I think you are intepeting it however you want
but you bragged about beeing intelligent so it shoudnt really matter if im not native in english and perhaps i have a bit difficulty explaining myself especially to somone that claims to be more intelligent than me
And didnt you say you didnt want to discuss this any more?

that was a quick bacpaddling

You see
Its not a contradiction
as long as i see all forms of multiplayer games as a form of drm no matter if they use the old methods of connectivity or the new ones with client or whatever
and if i do use them i then accept that fact that im no longer in control like im with a Singleplayer game and therfore per deffiniton is not Drm free as i see it.
The only diffrence is is in essence in who is in control
that is if i join as a guest
Youre also kinda give the impression that the early gamers that managed those networks themself always was in unison or something
And im not even talking about anti cheat measures
that in most cases overssed by a major company in a lot of cases nowadays because of sometimes the players themself cant agree what measeures shoud be in place
That doesnt mean there only exist chaos servers or anything like that in those intances where this isnt the case (where anticheat measerues arent in place)
People are diffrent
some migth join a honest Server where people are interested to have fair competition withouth cheating
that does not mean no one is able to ever cheat in that server by the way. There are plenty of people that have been banned or other stuff despite anticheat measures beeing in place.
some migth join a server where cheating is allowed because they themself think that its fun with mayham or chaos or they like cheats itself
and some players give a shit and try to hack the legit servers or whatever i shoud call them annyway
even with anticheat measures in place
The point is unless you give a shit and dont ask for permission or join a server where cheating is allowed
then in essence you dont have control as a guest
The host can boot you because he had a bad day even if you spent hours and days on a game
doesnt matter
With a singleplaayer game i dont have to accept that
since i then can save my progress in various ways
that was just one example

Though this is my opinion
others migh have others
or some migth think i have some points but disagree overall wich is fine
You migth continue to insult me
or doing other measures
or take the ball and have a serious debate

I coud even formulate my orginal question in another way if it helps you
Does the old methods take control away from the guest if he decides to join a hosted game
Yes
or no?
shoud be a simple question

It's nothing new in the game industry at large, that's true...however, for a store that is presumably supposed to be the haven of DRM-free, it shouldn't be happening here imo. If there is any place where this kind of stuff should be included in the offline "backup" installers, it's here on GOG. In fact, while I'm unable to recall the names, I'm pretty sure there are a few "AAA" games here where cosmetic bonus content is included in the offline installers, so there's really no excuse.

Also, as I have brought up previously and other users have pointed out, it does kind of grate when people say what does or doesn't count as content for us. You guys aren't the content gods that shape the narrative for us mere mortals. If a piece of game content is important to someone, and locked behind DRM, I would say that is an issue when the store is supposed to be selling DRM-free games. Granted I don't want the Galaxy t-shirt but some might :p

Before GOG apparently took down FCKDRM.com, the standard to be featured as a source of media on that site was to be 100% DRM-free. Not "100% DRM-free, but of course you understand if we cut content for preorders, provide bonuses for people who use our client, etc 'DRM-free' ".


This is a really interesting point you make, and we can see there is definitely a difference in the urgency of GOG responding to these issues (or not, in the cases of the "not big enough" issues to them).


I am aware of GOG previously using DRMed multiplayer such as third party servers or individual keys (both of which I'm also against); however, GOG introducing their own proprietary client required for multiplayer is a distinct step on their end (which also pre-dated my arrival, not that this matters). While not ideal that GOG effectively fosters a DRMed environment where, for example, to play a Paradox game you have to go through Paradox...I would still say it's more concerning when GOG pushes their own DRM essentially.

I'm not sure if you've seen topics where I mentioned this, but since you mentioned my join date, I came to GOG after a decade and a half or so of completely giving up on PC gaming, specifically due to the Scheme DRM monopoly/monopsony. I want to buy games to "own" rather than rent, and Scheme essentially made this impossible for PC gaming at large. I was loosely aware of GOG's existence but it took noticing Fallout: New Vegas here for me to take the plunge, after which I bought many more games, old-school favorites from DOS era, etc.

I've been here for a lot longer and let me tell you: every change that gog has applied has been demanded by the community via the wishlist. The client, the achievements, the multiplayer stuff, etc etc etc.... everything. And they weren't like minor wishes, those were easily among the top 5 most wished features too. Of course, gamers are gamers, so when gog started rolling out those changes some people thought it was the end of the world.

Then they just don't care, because its not a question of IF it was pushed down the throat.

Besides, Why do I care what others think. I'm the one boycotting them. If others do, for different or similar reasons, all the better.

So tell me again, why does it matter that we have different or similar reasons?