Sorry, didn't realize that GOG Galaxy === internet. It has to be said that your analogy is totally broken.

To everyone talking about only playing SP RTS: fine. In early access with no campaign? Go ahead and buy it then, but don't pretend that isn't a minority faction.

I don't really care as I haven't played multiplayer in years (I don't have the time to dedicate to one game to become good enough to beat the kind of people who usually play online) but it does seem like some kind of client or automatic pairing service is the favoured multiplayer system these days, for players and developers.
Am I the only one who plays RTS in skirmishes against the AI?
I play the campaigns, but I almost always prefer random maps and skirmishes..

I also enjoy RTS in single player. I dabble in the MP now and then but most of the time you only run into overly elitist types that get mad at any mistakes you make, or if you don't follow a specific build order.

I agree with Tauto? Amazing!


You know, you don't have to buy early access. You could wait for a finished game, and then play single player.

Had to be said.

Uh, the problem is not that you need Galaxy to enter multiplayer, but that Galaxy multiplayer is a closed system that doesn't allow crossplattform play with players who bought the game somewhere else.

In short: buy the game here and you can't play with your friend who bought the game on Steam. How is that in the spirit of GoG?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyYW9AOWh-8

I was under the impression that GoG enforces a few rules for games that shall be sold here. No DRM, Galaxy is optional and ability to play crossplatform multiplayer. So I can play with people who bought the game somewhere else.

This, I assumed, were not empy promises, but in the best interest of the consumer AND GoG. Since, you know, who is going to buy games here, if the entire multiplayer is happening on Steam. Let's face it, if GoG doesn't provide crossplattform, GoG multiplayer is dead.

So why the hell are they allowing new releases on GoG that don't provide crossplattform? Ashes of the Singularity is not crossplattform, but actually splitting the multiplayer. It should therefore not be on GoG.

Hey, did you know that fire is hot?

I agree that us jaded, friendless misanthropes are the minority. But you need to realize that it's not up to GOG how the developer chooses to do multiplayer. If they decide to be the host like EA seems to do with a lot of their games now. Or if they decide to use Steam,etc. It's out of GOG's hands. Hence why I think multiplayer on some games requires a key or something.

I suppose they could ask for direct connect where one of the people acts as the server, but I'm sure most would say no. Or possibly not understand why a request would even be made. Particularly since a lot of game developers today have possibly only done multiplayer through a third party client of some sort (Steam, EA, BattleNet). Galaxy is meant to be a bridge. For single player, it's optional. For multiplayer, yeah, it's probably going to be a requirement for most players. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Heck, as an example of this. One of the Battle Realms developers posted in the Battle Realms forum about how they're bringing it to and integrating it with Steam. Cool, I guess. But one of the commenters asked about multiplayer. The idea of a local game not being in a lobby (or the old way of doing things) seemed so strange and foreign to him.

What's wrong with that?

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

So you'd be totally fine with another client just so long as it's not Galaxy? If that's the case then this complaint doesn't make sense and if not then my analogy is completely valid.

I doubt that any of us are under any illusions about being in the minority, but we're simply taking issue with the statement :"I'm not going to buy a $50 RTS for singleplayer, and to suggest that *anyone* would is ridiculous"

Obviously, we don't see the ridiculousness of this scenario.

I do not own the game in question, but I agree that GOG needs to make it clear if a game requires Galaxy for multiplayer. Game cards simply list "multi-player" if a game has a multiplayer component and that's clearly not enough information. There's a big difference between LAN, direct connect online and online that requires a client. If Galaxy is required, the game really should also be required to have cross-play.

It's perhaps more worrying that evolution doesn't have a reverse gear. People getting dumber is simply an evolutionary response to us not having to use our brains so much.

Warning labels on everything. Technology doing everything for us. Sarah Palin. All these things result in us using our brains less; and as a result they won't be quite so important to future generations as well.

Did any of you read the OP? Trust me, I understand the concepts surrounding multiplayer dev. And please, the wounded warrior thing is so old. I didn't say or imply any of that "friendless misanthropes" nonsense. I regret ever mentioning that MP is integral to an RTS experience. That is beside the point.

The point of opening this thread in the first place was to question GOG on why they would pull this shit. Galaxy is not optional to access a significant amount of possible game content/experience. That also means it is not DRM-Free. This is why I *ever* bought games from GOG in the first place, and now we see that their promises are falling in the face of money. But hey, good to see everyone is more worried about questioning my IQ, parables, and generally NOT QUESTIONING GOG.

When I'm not at work I like to game offline or hike offline. Glad I'm not around for the actual weekend threads. :)