GOG no longer DRM-free?

[DeadPoolX]

Apparently, Cyberpunk 2077 requires the use of Galaxy in order to unlock and access DLC content. Most of this content is, at this point in time, cosmetic (including some hilariously ironic character clothing that celebrates GOG being DRM-free) but even so, no single player game should EVER require anything remotely similar to DRM on GOG.

GOG's entire claim to fame is being DRM-free, without which they are nothing more than a slightly underwhelming competitor to Steam.

GOG has also been pushing the use of their so-called "optional" client, Galaxy, for a while and with Cyberpunk 2077 are attempting the second step towards making it mandatory by requiring its use to gain access to content purchased by consumers. What was the first step? The first step is GOG neglecting to regularly update their offline installers, many of which are at least one version (sometimes several versions) behind what's offered through Galaxy.

Admittedly, the use of a client in and of itself does not constitute DRM; however, making that client mandatory to gain access to content purchased is absolutely DRM.

Denuvo has also been found in review builds of Cyberpunk 2077, although I've also heard it might exist in normal commercially-released builds as well, including the copy on GOG. I'm not entirely sure about this one because I've read a lot of conflicting information regarding this, so for the time being I'm going to assume that Denuvo was just there for review builds and not the versions players will actually have.

I know some people probably don't see a problem with optional DLC being needing to be authenticated for a single player game, but they're missing the point. Sure, it's optional, but people also paid for it and on GOG they advertise that they're entirely DRM-free (at least for all single player titles), so requiring Galaxy for even optional content is a form of DRM.

Overall, I hope this is just a MAJOR oversight by GOG and that they'll rectify it soon. If they don't, they're bound to come under some serious fire from gamers (beyond what's already present on GOG's forums), and probably see quite a few people entirely abandon their platform.

[Tawmis]

GOG's entire claim to fame is being DRM-free, without which they are nothing more than a slightly underwhelming competitor to Steam.
Overall, I hope this is just a MAJOR oversight by GOG and that they'll rectify it soon. If they don't, they're bound to come under some serious fire from gamers (beyond what's already present on GOG's forums), and probably see quite a few people entirely abandon their platform.

Yeah. That's why I always save versions of my game files from GoG. A bunch of the original Sierra stuff was released with DOSBox (my preference) with new "updated" versions using ScummVM. My problem with ScummVM versions is that it doesn't always include all the game files making it impossible to use DOSBox if you wanted, or even run it on a native 386 if you're that hardcore.

So while GOG is my preference over other clients - it began to wane with the whole not including all the files - and I saw on their forums a week ago or so about not being DRM Free now with one game; which opens the door to begin doing it with other games.

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmph. So what can we (or I, or anyone) do about this? I can write GOG a strongly-worded email, which -- who knows -- they might ignore. Indeed, who knows -- they might ignore this entire kerfuffle and keep on doing anything they want; and if anyone says anything, they'll say "It's our business and we can do what we like, neener neener neener, purple monkey dishwasher, Milwaukee bicycle."

(OK, sure, they won't include that last bit. But that'll be the gist of it)

[Tawmis]

Hmph. So what can we (or I, or anyone) do about this? I can write GOG a strongly-worded email, which -- who knows -- they might ignore.

Well, you can add your voice to some of the threads in the General Chatter area on their forum about this.
Look on the GoG Wishlist to remain DRM Free - vote it up and also comment there too - you can see a lot of comments, about the very things DPX pointed out:
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/conti ... nd_forever

[MusicallyInspired]

Some games already exist that require the client. So this isn't exactly new. I think the first one to do this was the rerelease of Aliens Vs Predator 2000 which was a number of years ago now. This was so it could track achievements and link into Galaxy's multiplayer servers I guess.

Or maybe it doesn't and I'm mistaken. But I do know that GOG games requiring the client is not a new thing.

I'll believe it has Denuvo when we have solid proof. CD Projekt Red owns GOG and it's their game. They've always been against using DRM so if they actually included Denuvo in their game besides enforcing GOG Galaxy use this is monumental indeed. But I'm slow to believe that right now. It could be that Denuvo is included on all other clients other than GOG, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[Tawmis]

Some games already exist that require the client. So this isn't exactly new. I think the first one to do this was the rerelease of Aliens Vs Predator 2000 which was a number of years ago now. This was so it could track achievements and link into Galaxy's multiplayer servers I guess.

Yeah but that's like requiring XBOX LIVE to record achievements. You can still get achievements without XBOX LIVE. They're just local to your machine.

[DeadPoolX]

Some games already exist that require the client. So this isn't exactly new. I think the first one to do this was the rerelease of Aliens Vs Predator 2000 which was a number of years ago now. This was so it could track achievements and link into Galaxy's multiplayer servers I guess.

Or maybe it doesn't and I'm mistaken. But I do know that GOG games requiring the client is not a new thing.

As far as I know, the only games that've required Galaxy are some (but not all!) multiplayer games on GOG. No single player-only titles have needed it until Cyberpunk 2077.

I can understand the use of Galaxy with some multiplayer games (especially since it's not uncommon for people to pass around a single copy to all their friends), but my issue — and the issue many on GOG have — is that no single player game should require it.

Once gamers start allowing DRM on single player games on GOG, it'll slowly move to every game requiring Galaxy. Honestly, it really seems like that's what CDPR wants, probably because it allows for better anti-piracy measures and data collection. Maybe the information collected would purely be aggregate data (like on Steam), but even so, GOG's created their business model around being DRM-free and being privacy-conscious.

I'll believe it has Denuvo when we have solid proof. CD Projekt Red owns GOG and it's their game. They've always been against using DRM so if they actually included Denuvo in their game besides enforcing GOG Galaxy use this is monumental indeed. But I'm slow to believe that right now. It could be that Denuvo is included on all other clients other than GOG, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

I've heard differing reports with some people saying Denuvo was only on the review builds (including the GOG version) to prevent reviewers from leaking the game early, and others stating that Denuvo is on all versions of the commercially-released build (once again, including the GOG version) that gamers have bought.

I'm giving CDPR the benefit of the doubt here and assuming Denuvo was only present on review builds, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when more people look into it.

Hopefully, GOG keeps their DRM-free focus and fixes this issue with Cyberpunk 2077. The only reason to even bother shopping on GOG is because it's DRM-free. Their prices are worse than Steam's (at least in Canadian dollars) or at best, comparable, so there's no reason beyond the DRM-free benefit to shop there.

[DeadPoolX]

Due to the DRM issues, the massive amounts of bugs (on PC and consoles), a crap-ton of refunds, and low user reviews, CDPR's stock price has dropped by 33% today.

That's insane!

The article I linked to was last updated today (December 14, 2020) at 9 AM PST, so it's entirely possible the stock price has recovered or that it's gotten worse.

[Tawmis]

As far as I know, the only games that've required Galaxy are some (but not all!) multiplayer games on GOG. No single player-only titles have needed it until Cyberpunk 2077.

When I was looking for the DRM thread for Rath, I did see this - 9 pages deep, and I've not looked - but it seems there has to be at least ONE that started this thread.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_o ... search=DRM

I can understand the use of Galaxy with some multiplayer games (especially since it's not uncommon for people to pass around a single copy to all their friends), but my issue — and the issue many on GOG have — is that no single player game should require it.

Agreed, about the DRM. But what's the difference between passing a online game vs single player. You're still technically passing a game to someone who can play it for free.
(Mind you, I don't want DRM - just saying if it's there for multiplayer purpose - you'd think they'd do it for single player games too)

[DeadPoolX]

When I was looking for the DRM thread for Rath, I did see this - 9 pages deep, and I've not looked - but it seems there has to be at least ONE that started this thread.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_o ... search=DRM

I guess the situation is worse than I thought. Many of those games have significant multiplayer components to them, but also have dedicated single player campaigns.

Agreed, about the DRM. But what's the difference between passing a online game vs single player. You're still technically passing a game to someone who can play it for free.
(Mind you, I don't want DRM - just saying if it's there for multiplayer purpose - you'd think they'd do it for single player games too)

I think there's less incentive to pass around a single player title. With multiplayer games, one person can buy the game and then play multiplayer alongside a ton of people by passing the game around to them. Also, with multiplayer games there can be stats tied to players' performance (that're showcased online to others) that're impossible to track without an account that acts as a form of DRM itself.

Personally, I don't care about stats like that, but apparently a lot of multiplayer gamers do. Then again, I don't understand the big deal about achievements. Apparently there are gamers who really feel there's no point in playing a game if they're no achievements to earn, which makes me wonder if they're even enjoying the game.

[Rath Darkblade]

Sigh. About a year ago (I can't remember exactly when, and I'm too tired to look right now ) GOG "automatically upgraded" me to the bug-ridden and irritatingly slow Galaxy 2. After a bit of back-and-forth between me and GOG support, I managed to "downgrade" myself back to GOG 1.2.

I like version 1.2, and hope I never have to "upgrade". (I know, never is a long time). But at least the old version is quick to start and reliable.

All this makes me fear for the future of GOG Galaxy. Why would I *have* to sign into it and be online, just to play a game? It makes no sense.

As for stats and achievements ... I agree, DPX. "Achievements", at least for me, are in the "nice to have" pile -- it's nice that I've achieved something, but it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of the game.

Now I'm curious: what game was first to incorporate "achievements"? IIRC, the first game I played that had "achievements" was Dragon Age: Origins, way back in 2011. (Wow, was it that long ago?) Of course, YMMV -- this is just the first one I remember, that's all. Does anyone know?

[DeadPoolX]

Sigh. About a year ago (I can't remember exactly when, and I'm too tired to look right now ) GOG "automatically upgraded" me to the bug-ridden and irritatingly slow Galaxy 2. After a bit of back-and-forth between me and GOG support, I managed to "downgrade" myself back to GOG 1.2.

I like version 1.2, and hope I never have to "upgrade". (I know, never is a long time). But at least the old version is quick to start and reliable.

I really liked Galaxy 1.2 as well, but I've never found an effective way to downgrade that still maintains all functionality. If it's one thing Galaxy is good for, it's letting me update games through it.

At the moment, Galaxy 2 works for me, but for how long is anyone's guess. Supposedly, Galaxy 2 is only compatible with Windows 10, yet it's working for me (and others) on Windows 7.

This seems to be fairly commonplace. I've seen a lot of games — some of which I've played or am currently playing — that claim they're only compatible/supported for Windows 10, but run just fine on Windows 7.

In most cases, I've found that games will run on Windows 7 and Windows 8/8.1 if they use DirectX 11, whereas it'll be Windows 10-only if it requires DirectX 12. The weirdest system requirement I've seen listed actually claimed their game was only compatible with Windows 10, yet used DirectX 9.0c, which means it technically should run under Windows XP!

All this makes me fear for the future of GOG Galaxy. Why would I *have* to sign into it and be online, just to play a game? It makes no sense.

I'd like to think that the backlash GOG is getting over this (and the huge drop in their share price) has taught them a valuable lesson and they'll cease their efforts to make Galaxy mandatory.

Then again, it really depends if CDPR is a private or publicly-traded company. If it's the former, they can do what they want without being beholden to anyone; however, if it's the latter, they'll be forced to appease shareholders, most of whom probably know little-to-nothing about the games industry.

As a side-note... becoming a publicly-traded company was what eventually killed Sierra Online as well.

As for stats and achievements ... I agree, DPX. "Achievements", at least for me, are in the "nice to have" pile -- it's nice that I've achieved something, but it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of the game.

Exactly. It's an added bonus, not the reason for doing the action in the first place.

Now I'm curious: what game was first to incorporate "achievements"? IIRC, the first game I played that had "achievements" was Dragon Age: Origins, way back in 2011. (Wow, was it that long ago?) Of course, YMMV -- this is just the first one I remember, that's all. Does anyone know?

I decided to look this up and what I found was surprising. Apparently, the idea for achievements can be traced back to 1982, with Activision's patches for high scores. This was a system by which game manuals instructed players to achieve a particular high score, take a photo of the score displayed on the television, and send in the photo to receive a physical, iron-on style patch, similar to a Boy Scout badge.

Because "taking a photo of the TV screen" is mentioned, I imagine this was primarily a thing for the Atari 2600, Intellivision, and ColecoVision consoles.

As for modern gaming, I think achievements can be traced back to Xbox Live. Microsoft charged Xbox players to use their online system, so as a way to increase competitiveness (thereby keeping players online longer and urging them to keep their subscriptions), they began issuing achievements as a reward. It's not surprising to see that achievements originated with consoles.

[Tawmis]

Yeah for "Achievements" - I think of XBOX 360, which is where I think "modern achievements" began that now spills into just about every game.
This forum had a topic about it: https://www.xboxachievements.com/forum/ ... nt-points/

The XBOX 360 was released November 22, 2005. So the first "modern" achievements would have dated back to 2005.

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh? Now I'm even more curious (sorry). DPX, you've said: "It's not surprising to see that achievements originated with consoles."

Sorry, why do you say that? Just confused, that's all. I've never owned a console (apart from the very old Atari and Commodore 64, when I was a kid in the 80s). Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games, I was just never interested in consoles as an adult.

[Tawmis]

Oh? Now I'm even more curious (sorry). DPX, you've said: "It's not surprising to see that achievements originated with consoles."
Sorry, why do you say that? Just confused, that's all. I've never owned a console (apart from the very old Atari and Commodore 64, when I was a kid in the 80s). Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games, I was just never interested in consoles as an adult.

You literally answered your own question, I think: Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games.

Consoles needed a way to keep people playing games, and needed something that PCs did not have when it came to gaming. And a way to say, "Look at what I've done!" (Show off achievements in profile).