No Man's Sky (before it was fixed) contained substantive single-player content (i.e. missions) that were locked behind an online requirement and GOG didn't seem to give an S. Referring to the list here, some of them are 'just' cosmetic; however, Absolver, Carcassonne Tiles & Tactics and Nex Machina all seem to have substantive single-player content that is locked.

Do those meet your bar for not tolerating? It is not just cosmetic rewards we are talking about here.

I dont really count the no mans sky case this as a drm thing
but alot of people do disagree with me
Its a save file
youre still able to copy the game or back it up
and annyway its gone so.....
Wich doesnt really describe drm in my opinion

I cant speak for the other stuff since i have not investigated those cases myself
but then again there are some that considers
that the multiplayer gog does is drm in kinda way
But when i ask people why this is so because
multiplayer in itself are about giving up a bit of a control at least as long as you join somone for a multiplayer session
no one can really answer me
they just keep repeating that they think multiplayer is drm free because they percive it as having more control refering to the old lan and other methods of multiplayer withouth a client
when in practice its only the host that have control
As a a guest i cant mod, save my character or my hard progress
and if i can its up to the host to give me permission
the only diffrence that instead of a random stranger or somone you know are hosting the multiplayer
its instead gog

The way i understand drm free
is that i do not need anyones permission to do what i want to the game
as long as it doesnt break the game makers rigths by selling copys or stealing art as my own or sharing copys
i can burn it, mod it, destroy it etc
And those things cant be done as a guest in a lot of cases

Didn't look into them yet(going to bed soon), but if it's SP content then: yes they do, and I want to hopefully see all of them fixed asap.

Boycotting. Have been since the day GOG took Devotion down and committed to being lying cowards in service to a government that regularly engages in suppression of free speech, torture of incarcerated protesters, and genocide. GOG had plenty of opportunity to win me back as a customer by following through on its promise to sell Devotion after all, but now that I can acquire the game through the developer itself (and have done so), that ship has sailed. Barring GOG taking demonstrable and substantial steps that prove a return to ethical practices, business or otherwise, you can count me as a lost customer.

Every boycott starts small.
If too many people will have such mentality your "snowball will never get big enough for you to consider it big enough to join in".
Open your eyes already please.

You must hate Nintendo games then? After all they are "exclusive to a console".

I think you misunderstand something. No amount of DRM is going to stop piracy. And the pirates always get full-content edition (eventually, it may take some time in some cases, in others it's immediate).
So no, there is literally no justification whatsoever in introducing DRM for the sake of lowering piracy to in turn enrich sales as it simply doesn't work like that outside of paper.

I did explain it personally imo quite nicely in another thread:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singleplayer_games_with_drm/post373
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singleplayer_games_with_drm/post396

Having one host to serve data to guests is a very basic cheat prevention.
If you feel up to the task go ahead and personally create mods for your beloved games that will create decentralized stat storage.
But you need to ask yourself a question at that point:
do you want a freedom to do ANYTHING to ANY game files or do you want absolutely fundamentally ANY cheat prevention.
Because if your multiplayer saves would not be verified at all by some sort of central authority then you could for example create infinite strength MMORPG character.
Cheats would be rampant.
There is plenty of documeted cases where netcode was done wrong and some important checks were done on client side instead of server side, for example hit detection.
I can give you 2 examples out of the blue: NFS World and The Division.
NFS World in particular allowed such cheats that if you encountered a cheater the game was basically unplayable (those who played that game would know what I'm talking about).
You can't have ALL the control of multiplayer related files. You just CANNOT HAVE IT or you will otherwise live in world of cheaters pointing fingers at each other like in that Spider-Man meme.

I think it says loads about GOG's attitude if they listened to not-proven-customers "gamers" while completely ignoring their totally real userbase on their own forums.

edit: fixed some typing errors and finished one sentence (forgot to do that originally)

Don't hold your breath. Absolver, for example, has been like this for more than three years now.

Way to quote me out of context there. :D

GG, GOG, you just lost (the game). We don't need you to publish Devotion and hopefully never will.

Why does that matter. I'm boycotting for Galaxy 2.0 push down your throat reasons primarily. and that they don't listen at all to their base. And other things. If someone else is boycotting them over different reasons, so what?

GoG went from a company that I promoted to others to being ashamed I've given them the money that I have.

Because not evryone agrees that all the things in the galaxy client is bad
and they personally doesnt percive it as gog is pushing the galaxy client down their throat
Thats why it matter
Youre missing my entire point
Also there do exist private servers where people dont care if people cheat
Its stated in text on a site before you join the server wich means the host have given anyone permission to mod or cheat in the game and its on you as a guest and not the host fault shoud you feel any emotional trauma being cheated
its not the host problem that you have accepted those terms by joining the game then

The point is
that you have to give up a bit of control to the one hosting the game
it doesnt matter if its gog
the random stranger that gives you permission to cheat
or the person that have set up rules to follow for the game
its the same thing

No, YOU are missing my entire point.
The moment you strip central authority (of ANY kind) you loose ANY control.
There is a very sharp difference between having SOME anti-cheat-disabled servers versus ALL of them having COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE anti-cheat due to flawed netcode design.
Also, don't talk to me like you are some sort of genius talking to some jungle folk. I very well know of existence of anti-cheat-disabled servers. I have some game dev background and I don't talk about these things out of the blue without any knowledge about them like some people would want to make it seem.

If all that is the same for you and you cannot see a difference then I no longer have any time to waste for attempts at enlightening you and correcting your misbeliefs.
It is simply a wasted time for me.
And therefore this conversation is as good as if it didn't take place.

Then why did you answer then ?
Seams kinda reduntant

And i didnt say that all multiplayer games shoud be the same either with or withouth cheating
Its up to the host of the game again as i said

but nice try trolling
And none your answers still doesnt explain the question i was asking
'so theres that

It can be clearly gathered from your posts in this thread (at least from the last few pages) that you wish to have FULL control of EVERYTHING leaving basically NONE to the so called "host".
You want ultimate power to decide what you do with your ENTIRE game interaction in a de facto multiplayer scenario.
Which clearly means you don't want to be bound to ANY kind of externel control, that being for example central authority host-based stat checking. You just want it all.
And now you are saying "it's up to the host" "as I said".
Unfortunatelly for yourself you left clear evidence for your contradicting statements.

Why did I respond in the first place?
I will not answer that question.
But I can tell you why ultimately I will drop any attempts at fixing your misinterpretations.
Because I pick my cases and if I see one as no longer worthy, for example due to someone's extreme unwillingness to change as well as stubbornness, I can freely decide to drop said case.
If I start seeing something as a lost cause I may choose to no longer bother myself with it.

Well excuse me I have no start to your abilities in that matter.
To the point where I wasn't doing it at all as a matter of a fact.

At this point I am getting confused as to what your motives are here.
Especially since at least some of your statements contradict each other.

Nevermind.