mastyer-kenobi: You could have stopped here. This is the only line you need. I told you that I do not with to isolate MMOs and multiplayer framework games like TF2 from GoG. I am not so obsessed I say "full offline without compromise or nothing." I want a distinction made.
As I have said and shown with my bird analogy, you
can make a distinction between two things that are nevertheless in the same category. There is nothing inconsistent there.
mastyer-kenobi: If you truly hate the very concept of every having an online connection that you scorn even the concept of an MMO, you
have done what I asked and made clear your standing.
MMOs are probably one of the clearest forms of DRM imaginable. The entire game is hosted on an external server and someone else is fully able to decide how and whether you can play the game or not. Those games are not in any way preservable, which is a major driving force behind DRM-free. When those servers are taken down in 20 years' time, those games will never be playable again.
If anything, I would argue that stuff like Hitman is
better than an MMO, because in the case of Hitman, at least some of the game is playable offline. In 20 years, you will still be able to play a hollow demo of the game, at least.
Having said that, if other people like playing MMO games and enjoy them, great! Good for them. But that doesn't mean they can't be classified as DRM or that they should be present on GOG.com.
mastyer-kenobi: I hope in future you not waste time and just make THIS standard clear. "Even MMOs, purely online multiplayer that can't even function with Lan, let alone offline, does not belong on GoG." It would save everyone a lot of time and energy. And in that case making a distinction between an MMO and Hitman is indeed nothing but word games.
I agree with your quoted statement.
mastyer-kenobi: But I am not like you; I do not share this ideal you have. So stop putting it on me and using it demand I'm just playing word games. I make the distinction, between I do not lob MMOs and competitive multiplayer in the same breath as the crap that Hitman is doing. One is by necessity, one is flatly malicious loophole abuse and/or false advertising on the part of IO. I make the distinction for a reason, not just to play word games.
I am not 'playing word games'. They are both distinct and the same, depending on how you look at them and at what level of detail. In the same way that penguins and ostriches are both distinct and the same. (i.e. they have both similarities and differences)
mastyer-kenobi: Edit: To ask everyone who cares. What is DRM. What to do you define as DRM. and I remind you, the vast majority of people consider DRM to include Denuvo, a wholely offline affair. I would define it as:: any program or sub-routine which impedes the activation and operation of my game, in either performance of design, to no purpose other than purchase validation. That means that Denuvo, anti-piracy mods or settings, and online logins like steamworks, are all included.
My simple definition of DRM is: "An unnecessary dependency or a dependency on an external server controlled by a single party (usually the game developer), that is required for part or all of the game content to function or be accessible."
That includes MMOs and multiplayer games that require external servers. It has been noted many times before in this thread that different people have different definitions of what DRM is and that there is no generally-agreed universal definition.
richlind33: How can you be sure GOG's promises were made in good faith? All I see is a company that carved out a small, successful niche that had limited growth potential, and has struggled mightily to come to terms with a fanbase that doesn't want change. For me, corporate ethics is an oxymoron, so my expectations are fairly minimal. But honesty, I think, is a very reasonable place to draw a line in the sand: fine GOG, you want to grow, explain what you intend to do and how much time we have before offline installations are phased out. Do the right thing and give us 6 months to get the files we purchased backed up.
Imo, being a corporation doesn't excuse dishonesty (despite the fact that we are all so used to corporations lying that it is considered normal). Whether GOG's promises were made in good faith or not isn't relevant. They were made. And I expect a store that has built its business on certain promises to keep those promises, or I won't be shopping there any more.
lukaszthegreat: With boycotting gog means no gaming really
Except buying directly from devs.
So what is the alternative.
Boycotting gog leaves us with worse alternatives.
I don't agree with your premise that boycotting GOG will lead to its downfall. In fact, I take the view that GOG opening up to DRM and ditching its last remaining differentiating factor is more likely to lead to its downfall. This is why, imo, we need to apply a smaller amount of pain to GOG
now, so that they feel it and turn back from the dark path they are on before it is too late.
The intention of the boycott is not to ruin GOG, it is to save it.
joppo: @Time4Tea I understand that the Hitman blow to DRM-freedom deserves a mention in the first post of this thread, don't you agree?
I do agree. I've just been busy and haven't found time to change it. I will try to do it over the weekend.
