What makes you think this is not DRM-free? Both the base game and its DLC come in offline installers as they should.

Imagine the hubris required to put out most generic, cheap-RPG-maker-looking-ass game imaginable for $23AU and then trying to monetize the crap out of it with DLC.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I have the feeling that some GOGers are getting more and more intolerant whenever GOG releases a game they personally dislike. Is it so hard to let others enjoy a game you personally might not enjoy? Is it really worth the time to post such comments just to say that this is another game you personally would not play? Why not just be constructive and use the time to post something helpful or informative instead? Telling that curation is subjective is absolutely nothing new.

I feel differently...if some people want to criticize something then why not let them? Also how does someone expressing dissatisfaction about something stop other people from enjoying those things?

(aside: I find the belief some seem to hold that random words on some section of the net will affect reality somewhat interesting. Like one person says "this game should be banned/not sold!" and someone will reply "stop trying to take people's games away!" As if the second person thinks the first person can change reality just by uttering/typing something)

Okay ... go ahead - continue to be negative and spreading negativity in all threads of games you dislike.
Oh my ... and I thought GOG was aimed at adults. I am out.

If I feel something warrants criticism(and sometimes mockery) then I usually express how I feel.

One valid criticism would be on the listed title's mtx DLC. Should we not express our feelings on it lest we create negativity or should we (consumers) make our concerns known? Being purely pleasant doesn't always work...sometimes it takes a squeaky wheel to get the grease. Also not everyone is going to like everything someone else does...that's just life, and (imo) they have every right to be heard alongside the ones posting positive comments.

I grew up with a C=64 (and have one on the table about 20 inches from where I'm sitting). There, the crackers, striving to create a more pimped up version of a game than the competition, often offered you "See the end sequence now?" The thing was, though, the crackers were doing it for free.

I personally would play it and enjoy it. I saw this launch announcement in my gog newsletter and got intrigued, seemed right up my alley, and probably still is, but no I cannot endorse this on GoG you offer a hand they take an arm.

That's good news on a horrible thing. Caught me off guard, I had never seen micro transactions on a GoG game before, this showed up in my email newsletter and seemed like a cool RPG, I clicked to check it out and was befuddled by the "DLCs", the kind of which I thought GoG was free of, that's all

It's not mandatory but it's there, on another platform I might have not bat an eye at it and gone "typical" but not here.

"It's not mandatory" is such a lame defense. You could defend pretty much anything with that line. Paygate being able to save your game and say "it's not mandatory". You could just finish the game in one sitting without paying extra, right?

Unfortunately, there's always people who'll defend greedy anti-consumer practices and GOG's nonexistant (or at least wildly inconsistant) curation standards.

Because some people have become completely unable to cope with something as basic as being exposed to opinions they don't share.

There are a number of gog partners that do the same. Check out Paradox and it's insane levels of 'horse armor' type DLC on their games some time for but one example.
-

Cat games, pron games, cat games, pron games. I dunno, seems somewhat consistent to me ;)

Yarp