Oh I'm sure you're not. Let's see... I just bought Ashes of the Singluarity, I cracked my legitimately purchased Supreme Commander 2 (didn't feel like opening Steam all the time), I have Warcraft 3, Spellforce, Divinity: Dragon Commander, Planetary annihilation... I love playing all of these games with AI, and only AI.
What was the topic again? Cars? Mrkgnao!!!!

What's the alternative? Listing every single installer and patch ever released in the download page? That would be crazy (note: I'm not even going to try Galaxy while it's still in beta stage, and I sure as hell I'm keeping my distance from this whole EA stunt, so it isn't going to affect me anyway :P).

Naturally you can't multiplayer alone. But if there are 2 people with computers there it would still work, which is the point. I would agree with this, if it weren't for the fact that GOG is the one offering the multiplayer service here. If they aren't going to implement the option for DC/LAN in their service why would a dev bother designing a completely separate framework to accommodate that if they're already using Galaxy matchmaking?

It's quite interesting in a way. I wonder how well it would have gone over if Ashes released here but it required to have Steam running for online multiplayer. DRM-free other than that, but for multiplayer you require Steam.

How many people would really be arguing that isn't DRM had that been the case?

PS: I agree business wise it makes perfect sense. I agree it's GOG adapting to the gaming market, finally participating in the multiplayer games market is a big step etc. I just don't agree how they did it meshes with their supposed 'DRM-Free' stance. That stance meant GOG taking a stand against something that was otherwise the norm. Same as client based, account based multiplayer that verifies your license before allowing entry is currently the norm. If they are designing the multiplayer, then taking on that norm, rather than expanding it with LAN/DC is against the spirit of DRM-Free imo. Realistic perhaps, but supposedly GOG is also about ideals.

Galaxy required for multiplayer. Spells DRM to me. Just wait everybody, it'll get much worse in due time. This is just the start of something horrid. Then again, I knew it would happen. GOG is full of it and always have been.

Then we're talking genetic DRM

I'm in the same boat so it doesn't actually bother me in the slightest, I just thought if people would complain about anything it would be that...

Personally I'd do like they do for the Downloader links right now and just pop up a separate page with a list of all versions and downloads, it's maybe that there's more to it than that but it seems reasonably easy to me.

Missing the point it seems.
He didn't put out his initial comment because he is:
1) Complaining that multiplayer requires internet, or
2) That he is not fine with Galaxy but otherwise fine with another client.

What do you think his point is? His point is that the Galaxy client is required to play multiplayer. He isn't offered a client-less method such as directly connecting to a server without first using Galaxy. Multiplayer in olden ages were done without any such requirements for a client, and thus, the multiplayer is being DRM-free, which at least solves a part of his problem.

Therefore, your comment about how his complaint is about requiring the internet for multiplayer is 100% invalid. And the notion that he'd be fine if it wasn't GOG Galaxy is also invalid, as that isn't the point he started out with. The point is, the game requires GOG Galaxy, despite being advertised as DRM-free, and yet offering no way for a DRM-free multiplayer. I heard that Anno game from a while ago had Uplay for lobbies and LAN without Uplay. Something like this LAN mode is sufficient to let you play multiplayer without Galaxy or the sorts.

My point is: The very notion of DRM-free online multiplayer is a joke. It's something that doesn't exist. It's something that shouldn't exist. Yeah, you read that right. It shouldn't exist.

The games you mention that offer client-less online multiplayer had serial keys. These serials, however surreptitiously, were used to authenticate the game with the server. Name me one that didn't and I'll name one that ultimately failed precisely because they didn't take that precaution.

DRM-free single player experiences are one thing. Because at least in reality the piracy isn't really costing the publisher anything. DRM-free online multiplayer would mean servers flooded with pirates which definitely would cost the publisher no small amount of money to maintain.

It's not just reasonable, it's mandatory.

I remember seeing a patch for Windward. Because they have DRM free multiplayer; their servers were getting junked with pirates (no pun intended) messing up the games with their older versions. I think they patched it so that only the officially latest version, or only the same version could be on a server. I don't know... something like that. My point is, it's certainly a pain in the ass for the developer.

Then why are you here?

To put it mildly.

On paper at least, Galaxy is the most realistic option for multiplayer without intrusive DRM. In practise it's got a long way to go, of course.

And my point is there will always be times were the full game experience can't be utilized regardless of Galaxy or DRM. So saying you can sit in a bunker after D-Day and still get a the entire game experience with LAN/DC isn't true if your the only one in the bunker (which has the same chance as not being by yourself). Multiplayer depends on outside influences, in some cases this is a client, in others it's just the internet, in the most basic form it's having somebody in the same location. So you can argue that it might make it easier to experience the full game after D-Day, but you for sure can't argue its anymore future proof to being able to experience the full game with Galaxy.

There are some games were you might literally be one of the last ones playing it... in which case finding someone to play it with might be impossible regardless of D-Day or no D-Day.

How do you know they don't and devs just aren't using it or implementing it? Regardless, implementing LAN/DC is easy compared to matchmaking services, and backend for online multiplayer which is a much bigger task. So it really wouldn't be worth's GOG's time to do something that dev's can easily do themselves if they wanted to, which most don't, hence why it's not added.

So when they stated, quite explicitly as far as I recall, that Galaxy multiplayer functionality would allow you to play multiplayer with Steam players, this is now somehow true, despite the fact that it clearly is blatantly not true?

How it is it not true? There are games that allow this currently on GOG. They never stated every game with Galaxy multiplayer would allow this. In the end it comes down to the dev implementing it.