This is good. It should have been canceled. In fact, no one should ever have even THOUGHT of it, let alone approved it or considered allocating resources to it. It's OK to build a multiplayer game (just don't try to sell a multiplayer only game on GOG, because that's not going to fly). It's not OK to plan to exploit people with microtransactions and stuff rather than making a product and selling it. That quote is quite harmful and damning. And it doesn't matter how aggressive it is. Microtransactions and IAPs are *always* aggressive by their mere existence and upsetting. There's no way that would make one happy.
Those things you list aren't microtransactions. They're low-priced DLCs. Microtransactions require an online component/account to work.

Once again:
* If it requires significant core game changes, it's an expansion.
* If modders could probably have done it, it's a DLC.
* If a cheat tool or save game editor could do it, it's a microtransaction.

It was long overdue. It may take some time until member countries transpose them into national law. Granting the right to resell a license to a third party, digital stores like Steam or GOG would have to implement a function allowing one to transfer a game or games from one account to another and deletion of said games from your own account. This should be an easy process for Steam because a key can be deactivated for one account and the game wiped from the library so the other person is able to activate it on theirs once the sale has taken place. I don't think it's going to be that easy for GOG in case it becomes national law. Games aren't bound to an account as is the case with Steam, Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft etc.

I take it that once Amazon implements its patent patent for a "Secondary market for digital objects", it may change the situation for both the first sale doctrine and the second-hand market laws. :-)

I wonder how you spent that much time with a GOG account and never saw a single advertisement for Gwent ;)
CD Projekt Red has been in the microtransactions business for years already.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying, and you quoted only a fragment of my post, so it's easy to strawman my point.

But to settle your puzzlement: I saw the game be advertised every time, since I'm on GOG every day, but I knew what it was, I knew it wasn't for me and I didn't buy it, or rant that it shouldn't be sold on GOG. In fact I've repeatedly said, that as far as I'm concerned CDPR/GOG can do whatever they have to, to keep the doors open, as long as I keep getting my DRM-Free games. Do they want to jump on the Hearthstone bandwagon? I don't care because, I wasn't going to buy it anyway, and the upside is that I can buy my DRM-Free games. Do they need to jump on the GTA5 Online trend? Never played GTA5 Online, and I was never going to play the Cyberpunk multiplayer, but I can play my ever increasing collection of DRM-Free games.

I'm not implying anything, I'm saying that nothing new happened with Cyberpunk, everything has happened before. For example, everybody seems to have forgotten Witcher 2's 2.0 overhaul patch, that basically came a year later and completely changed the various aspects of the game. What I am saying is that every Youtube news pundit is blowing this out of proportions, because they need to farm some Internet points. Most of the bugs that are repeated on youtube are fabricated, by using various programs to break the physics of the game. Just search for the thousands of videos that collect Red Dead Redemption 2 "bugs" to see what I'm talking about, "bugs" which are literally impossible in a normal, unmodified game.

EDIT: Actually the patch was released 6 months after the game launched.

When you write: I find it quite hard to understand in any other way than you telling us that CD Projekt is not making money from microtransactions.

If that is not what you meant there, then you are right: I do not understand.

TBH i never gave much of a fuck about the MP.
NOW in the current situation, i think it was the right decision to put the resources
from MP to fix / rework CP77 Singleplayer (if they do it)

So that we MIGHT enjoy CP77 in a state that has somewhat the level of what we ve seen
in the demos and what was advertised.

mind the SOMEWHAT ok?

They should have cancelled it years ago, before they ever announced it in the first place.

They had originally promised to have that game be 100% microtransaction-free, claiming, in their exact words at the time when they promised there would be zero microtransactions, "we leave the greed to others."

Then a couple of after that, they ignored/neglected/retracted/back-pedaled on their own promise there, and also thus simultaneously showed the world that they don't respect their own supposed values or integrity at all.

Instead, they replaced it with new pledge to release a microtransaction-filled garbage MP version of the game, akin to GTA Online, which is also that.

In other words, the MP version of Cyberpunk was always intended to be a cash-grab scam which offered little to no value to consumers.

I hail it being cancelled!

But I don't respect the devs for doing it only now, and it being something they did only because the base game itself is a trainwreck, and they don't want additional bad publicity from releasing a crappy microtransaction-filled MP portion on top of that.

I'm sure if the base game was good, then they would followed through on publishing their cash-grab MP attempt.

On a slightly different note, I also remember when the devs originally talked about having "seamless integration" of multiplayer into the game, way back in the years when Cyberpunk 2077 was first announced...which would have been amazing if it was a good game, and if the MP was implemented in the way how they first talked about it (and there wouldn't have been any microstransactions at all in that version).

If they were going to make MP, that is only good way to have done it.

When they are ready They should reconsider and launch the MP game later but with the original idea/design.
Or better, something completely revolutionary like was the original idea of Unreal Tournament or Quake III, etc... A pure MP game but clean of nonsense.

Looks like they will include online components in the normal game itself. Also in their future games....

You again only quote a single sentence from my original post, so again strawmaning my argument. So I'm going to try to explain it, though at this point I'm more inclined to believe you're actually not interested in this, seeing how this is your second post in which you ignore everything else I wrote.

Over the course of my 3-4 posts, I was trying to say that the people that have been adamantly against GOG doing microtransactions, are thinking at the situation from a limited viewpoint. Gwent, but in this case Cyberpunk multiplayer weren't games, meant for us who actually care about DRM-Free. These were meant for the microtransactions littered market, that has been the cashcow for "EA and Ubisoft, and everybody else". These games were meant to rake in the money so as to allow the comfortable and proper development and maintenance of their other projects: Cyberpunk 2077(with Gwent), Witcher 4, or whatever is next(with CP77 multiplayer), and GOG(Gwent and CP77 multiplayer).

Gwent wasn't enough so we got the disastrous release of Cyberpunk 2077, and now CP77 is canceled which who knows how it's going to affect the development of future games. And the GOG store experience is lacking in refinement and I suspect staff, due to Gwent not being successful enough and who knows what the future will bring now that CP77 multiplayer is canceled. Seriously now, at this point, how long will it be until GOG gets the axe, considering that it has never really made them money? But all the people in here care about is that "CDPR stay away from the microtransactions games, because they have no place on GOG". THEREFORE: And now that I'm thinking about this, maybe all of these failures are the reason why we are seeing the EPIC games deal, and probably a future STEAM games deal... food for thought.

That's why I said that I don't care what CDPR/GOG does to keep the doors open, all I care about, are my DRM-Free games. Now, If we ever see a release such as say, " Siege of Avalon: Anthology" with DENUVO on GOG, then I would also be blasting the shit out of CDPR. But until then, CDPR/GOG should do whatever they need to, to keep the doors open.

I do as well.

It doesn't need MP. It's fine SP and I'd rather the focused on the SP stuff as that's what they are good at (Witcher 3 was amazing) and also there's a lot of bugs with Cyberpunk.

I've not played it since Dec but does anyone know if they have fixed the issue of when you randomly get hurled across the map for no reason. It happened to me three times last time I played it (once in a car) twice on foot.

GOG should do a better job educating people about the importance of DRM-free then; instead, they pulled the FCKDRM.com page that had a nice, easy-to-understand comparison about the importance of DRM-free when it comes to game access and preservation. I would say most people essentially live in a state of ignorance about DRM. That leads to the result of them "not caring" about it, but I think they can care about it if made aware of it. They have certainly cared about it when bigger stores/clients have gone down temporarily, when they are without internet, when companies have gone too far too fast attempting to push anti-consumer things like always-online and not being able to resell games, etc.

To be honest, I am not quite understanding your position...from your posts in this topic, can you please explain how you would justify taking any sort of stand against a hypothetical "Siege of Avalon:Anthology with Denuvo"? Based on your other post, couldn't one argue that GOG "has the data" that DRMing this game (which you just so happen to be interested in, unlike the microtransaction ones) is a good idea for GOG's future? Would you then tell yourself to "be a grownup" and rationalize that even if this game were to come with Denuvo, at least other games here are sold DRM-free?

I am not a CDPR shareholder. I have sentimental value for the GOG brand and have supported this store a lot, not just limited to purchasing games but also recommending it to anyone I could and trying to explain to them why DRM-free is so important. But if GOG were to do things like DRM in singleplayer games, I don't care if that's what they need to "to keep the doors open". I would probably be inclined to cheer on their closure at that point, since I am here for DRM-free gaming, not for them to become another Humble Bundle or whatever. Your mileage may vary.

But only as long as the compromise does not affect the core of your ideals. And I think this view is very short-sighted. GOG already has attracted too many customers which value the "convenience" of a client more than DRM-free games. And when the percentage of such users has grown enough they might as well pull the plug for their last remaining core principle, which of course also will affect you.

I do not care about the cancellation of a separate multiplayer version of Cyberpunk. All I would like to have is a complete single-player version which is fully playable offline. Much more concerning for me is that "online technology" which will "enhance" their single-player games. Better to have good backups of our offline-installers, especially of those installers which do not already have been infested by Galaxy, just in case they decide to also integrate this "online technology" into already existing games.

What does adding DRM to an old game, have to with a completely new game that is designed around microtransactions? You are mixing the two. There is a huge market for microtransactions, and I think that GOG should have a product that takes advantage of it. I would never buy the damned thing, but that would allow them to continue their other projects: GOG, Cyberpunk 2077, ?Witcher4?.

The entire discussion was about microtransactions, I never said that they should use DRM, in fact I have said three times in this thread, as long as they stay DRM-Free, I see I'm even getting downvoted...
That's exactly what that implies, yes.

I don't know, that feels too much like yelling out that "the end of the world is coming". I can't see the future, to me it doesn't feel like we are heading that way.