Yep. You don`t have to do anything wrong. Just an `attitude` or `tone` is enough to get you banned.

I can`t and won`t talk like a meek sheep because of those Hitlerite mods on Paradox who think nobody can touch them.

1.0.2 beta patch just hit, would love to have a manual download of that patch...

While I didn't expect anything different from them, did they banned you on the forum or the whole account?

I dont know. I tried logging in and got a message I was banned. I`ve not tried logging in with the game.

Saw some of the exchanges, they are pretty tight and not condoning critics of any sort. That's the issue of having companies controlling the enviroment around their business.

Yup, you are right. I was mixing up both things, but i was still talking about the drm inside my extra content (which i cannot enjoy because i play like always played in GOG, offline)

Anyway, if they are testing the first patch, now there's already a second one, so maybe we're going to wait a week or more to see anything. We're on the weekend and there's no patch around so...

For the rest of what you said to MIK0, i disagree with you. If part of the code in your offline installer is walled by DRM, you are selling a DRM game, not a DRM-free game. Also, the DRM'ed content we are talking about, it's indeed available here, is not something exclusive for other site (also, it was a part of the incentive for pre-order, they didn't say hey, nope, that has DRM, please remove the DRM'ed content from your pre-order offer to be only on those other sites who accept it)

Also, as MIK0 already said and i also agree, if they allow more and more games with DRM to be here, at least they have to be honest and say it. Playing with words does not help, and it's not honest with the customers that expect something before buying the game and then realize they need to be constantly online to get something. It's half-truth at the very least. It's beautiful to be able to sell the world that you are the only DRM-free store, that's their main marketing point. It's just not completely true right now.

And about the problem of rejecting or accepting these games, i agree it's a big problem. You ask if GOG should refuse every game that "somewhere may have" DRM'ed "DLC" even when this "base game is DRM-free" (btw, that's playing with words, friend, this game HAS DRM inside it, it's not even a DLC, but part of the base code, you don't add anything with DRM to the game, it's already there) but the whole process of accepting a game is a bit misterious because they have also rejected a lot of DRM-free games that provoked discussions on the General Forum asking why all of those have been rejected. Even more after talking with a developer that was accepting a complete DRM-free version of his game to be able to release in this store.

I know some must have been a problem because other questions but when that happens and we are still asking ourselves why those games are not here and instead we have games with DRM parts on the store...well, that questions all the process and all the arguments we are discussing. Because, apparently, Paradox game are always accepted here (i mean only Paradox distributed games, because they don't sell anymore their own games on GOG, they don't like us too much it seems) but a lot of indie DRM-free, or even not so indie, are simply rejected.

And that, despite not having a single PR here, ever. Despite old games that still have DRM problems to activate content. Despite the different way of applying sales here and on Steam making us wonder if DRM-free is a privilege we have to extra pay for. Despite deleting threads on their own forum when people claims for GOG versions of CK2, EUIV, HOI4 or Stellaris. Despite not writing a single kind word about GOG or even answering their own customers because they simply ignore GOG at all...except for distributing their published games, as those games are always accepted anyway. It's really ironic how they also use the "DRM-free" card for marketing with their own games while also releasing only on a DRM platform and not here, the "home" of the "DRM-free" games.

Oh, well, i just don't understand (well, not true, i understand, but it's all really sad) Oh, and some actual usual ways to do things being a deadhorse doesn't mean we should accept it and go silent forever. We who always defended GOG ways are really split in 2? Those who defend it for the purest DRM-free old forms and ways to do things and those who defend it even if they someday change so much that are similar to Steam? Which of those groups of loyal customers will be more useful to GOG then? Or actually? Don't answer, please, just a rethorical question, i'm a bit depressed :P

I still come here to see the new releases and to buy here before Steam or Humble or whatever other platform but... some things happening around are just depressing.

If you try, let us know! But yeah, nothing new, i'm afraid. GOG mentions have disappeared from their forums, also. You can still see some Humble references in the first pages (because their DRM-free versions don't have an independent patch, although they have the new version to download, with the 2nd patch) but GOG mentions are not welcome(d?). I am guessing they recognize that it's a thorny issue but they have opted for pre-locked statements to prevent opinions and for deleting threads and ignore comments buried in other threads outside those statements (i mean HBS in this case, not Paradox, but still)

Sorry, i have skipped this somehow. You are partially right, imo. I mean with the backer content that was available offline forever once you activated it. In BT case, what we have is a new step towards DRM despite offering the backers a complete DRM-free version (as i said, that was not the case with Shadowrun, so something is different this time)

What i don't know (i was not a kickstarter backer) is if they also got a version which prevented them to post a review here like with BT (or if they got initially a basic, normal version and then someone changed their version making them unable to write reviews, something i consider is unnaceptable and censoring)

GOG always said they wanted to curate game to make a store a sort of boutique. From the fluctuating quality of the games to the barely average quality of the releases to the lack of updates, I could argue that it has not the be the case for a long time now.
I talked with some developers myself (I don't remember which one at the moment) an I keep hearing that the GOG way of rejecting or accepting games is unclear. When you have a store that sell digital games, so you don't have storage costs, I don't see an issue in bringing games here. The worst that could happen is that they won't sell. I would agree if it was a quality matter but as a customer I don't see that much selection here: bad games with issue still get released, good ones still get rejected. I believe it's more a matter of expected sales and exposure.

As I said before DRM-free is just a gimmick, a brand-like name, a marketing tool. At least for some. I saw many cases on kickstarter were developers would go back on their words after promising drm-free versions by either scratching them near release or by delaying them. The excuse is that it was to protect their income. But that's the point, they shouldn't as drm-free games shouldn't be controlled. But it's way too good for asking money. And those money are different weight when you have to reach a goal than when you are already selling it with a publisher behind and can afford a couple of refund.

Those matters should be kept relevant otherwise will be going toward he shift without realizing it.
I'm more toward defending the principles behind it than the store itself. And I'm more pissed about them lying and bending truths that the actual shift that is taking place.

I was a backer but I don't remember clearly. The first Shadowrun provided a Steam copy at first and a drm-free version thorough HBS site alongside the extra contents. They had some issue figuring out how to provide some feature and the editor, but I don't remember other issues and most of them I justified with HBS being at their first crowdfunding. Later they provided a GOG key and later on the standalone version of the expansion. Somewhere later they released part of the extras on steam (not providing a key for it) but not on GOG. To my knowledge the HBS doesn't provide an account to manage those content anymore. I don't know if they moved it somewhere else or simply removed it, I missed that part.
For Shadowrun Hong Kong they used backerkit and did not provided the extended edition. Still wondering how they cannot understand how convenient and requested a key for a deluxe edition could be and how much users prefer to have all their content in one place. I understand that some of the content are not on the store, but for the one that are there I don't see issues in providing them. Why neglecting even this small things that doesn't cost money to the one that kept them afloat and trusted them on a project publisher wouldn't?

All the Shadowrun version provided, to my knowledge, was pure store keys that count as store items and so reviews works for them. I think that at the time it wasn't even clear enough, it's later than some companies started taking advantage of that (InXile for instance). But keep in mind that this is a GOG issue because it's their system that allow that. I don't recall a similar issue with Steam. Being able to own a properly recognized version of a game (base or upgrade), should be a high priority.

The store page for BT says "DRM free" -- it had better be DRM free.

I will not differentiate between games with different multiplayer, at least no more than between Turn-Based and RTwP.
I understand your opinion but we have to agree to disagree. For me design decision (and having account-based multiplayer is first and foremost a design decision, especially if different games use the same accounts and the same server infrastructure) is not DRM.

As I said earlier, if it was a pre-order bonus, this should be fixed. This should be fixed to strengthen the principle because without it GOG has little to no advantages over other stores.
Speaking of content I would include patches into the fair treatment but DLCs and expansions are completely another story (the developer can abuse this by renaming a patch into DLC so this is not strict division).

If the original game is sold as DRM free, then all patches and DLC should also be DRM free.

Selling the original game as DRM free, and then shoving DRM in later, is DANGEROUSLY close to bait-and-switch.

As I said in my first post on this subject here, if it is true to the pre-order bonus, then this needs to be fixed.

Here we have different opinions. I do not care what's in the code. There may be Hot coffee if the developers want so. If this part of code is not advertised (and as such is not sold) on the store then game is sold in a version without this code. If I'm purchasing such version then I have full knowledge that I have no access to the part that is not sold.
I would even say that I approve this code in any game version. I'm tired of all those "different base games on different stores" so if I want to buy an expansion I must do it on the same store. With same code at least technical limitations are not the case.

I understand your reason but I don't believe in ideal world, I don't believe in all-or-nothing attitude and in the engaging in fight that is already lost. Sometimes it is better lose one fight to have strength (of arguments) for another. For another that matters more. I understand that not everybody will share this attitude.

Related to the DRM discussion -- why is my "DRM free", classic-downloader version of the game trying to "phone home" during launch, and hard-crashing if I tell my firewall to deny it access to the internet?

I have a question, I've just about finished downloading Battletech files, I've just noticed that this one had g on it for galaxy download. Is it possible to not install galaxy with this version in option install or do I have to re-download all the damn game for the legacy download?

I think you need to start over.

crap..... Thanks though