Navagon: So another 'online play requires internet' complaint thread. It has to be said that the average IQ has dropped a bit around here.
Bloodaugust: 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 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.