Never played any of these really, no. I heard "multiplayer only Quake" and I did not buy it because I don't play multiplayer, and the same for the rest. I don't even own Quake 3 on GOG despite owning 1, 2 and 4 and the third being on sale for like a dollar sometimes. There's just no point.

I am sorry for the delayed reply. Work and a lot of Pathfinder: Kingmaker.

There is a lot to read, both in my post and your response. I want to let others have a chance to read them without my adding to the discussion, but I want to make sure our main disagreements are clear:

A game has single player part and multiplayer/skirmish part. As whether it is better to have a version of that game that can install/play the single player part DRM-free but requires DRM for the multiplayer/skirmish parts than a version that just has DRM-free single player part: I believe it is better. You believe it is worse. Is that correct?

As to whether it is to GOG's benefit (by that I mean beneficial to its work on releasing more DRM-free games, though not 100% exclusively), by releasing some games that has DRM-like behavior, e.g DoW2: I believe it is beneficial. You believe it is harmful, to GOG and perhaps also to GOG users, in the way that hair in what should be hair-free soup is harmful. Is that correct?

Please feel free to correct me or explain more of your reasoning if you feel like. I have nothing further to add to my reasoning.

I am not blind to the dangers of the slippery slope. However, I see GOG trying to compromise with an industry that is very and increasingly protective of its "digital rights," instead of going on a slippery slope. At the same time, I think users like you who push back forcefully against every perceived offense contributes in no small measure to keeping GOG honest and off that slope.

I am not commenting on this and only want to ask: What happened with Tempest? Was it a innocent mistake in coding the patch? Did the devs try to pull a fast one on GOG and GOG didn't catch it? Or did GOG try to pull a fast one by knowingly letting the devs patch a previously DRM-free game to have DRM? You might not know the behind-the-scenes story. If you could share what you did, what GOG's response was, and what is the status of Tempest now, readers might be able to draw their own conclusions.

Thank you. Ours was not an easy read, but it's good to clarify some strongly held opinions that frequently surface on the forums. Just to be clear, my opinion is also strongly held.

Mmmm I got Quake 3 because I thought there might indeed be some SP aspect. But if not, Bots are not too bad an option in Quake games. And then modders can no doubt change any lack of SP. So for me it was worth the minimal cost being asked.

I don't do MP, but I have enjoyed using Bots locally, especially in MP maps.

For sure, each to their own though. I also enjoy just wandering around Quake levels, which is likely not most folk's cup of tea.

See, that's exactly the problem these days w/ skirmish modes, when developed. They're usually ONLY made for Multiplayer, when that wasn't the case back in the day.

Sure, Internet existed - but they (dev's and pub's) still knew that had to sell copies of games, likely to many who did not have Internet access or didn't have high-speed Internet - so they still had to put skirmish mods as both single-player and offline.

And yes - Quake 3 has NO CAMPAIGN. It's all skirmish mode for the single-player.

Look at games like Quake 3. BF 1942, and UT, which has no campaigns but had skirmish mods for offline and online - yeah, this was the norm back then. And when player counts died, you didn't have to worry about the skirmish mod going away b/c servers got pulled or say GameSpy service died - just play against bots offline, play on some maps, & blow off some Steam and frag some enemies. Have at it.

Also, a lot of those games back then had LAN/TCP/IP support - so if say GameSpy went away, you still had LAN/TCP-IP to fall back on, provided you can find some players and get a game going; just do it on your own.

And there was no client-app stuff required - no muss and no fuss.

I miss THAT era of gaming; it rocked.

To be fair I would guess a lot of people bought it back in the day just to experience it and play bot matches without actually playing online. I was like 20 years old and not playing games constantly like I am now because I had a social life, so I felt no compulsion to do that. Maybe I would today, in theory.

Not a problem. I appreciated your post and the quality discussion we've had already. If you reply back, please be aware I often have delays in responding myself and sometimes posts get lost in the shuffle, so basically if I don't respond further, please don't take it personally. While I also have delays responding, you can also feel free to PM me if you prefer that.

1. Yes, I believe "DRM-free singleplayer, but with DRMed multiplayer" is worse than "DRM-free singleplayer, but with DRMed multiplayer removed entirely". My position tends to not be the most popular even around a store/forum like this, as people will argue that removing multiplayer is taking away game content. While objectively, that is correct it is removing content, to me, the game content has already been taken away so to speak, by being DRMed. So in my view, the "DRM-free singleplayer, but with DRMed multiplayer removed entirely" example is a complete game (in the sense the product being sold can be owned 100%) and "DRM-free singleplayer, but with DRMed multiplayer" is not.

2. Yes, I also believe that releasing some games with DRMed content/DRM-like behavior is counterproductive to advancing DRM-free gaming as a whole.

While I grant that many bigger name titles have released here in recent years (as GOG became increasingly "DRMed" in my view), I don't think that has much to do with the increasing slide towards DRM-like practices.

Exception: whenever GOG first began distinguishing that "DRM-free" is in reference to singleplayer but not necessarily multiplayer modes, that did open the door for something like Dawn of War 2 to eventually release here...however, it only allowed the possibility of such a game coming here and I don't believe it directly impacted negotiations in any way (e.g. I don't believe in talking to bring the game here SEGA said something like "we weren't gonna bring it here, but once CDPR added 'MyRewards' to Witcher 3, that really convinced us, now you got yourself a deal")

I do believe GOG loses negotiation leverage in bringing releases here completely DRM-free, because companies can turn around and say "so what if I lock a small amount of content behind online/client? So does CDPR," to which GOG cannot meaningfully counter. In fact GOG staff have said several times comments to the effect of some online/client locks are okay as long as it doesn't substantially affect the singleplayer offline (my paraphrasing to the best of my recollection). So we've already been sliding down the slope. Wheeeee! :)

I think this may be at the root of our friendly disagreement too: I don't wish for GOG to compromise with the industry. I think compromise, in this particular instance and set of circumstances (DRMed PC gaming market), compromise = losing. I am not so bull-headed as to automatically think that way in other matters, of course, but I do think it applies in this situation. Also, there is an argument to be made that by being a hardline DRM-free store, this stands out in the market (especially given the big name titles that are on GOG), whereas being another store with various DRMed content isn't doing anything special to stand out amongst competitors.

Tempest previously worked fine offline but on the newest version, apparently requires Galaxy to run. There is a forum thread in the dedicated game forum for Tempest but at the moment I don't have much information. I contacted GOG Support, was told it was a known issue being investigated, but there was no timetable for it being fixed. The advice I was given was to use Galaxy, which has a rollback feature, to get the previous version's "Galaxy installation" (my term...sorry I don't know how to describe this precisely), which could then be played offline.

I don't know if the issue was intentional or not on anyone's part, so I can't attribute malice to either the devs or GOG. My point/opinion was more just to say that such an error shouldn't happen if a store is serious about caring for DRM-free games. It has happened with other games in the past too (For the King, Cult of the Lamb).

It did indeed.

And there was a time when I looked forward to having a decent enough PC and circumstances to use LAN, so I am truly disappointed about where things have gone in that regard.

So while I don't get all upset about it with GOG, I do feel somewhat like many who think GOG and developers should be doing more for LAN. I personally believe that LAN is also part of Game Preservation ... about independence etc ... preserving what we used to be able to do and enjoyed greatly with many games.


Fair enough, perfectly understandable. :)

No, it has a linear campaign with a start and an end, with a specific progression of levels and tiered enemies.

Mmmm... Makes me wish all games had a local LAN I\PX or local server configuration allowing you to avoid requiring an online service that is effectively DRM in it's own right.

I don't know about the specific context of a multiplayer game, but it does do ownership checks, both implicit and developer-request-in-title.

Implicit ownership check:
Husband and I share a desktop on the living room TV. I installed a game from GOG on it. He has his own profile on the computer but doesn't own said game. Galaxy would track achievements for me, but refuses to for him because he doesn't own it. If you check Galaxy for that game while he plays it, it shows Galaxy as offline with a "connect" button (that either leaves the game or takes to purchase game).

That they lock out something as trivial as achievements this way, I'd be very surprised if they don't force ownership checks (even if developer doesn't want to) for multiplayer... Hm. Except their multiplayer can work for cross-platform play (e.g., Stardew Valley uses GOG's multiplayer on all platforms I believe.)

But it allows him to play the game otherwise? The achievements thing might not have been planned as locking someone out and may just be a function of design. As in, that they are trying to attach achievements to an account for purposes beyond an ownership check, like being able to share them across platforms. It may just be a poorly thought out implementation rather than a deliberate means of checking ownership.

Developers can a nd do (including intentionally) use Galaxy checks as a form of DRM all too commonly. Check the "Games on GOG with single player DRM" thread for many examples, active and historical. Situations where the game refuses to start at all without being connected to Galaxy. Or where it will crash and die (or just infinitely animates in the case of Cult of the Lamb) if it doesn't get an acknowledgement back that the achievement posted. in many cases they are accidental -- but Cult of the Lambs developers were on record that it was intentional. But that it can happen, especially unintentionally, shows that the Galaxy system is badly done. It shouldn't be possible to use things in this way. Developers shouldn't be able to check for ownership. A post achievement call should always return "OK!" even if the player is offline and doesn't own the game. And so on.

There are no non-malicious uses for these calls as implemented.

Yes. https://docs.gog.com/sdk-galaxy-feats-and-states/

Well, that's a shame. I guess that answers my question. Thanks.