Ancient-Red-Dragon: The statement that GOG has wasted tons of money on Galaxy is correct, but that
isn't because of Achievements.
True, and worth pointing out. That is not really what I was trying to get at with the achievements though. I wanted to illustrate sort of a contrast to your earlier position. You suggested no one cares about curation and it harms the DRM-free principle. I counter that not that many people care about achievements (you are probably the most eager I've seen, that's not a slight btw), and that they harm the DRM-free principle by focusing things around a client which is in opposition to DRM-free gaming since it pushes things online rather than offline.
Ancient-Red-Dragon: With no Galaxy client at all, then GOG would be probably be driving off many potential customers because GOG would have no ability to offer Cloud Saves, which is a vital feature in our modern day.
I don't think people who are vociferous for DRM-free, care that much about cloud saves. Mainstream audiences, I couldn't tell you. I believe it was GTA IV backwards compatible version on modern Xbox consoles where the ONLY options allowed for saving are cloud saves, so I personally would file this along with achievements as a feature designed to get people plugged-in, always-on, reliant on the client. In other words, something that pulls the brand in different directions and which should not be part of a "barebones, back-to-basics" type of strategy for GOG.
Ancient-Red-Dragon: As for Axiom Verge, that didn't come to GOG because the dev wanted to be lazy and not give GOG customers an equal version of the game if he were to release it here. Him at least being ethical enough not to give GOG customers a gimped version is something he deserves credit for, and us being 'deprived' of having a gimped version here is a win for us, not a loss.
I disagree but we can leave it at that.
Ancient-Red-Dragon: Whereas, giving all customers on all platforms equal treatment makes
everyone happy, because even people who don't like Achievements won't be upset if a game includes them (especially since anyone who doesn't want them always has the choice never to use them), and they also won't refuse to buy any game due to them being included.
The really equal treatment would be to have in-game achievements so that anyone with any version of the game can earn them. Why do they need to be linked to social media online stuff? If GOG were to focus strictly on DRM-free gaming, does it really make sense to go for all that online stuff too? Seems like spreading themselves thin, trying to have cake and eat it too, etc...the things that may have gotten them to this point as it is right now.
rjbuffchix: 1. Enough of these "strawpeople". I'm sorry but I have seen you bemoan all the Galaxy detractors in multiple topics for being "childish". Please either name names of people who are making such claims and address points directly, or stop creating fiction and then calling your fictional characters names. It isn't good discussion.
2. The "My Rewards" singleplayer cosmetic content of Cyberpunk is one example of something for which Galaxy is not optional. But, let me guess, that's how they designed it (doesn't this go without saying?), so, in the view posited from your comment here, therefore it magically isn't DRM.
JakobFel: 1) It's not a strawman to say your attitudes are childish.
2) Oh yes, because useless cosmetic content that is a thanks to those who use Galaxy is somehow making Galaxy required. Not to derail the topic but the definition of DRM is right in the name:
digital rights management. Not "online multiplayer needs client" or "optional cosmetic content thanking Galaxy users".
1. Please identify specific points I made which you believe are childish and perhaps we can address them. Lumping me into some collective isn't productive to discussion.
2. Your original claim that I was making this point towards was that Galaxy "has never been forced for ANYTHING other than Gwent". Obviously, that is false. By the way, how much more courting and romancing do Galaxy users need? Would you at least admit this is a disparity between the treatment of Galaxy users and the treatment of offline installer users, being that the latter never get such thanks, don't get to preload like Galaxy users despite apparently being able to years ago, etc?