I think it would be difficult for any reasonable person to declare achievements to be "gameplay" elements (elements which affect the playing of the game) when such achievements are never referenced in-game (other than a popup message saying you earned an achievement) and are displayed exclusively in third-party software (Galaxy/Steam client, user profile page on website, etc). To be clear, I'm making a distinction between those types of achievements and achievements which ARE displayed in-game (on an "Achievements", "Awards", or "Extras" page or something similar), such as the types of achievements typically seen in hidden object games.

Also, some things could be difficult (if not impossible) to make accessible offline for technological reasons. For example, the people who are so heavily invested in achievements typically want to be able to show them off to the Internet at large by displaying them on the players' user profile pages. In order to do that, a game needs to send a message to the server saying "this player just earned this achievement". There's no way for the server to know the player earned the achievement (and thereby display it on the user's profile page) if the player is playing the game exclusively offline. For that reason, nobody can commit to making achievements available and accessible (in the way most people expect them to be accessible) entirely offline.

Having said all of that, I do agree that everything -- even things such as achievements -- should, to the extent possible, be accessible at all times without any DRM or any online, activation, or registration requirement.

Why do people hate GOG?

Every time there's some political controversy, be it not allowing that Taiwanese game or banning Russian purchases, this forum gets flooded by people I would call "political weirdos", ie people that don't really give a shit about gaming, they just think this forum is the new 4chan and want to shitpost about political shit.

That level of honesty would be incredibly refreshing, but it clashes with the notion that Galaxy is "optional" because coercion -- subtle or otherwise -- undermines informed consent.

It's great that GOG started communicating again with us in 2022, however the confirmation that you are OK for cosmetic items to be locked behind online requirement even in a game like Cyberpunk 2077 that only has an offline mode, is a complete let down.

Also, while it's true that cosmetic items don't affect gameplay per say, they can affect positively the experience you will have of the game. For example, additional costumes in an RPG allow the player to better immerse in the universe, to roleplay, to get more attached to a character. For some of us this can be a very very important part of the experience, so saying that it's ok for those items to be locked behind online is just an insult.

But now you've made your position clear on the subject and you want to give us the choice? So here's mine, I'll never purchase a game were offline content, be it cosmetic, requires an online connection, this is just as anti-consumer as DRMs of the past.

It most definitely undercuts GOG's claim that it's committed to DRM-free gaming and keeping Galaxy optional, because when you incentivize the use of Galaxy, you're disincentivizing the use of the offline installers. Optionality without parity is deception.

An interesting post, i really didn’t expect GOG to comment after these many years (yes it been years). The problem is however twofold:
1) it is all focused on the term drm which is pretty pointless nowadays. Apart from denuvo drm is a tiny part of what is happening in the industry. Streaming, online gating, microtransactions, online multiplayer, proprietary client dependency etc. are all here and supported by GOG and are all anti consumer and anti ownership.
2) whilst galaxy remains there will always be a two tier customer base. CDPr want CDPrOnline and after the cyberpunk debacle need to get money in to survive and pay investors. Thus galaxy will become more prominent in anything associated with them.

I am afraid this post is simply air. It says nothing other than confirming what is (well has been for several years). “So long as the single player is available offline), well that is every game in history, look you get a screen Which says login to the online server and you have options like connect or exit. That’s single player content right there, point and click adventure. It’s meaningless though.

Simple fact is DRM is long gone, even in the early days wasnt that much of an issue with nocds. Reiterating that as a selling point now is like saying you promise not to wear pastel suits anymore.

Good to see continued commitment to communication and DRM-free gaming.
These are vital aspects in my decisions to remain a GOG customer and continue to reccomend GOG to my friends.
This is also a timely annoucement in light of the ongoing changes in AAA game releases. The subject needed to be addressed and I for one am pleased with how you've decided to go about doing that.

Stay classy GOG :)

PS - I personally find Galaxy useful, but if the offline installers for all my non-galaxy using friends could be uploaded/updated in a more timely manner that would be lovely. Thanks :)

I have very rarely voiced out opinion here in the forums, but I will this time, as it is really important for me.

I have hundreds of games bought on GOG, it should be easy to verify. I do not use GOG Galaxy. I have tried it twice and removed it both times. I didn't see any added benefit for my particular case. Since 2011 I have been downloading and storing offline installers. Happy with it, since I mostly download them initially and only upgrade in some cases.

Now, coming to GOG statement. Point 1 is easy, all the games I bought on GOG have single-player mode and I don't care for multiplayer at all, with the exception of a few cases where I've actually played them in local multiplayer (Wacky Wheels!). Point 3 is slightly disingenuous, as many others have pointed out, but I'll let them do the explaining since I have next to no experience with GOG Galaxy. Finding out in this thread that there are disparities between available offline installers downloaded directly from webpage and via Galaxy have shaken my faith in GOG quite a bit, though. For me, however, the most important point is the point 2, put in bold above.

I am fairly annoyed by the fact that I cannot download older versions of offline installers via webpage (not sure if it can be done via Galaxy). Some others have mentioned patches that are game-breaking. I will also add that I don't really like the current trend of everything constantly changing and some game updates are not to my liking. Examples:

* someone mentioned Chuchel, I understand why the changes were made and don't really care, but not being able to access the original version to compare bothers me (disclaimer: I do not own Chuchel on GOG);

* my beloved Darkest Dungeon has evolved a lot over the years, but I have preferred one of the earlier versions. I fortunately had it backed up, but if I hadn't had, I would have been very angry about not being able to redownload it after updates;

* World of Horror - an excellent retro-game, being able to see how it grew over time from one version to another is very educational. However, I can't access earlier builds from before I bought it and it annoys me quite a bit.

As it is now, I don't think that the point 2 is fully realised by GOG. Yes, if one had downloaded offline installer of version X, they can access it. But if they hadn't or if they lost it (my case, too), there is no way of going back to the favourite build / version.

Sorry for the long rant. I certainly hope someone from GOG will read the above and - hopefully - it will be heard. I understand I may be a niche client in what essentially is a niche shop and therefore my "wants" will never be realised. I would also be very grateful if someone could inform me that I am wrong and these older versions can indeed be accessed in some way I have missed - I'll be very glad to admit that I was wrong. However, whilst I generally agree with and support the principles listed by GOG, I feel they are not realised in 100% as of now.

That could be a solution, but I am not sure if the "explicit sexual content" definition is the same between US and EU.

For example full frontal nudity is not considered as "explicit sexual content" (i.e. porn) in multiples EU countries while seeing half a nipple on public TV in the US cause peoples brain to explode.

Not only would the vast majority of the modern multiplayer audience find that far too restrictive, most of the old timers that never liked playing with strangers have likely found over the years more success with scheduling 4-10 hours long board game meetups once or twice a month than arranging even a couple few hours long DRM-free multiplayer sessions with as many players per year, so even if they still prefer having DRM-free multiplayer support, they may have had to admit that it makes no sense for them to prioritize that over getting at least the single player part officially released DRM-free.

Even if all the publishers, developers and platforms would come to an agreement on how the costs involved with a system like that would be handled, most of us would not agree having our account information to be shared by them all.

The problem with multiplayer support vs the single player part of gaming when it comes to DRM vs DRM-free is that single player DRM tends to be a thin layer over an otherwise DRM-free game, whereas multiplayer support can have DRM-free incompatible design choices injected in its core design, which means that it can cost a lot more to fix that and in some cases there may be no way to do that without a complete redesign and re-balancing, which could easily cost more than what anyone could reasonably expect to gain by selling their games on GOG and therefore most of us see no point in making impossible demands at the risk of even the single player portion of those games not receiving an official DRM-free release here.

Instead of wasting our time with insisting that all multiplayer support could be DRM-free, we should focus our efforts on cases like this where we can easily argue that all the vital parts for DRM-free multiplayer support to function had already been coded into the game and only some last minute added superficial single player DRM like limitation is preventing it from working properly.

I have no reason to expect that they would not care about gaming, but I also have no reason to believe that they have ever taken a step back to see the CDP Group forest from the GOG tree they are banging their heads against, or have even a rudimentary understanding of the underlying issues that ensure that not even the USA has dared to allow Taiwan to have an official embassy on their land, which should say something about the odds of a few angry GOG customers being able to convince the CDP Group to piss off CCP by allowing GOG to release that controversial game.

Finaly! No more DRM-free content!

Why do you think that you paid for this content?

It looks more like a free gift to people using Galaxy.
Just like Kickstarter backers get extra content on some games that is not available to regular buyers.
By that definition even a DLC is a DRM since they won't let you play it unless you buy it in addition to buying the original game.

I'd love to see more DRM-related details present on game product pages. Specifically, I think you should clearly say whether:
1. Multiplayer requires Galaxy or not
2. Multiplayer requires a third-party account or not
3. Multiplayer works across different launchers (e.g. Steam) and which ones, or not, and specify requirements if any
4. Singleplayer is impacted in offline play or not. This doesn't mean achievements, rewards or vanities, but means impact on important gameplay features, like the ability to unlock and carry weapons from one mission to the next (yes, the Hitman 2016 fiasco).

I don't require all games on GOG to be 100% DRM-free, often that's impossible due to multiplayer aspects. The baseline you described is a good one. But I need to be fully informed, so that I can make a good purchase decision. Thank you!