If you consider CDPR to be utterly hypocrite then yeah, it makes total sense.

What does that have to do with anything?

I imagine they discussed this at one of their round tables (likely many) and probably felt just as nervous about using it or even bringing it up as a topic. Can't imagine it was an easy decision for them.

I know my own company had town hall meetings to get employees feedback whenever an unpleasant option may needed to be implemented.

But when the stakes are this high on a game their poured their heart and soul into, I don't really have it in me to fault them.

I'm fine with them protecting their hard work against leaks from "review copies" given free to reviewers. So long as the offcial release here and any official realeases elsewhere for that matter are DRM free.

Hopefully they will provide a patch to the reviewers at some point. Remind me never to be a reviewer though lol.
.

Edit: I am curious to why they didn't just let the reviewers know ahead of time of the DRM. Or is there a part of the story we're not hearing? Is there not some type of agreement they have to sign that would detail this? Like an NDA or something?
.

denuvo should be outlawed , it is more harmful than tiktok

Why would they?

Review copies have always been protected somehow, not that it has been very effective, but that's how the industry works.

Back when games were released on CDs, often those CDs were stamped "Not for sale" or something like that to make them different from the real CDs. And often the content was just a first chapter or an area of the game, not the whole game.

So somebody being surprised about review copy DRM doesn't know much about gaming, and therefore shouldn't be in the game business to begin with.

Of course it's tempting to create a controversy over a company that is related to DRM-free distribution actually using DRM, but as long as it's not involving paying customers, there's not much to write about really. Business as usual.

Makes sense. I don't really know how it all works since I've never been a reviewer, so was just curious.

Thanks for the reply. :)
.

The issue is with limited activations, from one of the articles I read. Some reviewers like to install the game on several different machine configurations to test performance. Can't do that if you're severely limited to a small amount of installs.

That's an interesting perspective, like it's an intentional joke. But I'm not laughing at it. This store is the only place to get big releases DRM-free. DRM-free gaming is already a niche and on the verge of extinction for lack of a better term. We don't need them accelerating the process.
Your user flair says "Angry cat!", tell me, was that red herring delicious?

I am not really buying here since they embraced selling DRMed games on "the new store app on GOG Galaxy 2.0".

Having endless more things designed to funnel users to this client is not a good sign, neither is Denuvo use.

Yup. A "GOG DRM-Free Revolution" shirt hidden behind a DRM activation online is prefect irony.

Of course it is. One have to be pretty dead not to see the irony in the joke here. From the outside, people are behaving like rabid neanderthals over this, and believe me, the developers at CDPR are neither dumb nor "disconnected from reality" just because you and I (and probably 8-9 more around here somewhere) might not like it.

The silly thing here is to take it too seriously and not have some perspective.

A war isn't won by going after every single battles, it'll only burn yourself unnecessary.

You guys are thinking too much about it.

You bought here because it offered DRM free games. According to you, this is not longer the case. Nobody is forcing you to remain here.

I hope you're this adamant about things that are really important.

True, true, and true. However, while I can't speak for others with a similar position, it does make sense to me to stay here, participate a little in a forum I enjoy, and download updates for my games (the "offline backup installers" that they try so hard to hide, since I don't use the "optional" Galaxy). Are customers with dissenting opinions of GOG's direction now/going forward no longer allowed to do that? I haven't cared much for your opinion on this topic, yet notice I am not trying to silence you or imply you don't belong on the store/forum.


For whatever it's worth, I like to think I am, but that still wouldn't have bearing on these forum topics one way or the other.