Let me rephrase, the purchase would be of Thronebreaker. If they detach the "bonus" Gwent bloat and just sell standalone Thronebreaker, I would buy it. I know that this may seem counterintuitive but there are some of us here who really want nothing to do with Gwent or the client even for free. As with games from Valve's monopoly service, I wouldn't even want them free. They have negative value to me, meaning actually less than zero. I disagree, my position is that no DRM is legitimate. Yes I suppose those kinds are "better" than having it for a singleplayer game but honestly that is splitting hairs. Gaming history was stolen away thanks to that mentality. Imagine if all the resources dumped into Everquest, WoW, et cetera back in the day went to massive OFF-line experiences. Gaming would have been so much more enriched as a medium had it stayed underground and focused on preservation, instead of aiming for massive casual dollars. And that's your right. But please consider accepting that other people, people who used to be the core audience of this site in fact, may differ from your view. How about we respect one another's views instead of namecalling anyone who doesn't agree as "petty" or "unresonable" [sic]?

Thronebreaker is stand alone, it is DRM free, online isn't required, it has some online attachment to the GWENT online, but that is only if you choose to use it, heck if you don't even have a GWENT account what ever GWENT online card/extras you would get nothing would happen since it would have nothing to attach to in the first place. Just play Thronebreaker, it is 100% DRM free and 100% offline game.

Try telling the thousands upons thousands of people who had a horrible online experience because Stardock decided to not have DRM on their online play for one of their games because hundreds of thousands of pirates got into the game, thereby giving a horrible and non playable experience for those who actually bought the game. Needing online credentials for an online game is actually a good thing for the customer, and it is irresponsible to not have them.

Sorry, but it is unreasonable, illogical, and outright irresponsible to not have "DRM" in those instances, and honestly your opinion is wrong on this, that is just the objective fact there.

You called it :(

I've got GWENT public beta installed for eons now and in Galaxy it shows:

[PLAY] [MORE v] UPDATE AVAILABLE
Unknown version * 1 DLC

But there is no update button anywhere. The play button shows [PLAY], there is no other button anywhere to update the game, nor in the MORE dropdown menu either. Right clicking on the installed game in the left hand pane and looking through all options in the context menu shows no update option either. Starting the game up gets to a screen where it says to press the left mouse button to play, which just causes the screen to refresh and not enter the game over and over again - presumably because it is outdated and fails to connect, but does not display any error messages at all.

If Galaxy knows there is an update available, why is it not providing a way to obtain that update?
(Galaxy 1.2.47 on Win 7/x64, both fully updated)

I attempted to do "Verify files" and got a notification in the bottom right of "Update failed". Did it a second time while analyzing network traffic with Wireshark and there are no visible outbound network requests after clicking on the verify button. Galaxy installation corrupted perhaps?

Anyone else unable to update Gwent to official release with Galaxy?


UPDATE: I uninstalled Gwent, went to my library to reinstall it and it just gets server failed every single time trying
to install it now. Will wait a few hours to a day to see if it sorts itself out, and if not I'll file a support ticket. Looks like it's just growing pains or similar.

I couldn't begin to enjoy something knowing it stands on my fellow gamer's backs, abusing them, crushing them. Making GWENT a manipulative F2P online service instead of a real, respectful, game was a huge, huge mistake on CDP's part.

still being hyperbolic I see. You got no respect for your fellow gamers cause apparently you feel they are complete idiots and cannot control their own spending. You are literally insulting your fellow gamers /facepalm

I don't. I don't find it unreasonable that a company that, according to their own PR-spiel, bases there entire raison-d'etre on 'DRM-free' should provide only completely DRM-free games.
- Do multiplayer games need DRM? No. There are many multiplayer models that don't require DRM at all. I'll let you figure them out by yourself.
- Do free-to-pay loot-box casinos need DRM? Yes. So you are right that it is reasonable to expect that a free-to-pay online money-printing scam comes with DRM. These two things belong together.

...which means that providing such a loot-box gambling 'experience' should be the last thing a company fighting for DRM-free should do. GWENT stands against everything that GOG pretended to stand for. But due to the spending habit and gambling addictions of lots of players it is one of the major sources of income. So I know GWENT won't go away again. Which is very, very sad because it is a clear statement on the part of GOG, that they don't care about their former 'ideals' anymore. And as a consequence of that, I don't want GWENT to be added to my account. Because it would show up in the 'number of customers that own GWENT'.

No, I won't. As explained above, I will not agree to anything that puts GWENT in my account. But how about providing an actual multiplayer mode for Thronebreaker? How about LAN? Or setting up our own servers? If you really want that Thronebreaker is viewed as something separate from GWENT, then make it truly separate. I will buy it as soon as the association with GWENT disappears.

Meanwhile, I actually do want a response to my question: How about LAN for Thronebreaker? Will you provide that?

And how about providing another version of Thronebreaker that doesn't include the 'free' Gwent? I think Thronebreaker would sell better without that 'bonus'. Let the customers choose whether they want GWENT or not.

Stopped reading here because you are very much being unreasonable. I am sure all those legitimate purchasers of Stardock game absolutely loved that they could not play on the developer provided MP servers because of the lack of DRM and the massive amount of piracy /facepalm

You are objectively wrong in this. MP servers absolutely need DRM, it is the best thing to do for the customer experience.
DRM absolutely has a legitimate use that benefits the customer, and that is when it should be used.

I actually laughed at this. You're kind of cute in your delusion. How old are you? 12? Apparently you only know the 'facts' that the companies tell you and lap them up as the absolute truth. No, DRM isn't necessary for multiplayer and never has been. Have you, by any chance, ever heard something about Counterstrike? That didn't need DRM. Have you ever heard about Descent? Quake? About LAN-multiplayer? LAN parties used to be a big thing some time before you were born. Did you ever hear about dedicated servers set up by players? All multiplayer concepts that work quite nicely without DRM.

Ditto. I wonder if the focus on Thronebreaker the reason why the FCKDRM campaign is not linked on the front page. Because Galaxy-for-multiplayer goes against the language set out on FCKDRM.com. I have not played Thronebreaker, so forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but is there any reason why it could not have a DRM-free multiplayer in addition to the client? We don't even have the option. It's client or bust, and that is very disappointing.

Did you miss the part where I was talking about developer provided MP servers? Did you miss the part where I talked about what happened to Stardock? Apparently so. And going by your response, I highly doubt you are older than I am.
Thronebreaker does not need Galaxy at all, it doesn't even need GWENT online installed at all.

GWENT online was built to be an online game, and not as a lan game. Not everything needs to be a lan game. Its like expecting an MMO to be a lan game, which completely destroys the points of MMOs, and this game is meant to be a fully online game. It being an online only game is something we have know since the day they announced it, which was like 2.5 years ago.

FCKDRM has nothing to do with 100% online games for a free to play game. Reasonable people understand there is appropriate usage for DRM, and a MP game that takes place on company provided servers is very much an appropriate place for DRM since it benefits the customer as well.

Did you miss the part where I was talking about multiplayer in general? Maybe you were talking about developer provided MP servers. I wasn't. My statement, that irked you so much that you stopped reading according to your own statement was: Now, please, read that statement carefully again and then point out to me where it refers to developer provided MP? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. My statement was simply: multiplayer doesn't need DRM. And that remains true no mater how much you twist yourself to convince yourself that the poor, misunderstood corporations have no other choice but to enforce DRM.

And another little thing: I specifically DON'T want developer provided servers. Which you would have found out if you hadn't stopped reading. I want the possibility to set up a server myself or to play via LAN. Ever heard of that?

And no, I don't know what happened to Stardock and I don't care. What I do care about, however, is choice. The choice to play with friends (in case you know what that is) without having to resort to any proprietary server. The choice to play in a LAN. Those who want it can still make accounts on some proprietary servers with all the verification they want. But if everyone is forced to use one client and a proprietary server, that is DRM. And no, in case you already forgot the statement, DRM is not necessary for multiplayer. It never was and it never will be and it actually is irrelevant whether you understand that fact or choose to live in your own bubble.

Except you are talking about GWENT online, which is a Free to Play ONLINE game. You wanting the game to be something that it is not is not a valid argument on your part at all.

Having company provided servers and requiring a log on is not against the tenents of being against DRM at all. You don't like online games, that is fine, but do not come in here and spout the BS that you are spouting and thinking you are being correct, because you are objectively wrong. GWENT Online has always been advertisted since the day it was announced as a Free to play online game. CDP are actually reasonable people that understand the one time DRM is actually a good thing and that is very much in an Free to play ONLINE game, and you being unreasonable person that thinks a game should be tailored to your every whim doesn't change that fact.

And yes, Multiplayer that uses company provided servers very much needs that DRM, that is an absolute fact that is in disputable, and what happened to Stardock proves that very thing.

Again, just because you do not like playing games on company provided servers does not mean that a company needs to adhere to your every whim and provide offline play. You can simply ignore any game that doesn't give you LAN play, but don't go pretending they are doing the wrong thing by not giving you what you want.

No. I'm not talking about Gwent online. Maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from. I am talking about Gwent. The card came. You know, the one from The Witcher 3. And I would like to be able to play Gwent as a multiplayer game with friends. You might re-read my posts (number 4 and 10 in this thread) if you're interested in what I actually wrote.

I would buy a Gwent game that allows me to play Gwent as multiplayer game with friends. With a balanced set of cards from which to build one's deck. And without any collectible card crap. But I will definitely not play any online free-to-pay scam.

And no matter how much you want it to not be true, it still is true that the DRM-free ideal that GOG used to pretend, is incompatible with micro-transactions based online gambling. Because, as you say, that business model requires DRM. And therefore it is incompatible with DRM-free. ... That should be a logic that is easy to understand, even for you. Something that requires DRM can never be compatible with DRM-free! The two are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the very existence of a free-to-pay, microtransactions, DRMed online 'game' in the portfolio of GOG proves that GOG doesn't care about DRM-free. Which is a fact that I lament.