And they have the same barring on your ability to play the full game as Galaxy or DRM... so I'd argue realizing that is just as important as claiming that LAN/DC is the more DRM free approach.

The Galaxy api is being used because it's cheaper, quicker, & makes it easy to implement full scale online multiplayer. Nothing more, it's purpose is not to prevent piracy. This is why we argue developer choice, not DRM. Sure they could also add LAN/DC but then were back to the argument of is that worth it form a financial/design stand point. Not including it doesn't suddenly make it DRM.

I'm not even sure it actually checks your license. Have you actually tried making a separate GOG account and playing one of your bought games online on Galaxy via that new account? One could argue that there is a need for this in an online setting that has nothing to do with preventing piracy though.

And as we said before, devs aren't going to take the time to implement something that very few use. Even if GOG provided the back end to do this, it still could mean a few weeks or more of dev time to implement it. There would still be work that the dev team would need to do to provide something very few would ever use. If GOG made that kind of demand, I bet many would say it's not worth picking up the so few sales GOG provides and just stick with Steam. Providing online MP functionality was a good choice from GOG because it's something developers hate implementing because it cost so much and takes so long to do, so they would want to use the Galaxy api as they typically look for a third party to do this like Steam. Either it was going to be Galaxy, or it was going to be some other third party system, or just Steam. I for one don't want it just to be Steam. LAN/DC was never important to matter.

Even though Valve would never allow that probably, both are DRM free. I just wouldn't play online using Steam. Hell I probably wouldn't even use LAN/DC either as I never do now. GOG says what DRM free is as they are advertising what DRM free means... there is no 'most' DRM free. It is or it isn't.

According to Rise of Triad dev, it still takes a good amount of work on there part as they had inject some specific code to provide this... my guess is that Stardock doesn't know this or that GOG Galaxy allows this.

It is technically is feature of the Galaxy multiplayer functionality as it's part of Galaxy. It also happens to be on a individual game basis. Both can be true.

I suppose you can have whatever kind of opinion about that that you like in the end. One thing is certain though, to have a multiplayer matchmaking service it requires there to be a server on the other end doing the matchmaking and that has to be owned by someone. The only way to not have a server on the backend is to not have a matchmaking service and only have multiplayer options that are transparent such as LAN and DirectIP for example. Those are completely orthagonal multiplayer modes however for which fall back 100% on the developer to decide to support or not, not GOG.

So people can't both want an optional multiplayer matchmaking service (and it is optional whether to use it or not), and also expect it to work without a backend server owned by someone. Most of the games that have multiplayer matchmaking on GOG use 3rd party servers owned by other companies, many if not most of which have shut down already now (ie: Gamespy). GOG's service in theory will run as long as they continue to be in business and that is vastly superior to any of the other matchmaking solutions present in any game in the catalogue.

People can whine and nitpick over semantics and ideology all they want, but at the end of the day the choices are to buy the games and enjoy them and be happy that there is a new option that exists for multiplayer in them which is superior to anything the games in the catalogue have had before and has potential longevity better than any other solution out there, buy them and because it is optional - simply don't use the multiplayer service, or third choice - don't buy games that have GOG Galaxy multiplayer at all if that meets one's ideological or other reasons best.

Either way, we have an up and coming solution to a long term problem that is superior to any other viable solution to the problem, and which developers also consider viable to use, where the alternative to this technology is simply either not having multiplayer games at all, or not having the opportunity to even sell the games in the store because of the lack of a multiplayer matchmaking back end.

I'm surprised that people don't complain that some of the games in the store might require the use of DNS, because DNS has central servers (the root servers) that are owned by a 3rd party and that that is a form of DRM. Why not then say "This game uses DirectX and has no other options, and DirectX is owned by Microsoft and I have no choice to use DirectX, therefore because I can't play the game without DirectX it is a form of DRM" It all gets ridiculous after a while really.

Sorry, your message is quite confusing. What exactly should GOG have done then?

1. Bring the game into GOG so that it requires a Steam client and a Steam account for multiplayer? Wouldn't that be just as well about "abandoning the concept of DRM-free"?

2. Bring the game to GOG so that there is no multiplayer at all? Well, some GOG games are like that, but some people have complained that it makes the GOG versions feel incomplete, as the multiplayer is cut out.

3. Not bring the game to GOG at all, as the developer apparently wouldn't implement cross-platform multiplayer to the game? Then the game wouldn't be on GOG at all, with or without multiplayer.

I see all those options being more or less negative. You seem to be suggesting that GOG shouldn't even try to compete with Steam, but succumb to it. Hey, maybe GOG should just sell Steam keys and abolish its own service and infrastructure?

Here's a free hint for you: if you really feel Steam features (among them Steam multiplayer) are so important, then simply buy your games on Steam. Where's the problem?

So when they said "this is how it is going to be", you don't find that in any way misleading, because they didn't explicitly qualify it with "in every case"?

The Steam version is also splitting the multiplayer, as it doesn't support crossplatform multiplayer with GOG Galaxy. Hence, the game shouldn't be sold on Steam either.

If the rule for "crossplatform" meant that any game failing that wouldn't be released on GOG at all (even the single-player part), then I am against such rule. If you don't want the game on GOG, then you can simply choose not to buy it on GOG. If you feel Steam features are important, buy the Steam version.

You are completely misunderstanding his issue. He doesn't want Steam features, and he certainly does want GOG to compete with Steam.

Here is the issue: Before Galaxy launched, GOG explicitly said that Galaxy's multiplayer framework would be able to connect with Steam's, so that if you had a game on GOG and your friend had the same game on Steam, you could still play multiplayer together. This has now been revealed to not be true, at least for some games (I don't know if it is true for any).

The logical conclusion to draw from this is, if you enjoy multiplayer, don't buy your games on GOG, because you will cut yourself off from playing with at least 90% of the player base.

Steam is already filled with dead multiplayer games that nobody plays anymore. It's not hard to imagine that given GOG's much smaller market share, multiplayer games which can only connect to other GOG copies will die much faster than they do on Steam.

Honestly no, but this might be cause I didn't expect it to be for every game. I kind of figured from the announcement it was going to down to the dev to implement it. Sort of like I knew not every Galaxy game would have achievements.
Rise of Triad (2013)
Grand Ages: Medieval
Aliens vs Predator
Double Dragon Trilogy

These are the game with cross platform support, and I know that RoT does for sure.

You say that requiring Galaxy client for multiplayer takes away the DRM-free promise, but at the same time you imply that if there was an option to use e.g. a Steam client instead for the multiplayer part, then it magically would fulfill the DRM-free promise? Is multiplayer gaming with the Steam-client somehow more DRM-free that with the Galaxy client?

Or are you suggesting that GOG should have dropped the multiplayer part altogether from the game, hence making sure the game doesn't have any parts that need a client?

We must have seen different announcements. If you watch , and then read [url=https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gog_galaxy/post213]this, and [url=https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gog_galaxy/post227]this, I don't really see how it can be interpreted the way you do.

Nope, seen all that... still expected it to be down to the developer. All features in clients are based on the developer utilizing those features, same way it has been on Steam. So I kind of figured some developers might add crossplay and some would not.

The fact still never remains they never claimed every game with Galaxy MP would have it... how you interpreted is really irrelevant.

So, you would be quite content if, say, the Galaxy client only worked at all on tuesdays, because they never explicitly stated that it would work every day of the week. What an odd way of looking at things.

It is funny how e.g. you and Wishbone seem to have both understood the OP's message completely differently, and you are both lecturing people how they don't understand what his point was. :D Just goes to show how messy his first message was, open for interpretation.

It appeared more his issue was about GOG players not being able to play with Steam players, but I have no idea what that has to do with the game being DRM-free or not, or requiring Galaxy (the client, or the network, or both?). Read his message again, especially the "B" part.

Galaxy is still in Beta. For all we know, the Steamworks cross-platform part is still in development.