stuff). Just because some of us aren't as strongly set against some things or don't see some things as drm, that doesn't mean we aren't anti-drm.

In the end, I feel that as long as someone is against DRM in some form(especially the nastier stuff like streaming gaming and denuvo/securom/etc) then they are (to some degree) anti drm & should be "embraced/accepted with open arms" by others supporting the cause.

But the DRM free experience is on most(I agree it should be ALL) SP games on Gog......so I think practically nowhere is a bit of a stretch. Also wanting people to lose access to galaxy I think is about the same level of unfair as Gog locking MP to galaxy.

-

Addition: just because some of us might tolerate some things, that doesn't mean we would necessarily mind if the situations were changed. Take me, for example......even though I currently don't mind the 2077 cosmetics being galaxy only(besides being ok with pre-order cosmetic bonuses somewhat, it's just not one of my major concerns atm re: gaming as a whole), i'd still like to see them be made available for everyone. :)

Cool :)

I'm conflating my reply to a couple of points/ideas into this one for the sake of convenience (both ours and other readers/participants).

My argument is essentially that with certain instances, they are actually not small positive steps and perhaps in some cases even detrimental. I'll use the example of the Hitman LotY game release again: one could try to argue that such a release, even in spite of so much locked online, is a good thing for DRM-free, under the reasoning that it is a big AAA type game arriving here "somewhat" "DRM-free".

Where my point comes in is that I don't think that is really a "victory" for those of us who want full DRM-free, and in this case, were a release like Hitman to remain on this store (instead of having been removed) in its same state, then it could do longer term erosion to the idea of DRM-free (also, once devs/pubs see they can "get away" with some DRM, it seems really hard to re-route them to DRM-free).

Well in many cases I'm not sure content isn't indeed cut from main game, but that aside, my issue here is only with the access. Don't get me wrong, I don't think preorder exclusives are a good thing in general, but to illustrate my position:

-Pathfinder has a small preorder exclusive which they apparently don't even sell after the fact, it's only for people who preorder = not DRM to me. But, not really a likeable business practice, lol.
-Cyberpunk locks preloads behind Galaxy online connection (when apparently this wasn't necessary on a past Witcher release) and locks small cosmetic content behind Galaxy\ online connection = both instances there DRM to me.

It's about the means of access for me rather than the business practice itself, if that makes sense.

Excellent point and something that caused me to pause when you said it. After thinking a bit though I do think these are distinct positions despite the apparent similarity. The distinction I draw is that GOG is a DRM-free store. There is nothing incompatible about lewd content, or for that matter, various types of non-lewd content, so long as all are DRM-free. One can certainly have their preferences; I welcome the adult games and I also probably have other generally unpopular preferences here like wanting more sports and fighter games and less puzzle/point-n-click/"artsy indies" (not meant in derogatory way, honest). But ultimately these are all DRM-free games. By contrast, Cyberpunk is a flagship game and is "their own" so it is a bad look when any content, even small, is locked behind an online requirement.

By "practically nowhere" I may not have been clear but I meant the gaming market at large, not GOG. With GOG I agree the vast majority of singleplayer games on GOG do not contain DRM or DRM-like schemes. What I meant at large is that for people looking for DRM-free gaming, there are not many dedicated stores out there and the ones that are are very very small compared to giants of DRM like Scheme and Epic Fail. In terms of dedicated DRM-free stores that have what I consider "big releases", GOG is essentially all that there is (though Zoom-Platform is something I keep an eye on and I have nothing but good things to say about them).

As for it being unfair to want Galaxy off of GOG, well, I suppose maybe it is. But to me this seems like one of those zero-sum sort of situations where perhaps one side does have to lose out. If not, hmm. People seemed to like Galaxy 1.0 better than Galaxy 2. Perhaps if there is a compromise sort of route, GOG should revert back to Galaxy 1, for the benefit of those users, while making sure there are no Galaxy requirements in games, for the benefit of grumps like me. I admit I don't know much about using Galaxy, but if the old one was stable, maybe they could just have that exist and stop doing work on it, let it go to the backburner while those who want it can still enjoy it.

But you (correct me if i'm wrong) still seem to want it/other things not to be here that you don't think should be here......similar to Magmarock's posts about lewd/adult games. Yes, DRM free games are a "better fit" here, but the similarities between what you said and some of what Magmarock said still remain. That is what I was trying to point out(and again, not to make you feel/look bad, but to illustrate a point).

True, drm free game stores might have less games on offer, but there is more than enough to buy/play for a loooong time at least. :)

Also a side note: I hear tell zoom platform has enough backlogged games to double it's current offerings, and will be releasing them in batches over time.

Tbh I think/prefer that compromises that make both sides happy be looked for/tried first.......sort of like the decent idea you just proposed/mentioned.

Yes, I admit as much. But doesn't the Hitman Online requirement edition example illustrate some sort of line drawing? One could make the argument that if you don't want a DRMed release like that here, you are being exclusionary and not compromising enough and infringing on other people's fun who don't care about the DRM. With Galaxy, ideally the requirements would be removed and alternate means of access would be given (for example: offline installer for Cyberpunk cosmetic content, devs adding LAN or other DRM-free multiplayer modes, etc).

I still maintain an online client is inherently at odds with DRM-free gaming on a fundamental level (as the goal is to get everyone online and logged in all the time, which runs counter to offline gaming), but that would at least be a start and feels okay enough to me as a compromise *if* it is also coupled with less aggressive Galaxy-pushing in general (no "Giant Galaxy button by default, while having to click through a menu to find the offline installers", also no "just use Galaxy", also equal treatment for offline installer users, etc.).

What you mentioned about backlog is certainly true for a lot of us. I don't quite understand the need some folks have to play the latest hyped up games, or buy DRMed games in general, when so many options exist here to keep one entertained for lifetimes (I know you have discussed in past buying DRMed games cheaply and then having "your own" version; I am just speaking in general, not making any kind of dig). I am keeping an eye on Zoom-Platform too as their more purist (compared to GOG) approach to DRM-free is quite refreshing and imo needed.

Indeed, it’s fundamental to everything which is bad in gaming and excludes further progress on true offline gaming. For example, galaxy users can roll back versions, something offline uses are not afforded the privileges of, only being able to download the latest version, and that without changelogs.

A client is also a necessary part of:
- online checks/verification/activations
- microtransactions/markets
- online gated content
- online multiplayer (as open multiplayer is apparently not possible in this advanced day and age)
- achievements, at the expense of offline achievements
- locking executables to specific proprietary dlls
- providing alternative download options (is removing gog downloader)

But not only that, it acts as “consolification” of PC’s, how many posts are “I keep mashing the big green play button and it not work”? Simple understanding of how things work on PC or where to get help avoids most of that. It also directly goes in the face of the one single point of this store, to get offline installers for keeps. I don’t have numbers or anything, if we can sure bet most client users don’t even know about that let alone use it. It’s also responsible for developers thinking, oh good, now we can include these online features, or develop with online prinicipally in mind.

If anything clients are worse than drm, drm can be removed or cracked but online features and the client mindset are far harder to change.

But if they don't mind the drm, they likely wouldn't have a problem with buying it off of steam/etc.

On the lan thing: yup, they should do that
On the pre-order thing: since that's a bonus for galaxy users alone, I feel they should be able to keep it galaxy only unless they feel they want to give it to everyone....though I agree it'd be nice if they did after a time

Eh, as long as the client stays optional I don't mind the big galaxy button(and also personally think the offline installer option is easy enough to spot), though I agree support shouldn't make people "just use galaxy" to make their bought/paid for games work.

Agreed....more competition is always good in drm free. :)