Except this thread is about GWENT the free to play ONLINE game. You talking about something else is completely off topic.

And no, it is not against being DRM free when you are talking about a free to play ONLINE game, and they are not mutally exclusive at all. Why? because you are not paying for the game it is being given free to you and is meant to be played online.

Also, techinally it is not even DRM at all. Because having a log on to get onto servers that a company provides is not DRM. DRM is about giving you permission to play a game you bought, even a single player game. DRM is not about giving persmission to be on a company paid for server being provided to the customer for free.

So with all that in mind, it does not in any way go against DRM. But what you want goes against common sense and logic and provides a horrible experience for the end user, as has already been proven in the past.

OK. I get it. You don't want to understand. Which is kind of sad and pitiful. But if you feel better that way, sure, stay in your little world where you can pretend to be right.

There is no pretending, I am right, and any reasonable person who are logical and have common sense can see that.

Um, the price of the game has no logical bearing on whether or not the game has DRM or not. EA has given away games "free" on Origin that require using Origin. The fact that the only (monetary) cost was $0.00 doesn't change the fact it is a DRMed game.

It appears you are unwilling to accept the premise that online-only gaming is incompatible with DRM-free, at least if there are no preservation options like LAN and private servers. How about letting the paying customer decide how the game is "meant" to be played?

You are incorrect, it is not incompatible at all. Obvisiouly me using common sense and logic is lost on some people around here. /facepalm

/facepalm

Woah, there seems to be a heated discussion going on. Perhaps one could do without the name-calling.

I think what rjbuffchix is trying to say is that he doesn't agree with some of the decisions CDProject made when developing the game. His main concerns being that it's a microtransaction lootbox type online game and the fact that his "savegame" is stored on a computer not under his control. I agree that players having control over how a game is run is a good thing. After all, games are a type of media that we (as a society) might want to preseve. If the servers ever go down (or require a newer version of the game) the game would certainly be unplayable. One could call that a form of DRM. Allowing players to host their own servers would be possible (though it might not be as profitable).

Trying to understand the other "side" of this discussion I conclude that it is well inside CDProject's rights to publish the game like this. They allowed games that depended on proprietary servers for multiplayer before. It is not a novel case. Remember that CDProject is still a company and a companies first and foremost goal is to make money (which isn't evil per se). I can see the appeal of multiplayer modes locked to a companies server and as I understand it there are people who are ok with these "moderated experiences".

I think it's important to inform and raise the issue, but one should do so without insulting users who are making an informed choice in favor of such systems.

PS: Personally I would have loved a LAN mode and private servers (or a FLOSS release to be honest), but that would have been a completely different game. Perhaps in the time I have spent playing games, I could have founded a different game company and built that game. Or you could have.

PPS: In this thread, some people have used the word "customers" to describe the playerbase of a game. I think that's a dangerous word because it implies that players can only consume and not contribute to gaming culture. All creators have to consume to be able to create. Please don't just be a customer. Everyone can mod and create own games.

I Love Thronebreaker, am scared I am about to end it and am taking a rest to postpone that end. But, But I hate absolutely HATE what has become of the Gwent game, it's unplayable to me now because I can't learn how to play, the practice bot is Always the same and the cards never change, I have gotten good at beating that 1 bot with skellige, oh boy, I have learned absolutely nothing about the other decks or how to play against them! They rewarded me scraps so I can make any card I want, just to see I could have unlocked them without spending 800 scraps each, Oh Joy!! Good thing I made all of those leader cards again to see I needed to only unlock them. yeah they really shit the bed on this one. I Will play Barnabus Bazil at the vinyard.

Okay so I like the new Gwent so far (ignoring the previous posts about DRM because I don't care). Just some improvements I would like to see:
1. The number next to the leader name should be explained and the mulligan principle explained better in game.
2. Pre-made decks that you can select from, the more the better (Hearthstone has 3 okay decks but if you could make more like 5 that would be really nice).
3. A more detailed battle log about what has just transpired would be nice since it's not always clear.

Will post other things when I think of them. Keep up the good work!

What happened to the performance? I ran the game perfectly fine while in beta, and now that it's out of beta, it barely runs on all lowest settings.. This is unplayable.

So nice of you guys... would be glad if the 3 row concept would be kept alive like in beta and the original witcher... BTW anyone can link me to the full-sized image of Geralt and Ciri facing each other on he loading screen when the game starts... but without the name of game written in the middle... just the clean full-size image... anyone? developers? Thanks in advance :)

I have played a lot of Gwent during the beta and wow, the full game release is not good at all. Gwent feels like a simple clone of Hearthstone now and has lost about everything that made it unique. I have loved the intricate gameplay with three rows, nice combos for every faction and a distinct playstyle. Now it's just "1 damage to x" and cooldown on cards makes it really clunky. And the graphics are too busy, while beta felt and looked super clean and crisp. I am very sad about how the game has changed and hope that at least Thronebreaker will be a hit. Gwent, for now, is a miss for me.

Whats up with AI i seem to get ther lowest cards possible in the last round the third round a tie so a loss.
If you buy a pck you shouldget a better mill rate. Its crap.
So to recap
Playing practise,
Playing casual
Playing has the same result.
To be continueeeed!
Another thing there is little time to look at your hand so its rushed then you have to wait for said opponemnt who is changing
his hand. so you sit there waiting.
Which brings me back to whats up with tjhe AI?

I just loaded my copy of gwent the last time i played it was beta and my favorite deck was an eithine resilience dwarves deck NOPE i get not enough scraps to fix the decks you removed.

ALSO that does not exist anymore ..........


And the longer tutorial with a manual turn switcher for cards that can 1 per turn just feels worse than in the open beta sorry guys but keeping level and resources but wiping decks annoys me as a player why nerf resilience into the ground make it fun for the fans of that meta and delete it after the beta..............

I'm trying to play the game again. There were several changes and I'm still getting used to it, plus I did not have much time to play it. Only recently could I play for a while. I like some changes and I think it's easier to get new cards than in the beta.