B1tF1ghter: You know what GOG cannot legally do?
Have a product card openly dismissing DRM presence in a game (not properly informing about it) while simulataneously advertising their platform (GOG's) as DRM-free (the ENTIRE platform).

You, and many others may actually misunderstand what "publisher controlled product page" actually means.
I spoke many times to Valve directly (to people much higher than support, through emails) and sure, the platform gives a high level autonomy to publisher and it's publishers' responsibility to keep the page properly updated, but if there is something wrong and the publisher fails to correct it the platform can and very well should step up and do so themselves, heck, they often have to based on legal footing.
Because ultimately the underlying platform belongs to a company and NOT publisher given autonomy and it's THE PUBLISHER that has to abide to PLATFORM'S rules and NOT vice versa.

There is a sharp difference between letting someone have autonomy versus letting just about any shit fly "as long as it's not illegal" (btw, false advertising, such as failing to inform about presence of DRM, IS ILLEGAL).

GOG is evidently lenient and negligent in regards to enforcing own policies on publishers in all sorts of ways, including product pages.
And it doesn't help that GOG apparently also lacks standards.

B1tF1ghter: Actually mine DOES hold up, yet you keep not understanding it and instead keep clinging to your sinking ship instead.

It's not about if players DESIRE to cheat or not.
It's entirely about if you LET them BY DEFAULT.
Which would be entirely the case for a type of netcode that is flawed by design and is build in a way lacking proper authorisation of data like in the concept you so desperately desire.

If you so pretenciously believe in general public's average innocence then you are free to test people's goodwill.
Run an experiment.
Set up a honeypot on DMZ in your home network and see what happens. Make it specificly in a manner informing everybody visiting that you want them to be nice and all and not hack it.
Oh, wait, that would actually topple your point so you would likely not have the guts to do that.

B1tF1ghter: Don't mix up DRM and anti-cheat.
Anti-cheat is not DRM by itself.
Those are 2 unrelated concepts.

B1tF1ghter: Router point.
You misunderstood it completely.
That example DOESN'T apply to heavily fortified anit-cheats as most routers have beyond satiricly shit security by default.

B1tF1ghter: Except I never went against specificly the "host" part. The game can be P2P no problem.
I specificly went against your desire to have no control whatsoever of ANY kind, no preventions of ANYTHING, not preventing modding, ALL things in ANY multiplayer participant's control.
(your point's existence proven by your words that you want to be able to do ANYTHING without anybody preventing you from doing LITERALLY ANYTHING and if there would be ANY preventions you call it "DRM")
Also, I never said host with proper central authority would be 100% shit proof.
I am specificly saying that what you desire (a system with no central verification of certain data such as stats or mods or cheat detection [wall-hack can be seen as mod by many btw] by for example "host") is basically 0% proof BY DESIGN.
And any proofing and security in your desired system ENTIRELY stands on top of HOPING for end-user goodwill.

Unfortunatelly it's YOU that doesn't understand the points.
I carefully read what you're saying and check that against the reality.
Whereas YOU casually dismiss what I'm saying and instead resort to trying to accuse me of trolling.
The conversation is going nowhere this way, but if that's what you desire...

B1tF1ghter: The host isn't a human (just a server) and nobody cheat detects by themselves in real time.
There are these things called "scripting", "autoadmin" and such.

B1tF1ghter: Okay?
And did I ask you?
Did ANYBODY ask you for that matter?
Because you act like somebody did with your "and no thank you" while I for certain did not and I don't see anyone who did unless I'm missing something.
Also, you keep talking to me about things that I DO know and knew for LONG, you say so in a way like you're some "know-it-all" that talks to some "idiot" and I see such behaviours as one of the most aggravating existing.

B1tF1ghter: Any? As in ALL? Not neccesarily. Tho that still depends what you mean by hack and if you mean REMOTE by it. (which you clearly did not specify)
Major amount? Yes.
How? There is like a billion of books on network IT sec. I don't feel like writing one in this forum thread.
But it's a fact that majority (basically almost all private ones at least) of network infrastructure is attrociously unsecure on default settings. And most private users leave those default settings. And even if you go pretty far into the settings most home routers still expose telnet or tftp, often on the wan side too.
There is quite an attack surface on average home network.
I will not go into details but it's sarcasticly easy to prove.

B1tF1ghter: I counted more than 3 people (me, you, and "the other person") in this thread so I don't even remotely know who you are even implying.
I really couldn't care less if someone's opinion aligns with mine.
I personally respect others' right to have a different opinion than mine and I'm okay with it.
What I'm not okay with is letting some obvious bullshit slide so when I see it, while knowing someone is wrong, I may choose to intercept and try to correct that someone.
Sometimes I succeed.
Sometimes I fail.
But ultimately it has NOTHING to do with someone's alignment of their opinion with mine or lackthereof.
So take your false accusations and shove them back where they came from.

-----
On a side note:
Oh, I see, so the bots were asleep / busy. That's interesting.
I think at this point I have pretty solid grip who is targeted for auto-downvote (scripted) versus who is downvoted manually.