Now that my ban has expired (i'll probably be gone again before this topic is well discussed, but i don't want to give the karens an excuse for this thread since it concerns the community in a more immediate manner), I'd like to discuss an emergent issue i've seen over the past week or so: Games-as-a-service on GOG.

I'm seeing people outright arguing that it's not DRM (and not giving any supporting statements) as well as people apologizing for it on the basis that we shouldn't be concerned about the availability of things we buy here because we need an internet connection in the first place thus must be able to always maintain a stable connection (regardless of the ethics of it).

So, first and foremost, how is this not DRM? One suggests intent, but we know we can't trust "intent." Everyone "intends" to make the best game ever toe exist, for the most part (even if it wasn't their direct intention), but we don't call a game the best game ever simply because that was it's intent, right? So it stands to reason that if something doesn't intend to be DRM, but does so anyway, we would call it DRM, right? So for those whom do not see always-online requirements (especially for single-player content) as DRM, how do you define the separation between DRM and games-as-a-service for single player content?

Of course, it needs to be clear to the community that this question must be handled with utmost seriousness as this is an issue already facing gog.

Some people are so hard-wired to defend GOG they will argue anything that comes here is not DRM, no matter what it is. The seem to follow the logic that GOG is a DRM free store, so if something is on GOG, it can't be DRM. For them it's not lack of DRM that makes a DRM-free store, but a store calling itself DRM-free that magically makes everything DRM-free. There's really no point in trying to argue with them. I had pretty much every permutation of the DRM argument possible here, and it always comes down to DRMfenders twisting facts, playing dumb, building strawmen and false equivalencies or just plain trolling.

My gut instincts are the same, but i've already had a guy in PMs who wasn't necessarily apologizing for gog, but for this sort of DRM. While i don't entirely think his arguments were in good faith, either, I don't understand his angle. I believe the best sanitization technique for bad ideas is exposure, so instead of waiting until people are emotionaly defending favorite-kickstarter-X or favorite-developer-Y, we could get these arguments out front and center and at least (try to, anyway) take the emotions out of this. Plus, maybe someone has a point I haven't thought of, and until i see it i can't defend my case. If somehow, someone miraculously finds a way to say it's not DRM from a logical point of view, then we can move on to another store that specializes in actually opposing this sort of thing, because it's clear now that, from the perspective of people like you an I, GOG doesn't really have anything over itch, dlsite, etc. 'Cause, the argument used to be that it was the only completely DRM-free store, and that clearly isn't the case from our point of view.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by games-as-a-service here. Some World of Warcraft type games?

Only a completely nonfunctional moron could think that "games as a service" is not DRM.

There's not really anything more to say, other than I will refrain from listing some names of certain people that fit the previous description I expect to pop up in here trying to argue contrarily.

Well, i encourage them to do so. I think we should get these ides out in the open where they can be discussed properly. While not a game this is the most recent example.

Which actual games are you thinking are GaaS?

There are a few games where there is a multiplayer service which require authentication, but as far as I know there's nothing single player.

I personally think every game with Multiplayer should come with LAN/private hosted server option, but I'm aware GoG doesn't have the power to influence that. If given the choice of "No Game at ALL" or "DRM Free Single player and Multiplayer Service" I'll choose the later.

As of right now, if we speak strictly of GOG, there's The one i linked in the post above, but it's an addon/utility for cyberpunk. The point is to address this while it's still only that and cosmetics. Given that people are actually arguing that it's not DRM, i'd like to isolate these and actually have them defend the position in a nice convenient place rather than release thread for games X, Y, and Z. There was concern about the recent Comanche release, which is what convinced me that maybe we need to talk about it since we reasonably had a scare of that having always online ('cause it did at one point on steam).

I suppose gwent could be considered a LbGaaS. Lootbox Gambling as a Service.

GOG has always separated online play from its DRM free pledge. The question of course is what counts as online play. Mortal Kombat 11 for example has a story mode and normal arcade tower mode that play offline, but the core of the game is grinding challenge towers to unlock skins and gear, which is online only. Could that game come to GOG as long as the story and arcade modes were DRM free? It's a good question.

What I can say is that GOG have certainly taken the position that something like a pre-order bonus outfit is not covered by their DRM free promise, and is not part of the core game. You can agree or disagree with that obviously, but since no other site is bothering with a DRM free pledge at all you're kind of arguing with the last butcher in town about his meat selection.

More like the last organic butcher in a town that has yet to define what "organic" even means, in a town full of meat butchers (itch, dlsite, Zoom, humble, Jast, and a few others might sell titles with DRM in them, but they certainly mostly sell DRM-free). Since the most recent example is the CP2077 map, most would say it crosses the line even you have drawn here. However, technically it hasn't, since it's not a core game, but a feature. I'm wondering at what point we can say that GOG is no different from the others and also isnt' selling organic (exclusively DRM-free) when it's the one that somehow was granted the exclusive power of defining organic. What line does GOG have to cross before we recognize the others again because GOG's only claim to fame is having the keys to the kingdom and still managing to get locked out 'cause it can't help dropping them?

You're treating the subject as black and white and I'm just saying it's more nuanced. Does a promo shirt make a game DRM'd when 99.99999% of it and anything you'd actually care about is not? I know some here would say it's an easy yes, but I doubt most of the silent majority out there would agree. Also those other sites you mention don't sell DRM free games to the extent GOG does, both selection wise and budget wise, and let's not pretend otherwise.

I'm fine with keeping GOG honest and they've definitely waded into questionable waters, but I don't think acting like these are easy definitions helps anything. Heck some people consider a disc check to be DRM, it's never been an easy definition.

For Mk11, absolver is already here and that’s mostly online, so precedents already set.

In fact, other than explicitly installing denuvo, nothing is off the table here (and even that maybe?).

I forget if they have pledged such or not, but zoom-platform are actually 100% DRM free.

(edit) Seems they don't, but I can confirm(from my own purchases and what others have said) that they are DRM free. And if it comes down to which I prefer between a company that says it's 100% DRM free but isn't and one that doesn't say such things but is.....well: i'll let Tommy Boy take it from here

*GR hears the clear sounds of two posts shifting*