That’s correct. The game does not unlock until May 17th, and if I remember correctly a bit of data will have to be downloaded to unlock the game. They’ve been very open about that all along.
It’s different in three pretty huge ways. For one, you don’t patch the game every time you play. Secondly, you don’t have to patch the game at all, if you don’t want to. Three, you have to be online anyway to download patches.
They aren’t being misleading when they say that there is no DRM on the game–there isn’t. You could make an argument that there is DRM on the patches. Well, at least until they release a final revision for download. But here’s the thing: who fucking cares? Frankly, anyone getting into a twist over this is being pretty damned pedantic. The reason to want DRM-free games is not that DRM is evil in the abstract. DRM becomes problematic when it becomes an inconvenience to the user–disc juggling, limited installs, need to be online in order to play, etc. Needing a GoG account to download patches? That’s not even inconvenient in principle. You already have one if you bought the game digitally through them.
No matter what happens to GoG, your internet connection, CD Projekt, anything, as long as you have the game and a computer, you can play it. To get a post-release patch, you have to register the game. Big freaking deal.
Budvar
4425
Yes fair enough. I do need the account anyway to download the game. It just seems ultimately so pointless anyway. The patch server authentication idea is certainly not some magical way to stop piracy. I can’t fathom why they would bother going only 90% of the way there.
I’ll reserve judgement on how much of an inconvenience it is when I see how buggy the release actually is. I bought Witcher 1 on release, and it certainly wasn’t a trouble free experience.
I can’t say I comprehend your argument. In theory I agree it’s problematic that patches are only available through the auto-patcher, or through re-downloading the entire game. Problematic, in the sense that it is possible it could inconvenience you unnecessarily, if the patch distribution service asplodes while you’re playing an outdated version, forcing you to re-download and re-install the entire game instead of just updating it. Assuming, of course, that no stand-alone patch would be released under those circumstances.
In practise, however, I have a very, very hard time imagining the choice between an auto-patcher & re-downloading an up-to-date installer, wont always be the more convenient.
Regardless, as I said I must admit my inability to fathom how this can be construed as any kind of DRM.
Budvar
4427
I’ve explained it a number of times above.
The ONLY way to get the patches is using online authentication. You cannot backup patches or patch in any other way. Patches can’t be redistributed. I’m don’t believe there will be an updated installer. Only the original installer + patches. Firstly, it’s a restriction on my ability to patch the game AT ALL, without online authentication. Secondly, it can be used to limit access to the game. If the game ships with a release day bug preventing me from playing without a release day patch, then I must authenticate the game.
I’ve already conceded that it is not really a huge restriction because you need to be online to download the patch in the first place. However, how much of an inconvenience it is really depends on how buggy the game is on release.
Lorini
4428
This isn’t even a problem if theoretically you were going to share the game with a friend because you could just give her your account info and let her login. Where it does become DRM is when you were planning to host the game on your pirate site. And we can all agree that companies should be able to do something unobtrusive like this to discourage that from happening.
So much better than EA’s ‘i know you’re a thief so you better damn well prove you’re not!’ attitude.
Yeah. I’m perfectly willing to take a stand against DRM that creates hassles for the user. I haven’t bought an UbiSoft game since they started doing their “You must be online at all times” thing. But this is, like, a non-issue. Less than a non-issue, since setting up the launcher to install patches for you actually makes things easier for legitimate users. That’s the sort of DRM that I’d like to see more of.
The reason why you need to register with unique key to obtain patches, is so that pirates (who will be plentiful because of DRM-free GOG version) cannot download them from CDProjekt. If there was no key for that, all pirates could download patches through launcher just like legit users.
Which would blow.
And updating through launcher is very easy hassle free. I do NOT want to have to search websites for patches anymore.Like Ben says.
Nesrie
4431
For some games, many games, you have to patch a game just to get it to run. So yeah, you can have a non-working game or you gotta patch it. Or my favorite, you can release a broken, incomplete game that barely runs, is missing most it’s content, doesn’t have an competent AI but hey, stick all your patches behind a login in server and call it DRM Free and evidently you’ll get the masses cheering you on because hey, you could be worse right like EA or Activision.
I don’t recall anyone saying GoG has the worst version out there. On the contrary, they have the least invasive form of DRM… but it’s still DRM.
Lorini
4432
This kind of nitpicking just allows the DRM assholes fuel for the claim that invasive DRM is necessary. “See, even DRM that doesn’t affect the legitimate user is still complained about!” Something I’m sure EA is saying right now if they haven’t been saying it for years already.
From their point of view, if buyers/users are going to bitch no matter what, hey they may as well throw the DRM kitchen sink at them, what’s the difference?
RickH
4433
By that logic, the cash registers at Best Buy are a form of DRM. You’re confusing access via the purchase/update process with post-sale rights management.
Did you quote the wrong part of Nesrie’s post or something? I don’t get the tie to Best Buy’s cash registers.
This is not the case with “many” games. The number of games that I have had to patch “just to get them to run” in the last ten years is… well, zero. And I play a lot of games.
Some games are buggy and need patches, it’s true. But the scenario that you have posited in which GoG is purposely planning to release a broken game just so that they can slip in some DRM on the sly is nutty, and exists only in your head.
So yeah, you can have a non-working game or you gotta patch it. Or my favorite, you can release a broken, incomplete game that barely runs, is missing most it’s content, doesn’t have an competent AI but hey, stick all your patches behind a login in server and call it DRM Free and evidently you’ll get the masses cheering you on because hey, you could be worse right like EA or Activision.
Uhm… yes? I mean, yeah, they could be a lot worse, like EA or UbiSoft. And it’s a good thing that they aren’t. Isn’t it?
RickH
4436
. . . stick all your patches behind a login in server and call it DRM . . .
Stick all your games on a retail shelf in a store that’s only open certain hours of the day and call it DRM.
Make me pay for internet access to get your patch and call it DRM.
Make me use the login/pass I used to buy the damn game in the first place and call it DRM.
Call it what you will, but that’s legitimate product access control, not Digital Rights Management.
RickH
4437
For example, contrast with my purchase of the Dragon Age Origins complete edition on Steam. I installed it, tried to run it, not a damn thing would happen. Only after an hour of searching multiple support websites did I realize that I had to create an EA account to “authorize” the content that I thought I’d already bought and installed.
Very obnoxious, very EA.
I thought that was only for the digital version of the game. This was a store bought physical copy. Ah, I see now the fun DRM. "A one time internet connection is needed to install and activate the game. " Good thing I didn’t plan to take it with me on a trip then. Doh.
If the release date is 17th, then it is 17th. If store copies could have been played already, pirates would all be enjoying Witcher 2 by now.
They’ve been very clear that all versions of the game, retail included, have some form of DRM other than the one GoG is distributing. (And I guess if your definition of DRM is so broad as to be effectively meaningless, so does it.)
I wonder if they’ll find a way to activate it before the 17th anyway, since it is a major title and its still 5 days away. What annoyed me is that I didn’t know the game required a online activation in addition to the date requirement. But thats my own fault I suppose.
