-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CDPR keeping Witcher 3 keys for Origin, uPlay and GOG; tell GMG to go pound sand
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Well, I'm not upset at GMG. They made a choice and, if they changed it, then there must be a real reason to do so. However, as much as I've always seen CDPR as a company, I don't see any change in their behaviour from the past. Unless there were a discount as big as this one was with the pre-order of The Witcher 2 on GMG.
I lean toward a price manipulation causing GoG/CDPR to cut Amazon completely from this, since Amazon is ok with selling all sorts of codes like Steam, Origin, Rockstar and Uplay. no competition on the price and Amazon not agreeing with GoG/CDPR to keep it high just sound a good theory for why Amazon is not selling it digitally I guess.
This to me seems like a GMG issue, not a CDPR one, though many will likely blame CDPR.
They can choose who they do business with, it's their right. It's our right as consumers to determine if we agree with that process and continue to do business with them.
In the end, they also have a right to limit the sale DIRECTLY to their consumers and through that route. They also have a right to limit the codes to direct purchases, etc.
While I don't agree with this outright, it's also likely that this is only a temporary "let's see the sales for an early purchase on X sites" move and they would likely have offered the product elsewhere.
GMG in this case oversteps its bounds by purchasing the codes and attempting to resell them, for 1 dollar or 100 dollars. The reason GMG would do this isn't because they're benevolent and kind, but to garner business for their site, the same reason CDPR would do it for its partners (and GOG). In the end, only CDPR has the right to do this.
I do however enjoy the delicious irony that GOG stands for ownership but can you argue this point on a game that isn't out yet? Hmm...
In short, GMG acted like a brick and mortar who wanted people to shop there by purchasing the competition's stock and attempting to resell it. It seems simple but in the end the effects are financial and do have visible results. In brick and mortar it absolutely controls who goes to your store for other products (in GMGs case, other games.)
That's my useless internet two cents I suppose.
They can choose who they do business with, it's their right. It's our right as consumers to determine if we agree with that process and continue to do business with them.
In the end, they also have a right to limit the sale DIRECTLY to their consumers and through that route. They also have a right to limit the codes to direct purchases, etc.
While I don't agree with this outright, it's also likely that this is only a temporary "let's see the sales for an early purchase on X sites" move and they would likely have offered the product elsewhere.
GMG in this case oversteps its bounds by purchasing the codes and attempting to resell them, for 1 dollar or 100 dollars. The reason GMG would do this isn't because they're benevolent and kind, but to garner business for their site, the same reason CDPR would do it for its partners (and GOG). In the end, only CDPR has the right to do this.
I do however enjoy the delicious irony that GOG stands for ownership but can you argue this point on a game that isn't out yet? Hmm...
In short, GMG acted like a brick and mortar who wanted people to shop there by purchasing the competition's stock and attempting to resell it. It seems simple but in the end the effects are financial and do have visible results. In brick and mortar it absolutely controls who goes to your store for other products (in GMGs case, other games.)
That's my useless internet two cents I suppose.
Krappadizzle
Member
It's not that CDPR can do no wrong, it's that they do so much more right than other companies/developers/publishers that they are usually the beacon as to what other studios should strive to be like. But I agree completely, this should have been settled behind closed doors, and Gamespot jumped the gun in reporting this IMO. Things like this happen all the time I'm sure, but they are handled in the correct manner so that the end user(us) never know.
Fair enough on the GMG stuff. As for CDPR well I don't really care enough to argue over what actions they have taken that may or may not go against their carefully crafted image of the past. I personally learned my lesson not to put a company on a pedestal after Stardock fell from grace.
Arondight
Member
Yeah, I'm going to go with the idea that none of them came out looking good. Both of them showed complete lack of any transparency in their actions.
There's too many assumptions, not enough solid evidence about anything.
Vincent Grayson
Member
You're probably right that both fucked up here.
That said, CDPR as this shining pillar of a developer has lost a lot of lustre recently, with their "totally not DLC" expansions, and their "totally not DRM" mandatory download to launch the PC version, along with the (IMO) less-than-ideal situation of them being owned by the same company that is having these weird issues with distribution suddenly when launching their own distro platform.
This whole thing would feel a lot less skeezy if CDPR and GOG were totally separate.
Remachinate
Member
No more skeezy than Steam and Valve's own internally-developed titles.
GatticusFinch
Member
They most assuredly do not. If they are selling codes they have no right to restrict any further sale. GMG did nothing wrong. This gets trickier depending on if the codes cross international lines, but in the United States the original copyright creator has no right to restrict future sales and in the EU they have no right to restrict future sales within the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
When Half life 2 forced steam on people no one liked it then either. Not that that is what is happening here just that steam wasn't always the popular gaming platform it is now.
While I agree someone fucked up at PR for CDPR with all this, how would you suggest they give us the chance of pre-load without leaking the game before the release date? Because the moment the game is out that ''mandatory file download'' become completely irrelevant and further download of the game is the game installer itself.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the pre-download is a file that will ask for the key file missing which will then become the installer.
Of course you could say ''not letting people pre-download the game'' but that's a bonus they give us with the ''bemol'' that you need to wait for the release date to have all the files. It's not like they're gonna check what you're gonna do with the game after or block the game after 3 installs, need a CD-key, need an online check to boot the game etc.
TL;DR : It's a digital game. Of course you need a download to get it, they just let you get it most of it before due.
GatticusFinch
Member
You didn't read what you are responding to, which is ironic since you put a TLDR in there.
The DRM is to fuck with the physical disc release so people cannot play it prior to launch, which obviously doesn't need to pre-load. This has nothing to do with the pre-load.
Steve Youngblood
Member
As much as I abhor the DRM debate, I was thinking a little more about this driving home from work. Does the unlock download even require any sort of verification of legitimate ownership? If not, I'm not sure that a one-time-only requirement to have an internet connection really constitutes DRM in any sort of meaningful sense.
Mind you, this isn't me going to bat for CDPR in this spat. My kneejerk reaction without all the facts is that they probably didn't handle this confrontation in the best possible way. However, I don't know if attacking them for being hypocrites about DRM is entirely fair, despite what I said earlier. I mean, if I have to enter some sort of key or tie to my GoG account to access the download, it's DRM. But a patch that anyone can download to guard against Day 0 activiation? I'm not on board with calling that DRM.
Mind you, this isn't me going to bat for CDPR in this spat. My kneejerk reaction without all the facts is that they probably didn't handle this confrontation in the best possible way. However, I don't know if attacking them for being hypocrites about DRM is entirely fair, despite what I said earlier. I mean, if I have to enter some sort of key or tie to my GoG account to access the download, it's DRM. But a patch that anyone can download to guard against Day 0 activiation? I'm not on board with calling that DRM.
Oh, never do that with any company.
No. For example, if you buy and download after launch, you get the same exact files as me if I do the same. The missing files are just to protect people from playing before the official release.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
I imagine it will be like TW2, after installing the game the launcher will download day one patch, without having to provide any kind of verification.
Calling this DRM is just silly.
Errrrr. I didn't know that, I thought he was talking about the pre-load. I admit while I almost read everything in the thread, I skimmed some of them...
A DRM on disk release? Eh.... I really don't know what to say. I guess they fucked up, been years since I bought a Physical PC game so I didn't realise.
But at the same time... what would you do if you didn't want people to break the release date?
That fucking situation is so not Black and White.
Edit :
Seen that way.
Q: Do I need Internet access to install the retail PC version of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt?
A: The initial, pre-premiere retail PC batch of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt needs to download a file from our servers to allow play. This file will either be downloaded automatically during installation process or you can choose to download it manually from a dedicated website. Since we have no DRM in the game, this is a security measure we needed to incorporate so the game doesn’t leak during the production process. No worries, the file will not be big. Copies of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt produced after launch will not contain this security feature.
Q: Will there be any sort of serial number provided in the retail PC box?
A: The game does not require any serial code to install or play. However, each retail PC copy of Wild Hunt will contain an additional GOG.com game code for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. See below for details.
Q: What is the GOG.com game code found in the box used for?
The game code grants you access to a digital backup copy of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on GOG.com. You will also receive full software support, i.e. future updates, as well as all the additional content like the 16 Free DLCs, the FLAC & MP3 soundtrack, comics, wallpapers, art book, all voice over packs and more.
Q: Can I install and play the game without the GOG.com game code?
A: Yes you can install and play the game without the game code.
Q: Will I be able to install updates and the free DLCs without using the GOG.com game code?
A: We decided to offer software support, DLCs, and extra goodies only to gamers who confirm their purchase with the provided game code on GOG.com. This is the only way for us to differentiate between you, honest gamers who bought our game, and pirates who snatched it from the Internet.
Q: Do I need to become a GOG.com user to play the game I just bought?
A: You can install and play the game without becoming a GOG.com user.
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...-Version-FAQ?p=1629577&viewfull=1#post1629577
The fact that their only way to stop people from playing physical copies is through DRM doesn't make it any less Black and White, honestly.
Their other option was to not stop people from playing physical copies bought before the release date, you know, like every single other AAA game.
To be clear, I really don't mind what they did, it's not offensive to me, I don't hate them for this, I'm not cancelling my preorder, I honestly don't care, but it is silly to be the anti-DRM hero, to fight against anti-consumer policies, and then stop people from playing their legitimate copies, just because you don't want them to play it yet. It's not even common practice or anything, they came up with this with no precedent. If at least it was what all the big guys did, but it isn't.
Again, I really don't care, personally. I'm used to waiting for the release date even when copies are out in the wild weeks before, since I only buy games digitally nowadays, but those are the facts.
You're right, maybe it isn't DRM, but still has the same effect some people are complaining about, DRM or not. This makes this just semantic. People can now complain about both DRM and "anti-Day0 measures", instead of calling it all DRM.
To be clear once again, even DRM I'm not against. Steam is DRM and I love it. I'll take some form of DRM that allows me to have most of my games in one organized platform over having to organize all my DRM free games myself, and install them manually and all that crap (Uplay still makes you do this, even with DRM, though. The worst of both worlds, yay!)
Steve Youngblood
Member
I kind of get this, but also, I don't know if I agree. While breaking release date isn't a big concern of mine, I don't think it's unfair to say that pre-release purchases aren't legitimate. Just because my local mom and pop shop gives no fucks about protocol and is willing to hook me up with a copy, that doesn't mean that this is a legitimate purchase when I wasn't supposed to be able to buy it now. On the digital front -- though we may be impatient and wish a game would unlock -- nobody who has bought and pre-loaded a game expects it to unlock before the official release date.
Iorv3th
Member
There is nothing illegal about it. Collusion between two stores fixing prices would be illegal. But a supplier saying 'we use this MAP pricing structure for x amount of days or indefinitely' is not illegal.
Well, I don't know shit about law (especially from countries that are not my own), but I'd assume the store is at fault for breaking the release date, not you. Am I really that wrong in thinking this?
And even when the stores do this and the publisher finds out, they don't get in trouble with the law or anything, right? They just don't get prerelease copies anymore, they get blacklisted. Seems to me that it's something publishers want, but isn't really enforced by the law, just their own practices.
Iorv3th
Member
Yes, is nothing illegal about selling early. Just that the publisher may cut off your supply or raise prices etc.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Right, but what I'm saying is that whether or not it's my fault, I'm not supposed to be able to play the game before the release date. Just because I can claim ignorance and point my finger at someone else's incompetence doesn't all of a sudden mean that my purchase that broke street date was legitimate. Mind you, I'm not saying that we track down every copy of a game sold before the street date and destroy it to send a message, but a publisher guarding against stores not honoring the release date hardly strikes me as DRM.
Gamesplanet is also selling Witcher 3, and it even says in their page they're an official partner of CD Projekt.
https://uk.gamesplanet.com/game/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt--2672-1
I wouldn't be surprised if there's more stores, it's not just nVidia keys and Humble.
Oh yeah, it's their right to do so, and as I made sure to point several times, I don't mind it. But I can completely understand why people would be pissed at this, especially considering their stance on anti-consumer practices, even if they're using the wrong words to describe this new practice.
I don't think it would make things any better if CDPR thoroughly explained to people that it isn't DRM, they just don't want them to play the game yet. In fact, it might make things worse, which is why I think the "is it DRM or not?" discussion is completely irrelevant.
CosmicQueso
Member
Street dates exist so that no one retailer has an advantage over another. It allows companies to send units to distributors to then resell to small accounts while larger accounts like Walmart aren't penalized for having a slower distribution system than GameStop. There's nothing at ALL DRM about street dates.
That being said, there's also nothing at all illegal about a retailer breaking a street date. There can be other penalties determined by whatever sales and marketing agreements exist between publishers and retailers.
And the consumer should never be penalized for buying a product, no matter how it was purchased, so long as that purchase was not of stolen or compromised goods.
That being said, there's also nothing at all illegal about a retailer breaking a street date. There can be other penalties determined by whatever sales and marketing agreements exist between publishers and retailers.
And the consumer should never be penalized for buying a product, no matter how it was purchased, so long as that purchase was not of stolen or compromised goods.
You are wrong about the US, which your link addresses.
US Courts treat licenses separate than sales. This was made clear in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. which is the landmark case on the issue at this time.
The EU does not treat licenses separate than sales, but depending on how retail contracts are written up, there may not actually be a "sale" to the retailer in all cases.
It is very common for digital sales to be reconciled on an "as provided" basis. For example, an authorized retailer may get 10,000 codes, but it won't have to pay for those 10,000 codes up front. It simply uses them as it needs them. If said retailer only sells 2,000 codes, it only pays for 2,000. The rest sit in inventory until they are sold.
Physical goods work a similar way, with a right of return. If a store orders 10,000 boxes, but only sells 5,000, its contract usually has a stipulation that it can return unsold inventory for credit against the bill. And since the bill is usually net 90, the store isn't out the initial front of costs. Now there are a lot of considerations on how that clause is offered and making sure retail stores don't over order, but it's not unusual.
In either case, there would be a distinct question as to ownership (especially in the digital case) as the codes aren't paid for until they are used.
Digital licensing presents all sorts of wonderful legal issues versus physical sale to a customer.
No. If you want the bonus goods (free DLC) you need to register your code on GoG. If you just want to play your game, you download the file and go.
This. It's a contractual agreement between two companies so that stores can be on equal footing, nothing more. There's no legality involved and there's absolutely nothing illegitimate about a consumer having a product "early". If you bought it, it's yours. Implying that a customer should be punished in any way or that their copy is somehow not "legit" is absurd.
hurricanes
Member
I am OK with day zero preventation file; I am not OK with dictatorship over legitimate distribution, that's anti-customer no doubt.
Steve Youngblood
Member
To be clear, my own position is not that someone who bought the game prior to release date has done anything wrong and should be punished. However, I'm unclear on whether or not we consider "having to wait until the official launch for the game to unlock" to be punishment.
I don't think it's a punishment for digital pre-loads unless it doesn't actually SAY that it's a pre-load. But something not working out of the box on a physical purchase until a certain date and locking it with a key you'd have to download would be really bullshitty.
Theonik
Member
Well from your perspective as the consumer, there is nothing illegitimate about that sale. It is the store that is bound by street dates.
Edit: Of course it is fair, it exists to protect other retailers that do adhere to protocol from this exact thing but that's not really on the consumer though PleaseUnderstand.gif
Steve Youngblood
Member
Right. But the only way I'm being "punished" is by having to wait until the actual release date like everyone else. Again, this isn't my way of saying that Day 0 activation is bad because I'm mad jelly about people getting to play before I do. But I'm also not convinced that having the hookup with someone who cares not about the ramifications of violating street date protocol means I'm entitled to play the game early just because my purchase was legal.
When someone buys a physical copy of a Steamworks game early, it comes with the understanding that they have to wait until the game unlocks just like everyone else. I guess I understand arguing that a DRM-free game should be different since Steamworks Day 0 protection is part of the DRM that is Steam, but I'm just not all that persuaded that consumer rights are being violated here.
Theonik
Member
Consumer rights when purchasing software are such a strange concept these days anyway. It depends on where you are coming from. To a lot of people a DRM-free physical copy is something they can just buy pop into their system and that's it. No strings attached. No 'actually we only put 99% of the game on there so you have to get it from us otherwise you might be a stinky early game player!' It's not really a big deal. The moral part of the argument is this, DRM punishes legitimate customers by assuming they might be doing something shady, this is not really very different since it inconveniences someone buying a physical copy by having to jump through an extra hoop to make sure nothing bad has taken place. This is exactly the kind of thing CDPR denounced:
Which is where the hypocrisy allegation comes from. It's not people twisting the definition of the situation to fit a narrative, it's exactly the thing that CDPR said!
Now this is 2015 and we have come to expect jumping through a ton of bullshit to be able to play our games and some of it is more or less defensible than the other, I definitely don't care about this enough to cause a stink myself but I can understand where those people are coming from.
Another thing to consider is that this basically means that they only way to get a complete physical DRM free copy of the game is to wait for the second print of the game with this restriction removed, so your physical copy isn't only affected before launch, it's completely useless before launch. But even after that you will need that file in order to actually install the game from your disk. If you lose access to that file for whatever reason. (very unlikely due to the nature of this kind of DRM since you can make a back-up of it and I presume it will be archived *somewhere*) you can never install the game from your physical copy.
Before we go to the debate about whether the digital "key" is a good thing or not, can we at least agree it is not a form of DRM? Because DRM is a kind of protection developed inside the software to prevent any kind of illegal copy and sharing scenario. Considering The Witcher III doesn't have that kind of system in the physical copy or the GOG version, so we can stop discussing if this is DRM, right?
Now, going to the digital "key" discussion. Sure, I can understand your argument of the consumer not having anything to do with a store leaking the game early. But I see other situations here: in terms of the game, CDPR obviously doesn't want spoilers out there before the game's release. And there are the legal terms: the physical copy is published by Namco. I'm pretty sure there is some kind of contract between them regarding the release date. If the game leaks, not only both of them will have losses, but companies might sue each other for damages. Again, I know the customer has nothing to do with it, but if you were put in a situation like that, wouldn't you like to avoid the risk of being sued?
I really don't think this is a big deal, in any case. The game is releasing really soon and early adopters will have fun with it this month.
GatticusFinch
Member
Except this isn't a license issue and it's not a sales issue either, because how they choose to bill for it is irrelevant to GMG. GMG legitimately purchased the codes which give them the right to own the software--should they choose to download it. There is no license issued for use of the actual software until the code is redeemed. I can see no scenario in which CDPR could possibly win a copyright violation suit against GMG, or anyone else, for reselling these keys.
Vernon is just an appellate court decision in any event, and a totally different factual scenario than selling brand new, unused keys. If GMG used the keys first, we'd be having a different discussion.
Theonik
Member
We cannot agree on those grounds since there are several broad, competing definitions of what DRM is which describe the situation. DRM isn't exclusively used to restrict copying and sharing. Using a broad definition, it is any mechanism by which the use of a piece of software can be restricted from the end user by the content creator. In this case, the end consumer cannot even use the piece of software until they receive CDPR's blessing. How is this not a form of DRM? It is the 'boring' semantic part of the argument anyway...
Like I said in my post, I can understand why the restrictions might be there. I understand why they might be necessary. But that isn't the point of this argument, it is CDPR seemingly assuming a high horse condemning a practice they then engage in.
That's what posters are protesting. Though I'm sure there are also people that are disappointed that their physical copies of the game will need an online actvation though that' par for the course these days.
They are the sole reason for all this miscommunication, I doubt they can handle a proper follow up without screwing it up.
I really don't understand how this is DRM. There is no system attaching that copy of the game to your PC. For all we know, the so called key could be a game file. That's not DRM. It seems like you are trying to find something to be angry/upset about. Will you get the physical copy? If so, just be online once the game is released. I have never seen any kind of DRM made that doesn't have the intention of preventing the illegal share of copies. This isn't one, no matter how much you try to spin this. Because if you are telling me that downloading a file to play the game is now DRM, then you could spin this theory in such a crazy way that can say "if I buy the game, but I don't have the hardware required to play it, then they are blocking me from playing it!!!", which is bizarre.
It is very much a license issue as that's what's being "sold" is a license. And while we don't know the specifics, the fact that resellers have to get permission from CDPR indicates that there is a license required to sell.
Vernor may have been an appellate decision, but the appeal was denied cert by the USSC so Vernor stands.
In the EU, there is likely no basis for a complaint, but under US law, and especially under the 9th Circuit, CDPR could potentially have a claim against GMG if GMG did sell to customers there.
As long as licenses are treated different than sales you will see this sort of discrepancy.
GatticusFinch
Member
How do we know they have to get permission? They certainly didn't take any legal action against GMG to force them to stop selling.
What's being sold is not a license, but the possibility of a license. This is like the shrinkwrap cases. You don't accept the license attached to it just because you purchased it, you accept it at the time of installation. There hasn't been any agreement with the end consumer until they actually redeem the code and accept those agreements. I don't see where I've agreed to anything at the time I add the pre-order to my account or when they email me the code. In fact, here's GMG's EULA language:
If I don't accept it until I've installed it, the license doesn't even come into play. If there is a competing EULA inside the game, then I certainly haven't accepted until it's installed because I haven't even seen it yet. This is a pre-license, resale issue. GMG bought the keys, never installed the software, and resold them.
We haven't seen an actual unused software license resale case get anywhere near the SCOTUS. All the cases that have come up have been with previously used software, as far as I know. I think CDPR would have a tough road trying to convince the Court they should be allowed to (1) limit who they sell to, (2) limit who that person sells to, and (3) limit who the person they sell to sells to, when none of them have ever accepted an end-user license. They will allow me to buy it and gift it someone else, but not to buy it and sell it someone else? No way that flies.
This right there is DRM.
DRM is not about stopping illegally shared copies, that's just one aspect of it, it's about controlling what consumers can and not do with their own copy of the software you created, in this case they cannot play the game before release or without internet access (for first print copies), which also stops early leaks of the game.
As far as other DRM that do the same thing, just look at Steam preloading.