My issue with GOG Galaxy is that it is completely unusable for me. I cannot get it to start on my system, so anything that depends on it is completely inaccessible. I have already avoided several titles on GOG specifically because they require GOG Galaxy for their multiplayer support. I would have bought them if they had direct IP support. In my case, I always caught that requirement before I added the game to the cart, so I have never had to fight with support over that point. I do not preorder titles. The discount is not worth the risk of broken promises.

I don't see how you can do MP outside of LAN without some kind of client. the issue may be Galaxy is poorly coded, but not that it's required in this case. If I'm wrong on this, I'm open to any clarification.

I don't really play multiplayer, but they have to have a program to enable it. I don't think the companies offer individual game servers the way they used to without requiring something like Steam or Origin. GoG had to offer something in turn, which is just a way to connect players to common servers. Even with game companies offering servers, or allowing players to sponsor servers like with RTCW, I used to use programs like All Seeing Eye (which I was disappointed to see shut down after I paid for a life subscription, but I got my money's worth out of it). I don't understand the rage over galaxy, but I also haven't used it. I do understand the need for it, but maybe GoG could make the features of it optional and it could act as only a MP client like most people want to use it for.

Isn't there a way for you or your friend to host a server? I haven't played SW2 and haven't tried MP with any of my GoG games, but I know I can still host a RTCW MP server using my GoG game without Galaxy. If not, that is the problem of the maker of the game and GoG is just offering a way to access the MP without using the company's required DRM. To be fair, GoG is trying to make it a perfect DRM free version with all the options of the Steam and other versions, and they do make it very clear that Galaxy is required for MP use before you buy it.

Probably not. I am just annoyed by gog's behaviour in this circumstance. I find it impossible to believe they didn't know much further in advance that the dev was working on using galaxy for multiplayer. If they had put it out there further in advance and had actually communicated the change via email or something then I would have been able to make an informed the choice. Gog hid that choice from me, either intentionally or through incompetence in updating their site, either way it doesn't install much faith in them.

I might come across as unreasonable but it's down to gog's changes in mentality towards users which has taken away the good will I had in the early days. When I first joined gog it was focused on old games all priced at $9.99 or $5.99 and they were very communicative with members. There was no need to check social networks and the forums were in a much better state than they are now (I rarely post now because it seems like there's so many users that just come on to try and rile others up and gog does nothing.)

Nowadays gog is always biting off more than it can chew and making decisions that are detrimental to users which they try to sneak by sometimes and they only go back on or compromise when they receive a heavy backlash from the community. I wouldn't mind it so much if gog didn't push the 'small community focused' angle anymore but they do which feels dishonest and insulting to those of us who remember when they genuinely were.


As for DRM Free they either are or they aren't. There's stuff on steam & Origin that's DRM free single player (including a lot of games gog has), what separates gog from them now? Galaxy is no different than steam or origin or uplay or battlenet etc, it's just another waste of space & runtime game manager to juggle, another barrier to wait for before I actually get to play my game.

This was a nice long (good) explanation which (I think) misses the one thing I mentioned above. That using GOG Galaxy matchmaking requires using it with a GOG account that *owns* the game.

There is no legitimate reason for that to be a requirement for the whole system to work. They could have simply made it so every GOG account has it's own unique ID within the Galaxy matchmaking environment without checking whether or not you own that game. This would allow family members to play the game with you for instance despite not also having bought a copy for themselves.

Forcing it to only work if you own the game makes it into a form of DRM.

Interesting read here. Personally, I never use multiplayer so I cannot directly comment about how gog Galaxy runs.

However, I refuse to use Steam as the Steam client is a form of DRM that is required to play games. Galaxy, appears to be a hybrid of Steam since the single player portion of the games can be played without it, but newer multiplayer games require Galaxy.

It appears then Galaxy is a form of MP DRM created by gog. I appreciate this thread to know what is happening as gog moves forward. Not sure what the future holds. Just make sure you have all your games stored on your own system to install and play as originally purchased.

Which is a perfectly valid albeit orthagonal opinion.

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has posted an intelligent response on here. I have been reading through everything and there's some very well thought out responses.

I might not agree with some of what's been said but I respect you taking the time to post regardless of if your views differ from my own.

hmm... is that an "right angled" opinion, or a "statistically independent" opinion?

A lot of this has to do with changing attitudes towards multiplayer experiences. Multiplayer gamers always wanted the kind of progression and persistency that single-player games offer, along with matchmaking for gamers who don't have many friends playing the same games, and this basically paved the way for the kinds of centralised architectures that we see today.

While dedicated servers can offer a lot of the above in theory, anyone who played games like CoD 4 back in the day knows that it was never feasible in practice. Each server would store the persistent states of each player, but many servers were prone to being taken offline at a whim by the operator, or being overloaded by unexpected attention.

It's certainly nice when games offer LAN modes, direct IP connections and dedicated servers, but it's also a harsh reality that the first two were subject to severe limitations by their very nature, while the latter only caused player base fragmentation and put players at the whim of some very unstable server operators. I still play Urban Terror on occasion and I've seen public servers pulled offline for some of the weirdest reasons, most recently one in the UK who pulled his servers because Arabic was supposedly being spoken over voice chat and he "didn't want Muslims on his server" (funnily enough, it turned out to be Russian).

I honestly can't say why any given developer would choose to omit a LAN mode - maybe some do see it as a form of covert DRM, but there are also legitimate reasons such as keeping the player base together and offering community-wide features such as leaderboards (if that's your thang), and some may simply not see enough potential use to make implementing a separate LAN mode worthwhile (a not entirely unrealistic viewpoint when you consider how quickly the communities of many of these online-centric games die out nowadays, especially on Steam).

I've been offered a refund immediately which I appreciate but what I really want is for gog to update their galaxy page to be more accurate and state more clearly (at the top of the page)that multiplayer isn't DRM Free because it requires gog galaxy and a login check.

Here's some of the misinformation on the Galaxy page:

[i]Truly gamer friendly, DRM-free online gaming platform.

GOG GALAXY is a fully optional client to install, play and update your games. It also offers online multiplayer, achievements, chat, game-time tracking and more - but it’s up to you which features you want to use. [/i]

Is GOG Galax truly optional?
GOG Galaxy is fully optional because you don’t need it to play games on GOG.com. If you want to, you can simply download your game via your browser, install it manually, and launch it offline, just like we've always done it on GOG.com. If you decide to use GOG Galaxy for some aspects of the convenience, you can still switch to offline mode at whim and play your games. Optional also means that all features in GOG Galaxy can be turned off. Not a fan of achievements or auto-updates? No problem, they're extras.

[i]
Always optional
Beyond all these features, the Client will never be mandatory. That’s great motivation for us - we want to make it so good, you’ll actually want to use it. [/i]


I doubt I'll get much of a response and I feel this is better discussed in a new thread though.

So GOG did hold up on their behalves, good too see.

And yes open a new thread, I have something to mention about your "rambling" ;)

Unless we would continue here.

I actually wrote a little shout out to you in the N.B at the bottom already lol. Feel free to post your views on the matter, I do think it'd make for an interesting, less charged discussion.

Couldn't agree more.

Sometimes the only outcome of a discussion, which is still valid, I think we just agree, the we disagree ;)

Just using a bit semantic and similar:

You know that the first games were MP only? Being programmed on student/university networks? Later this was replaced by serial connections. (WTF is this?)

So, if you would complain that GOG (good OLD games) are not here and hence MP isn't here, yes we agree ;)

But later this MP section was only a small percentage of the market-share anyway (think C64/Amiga here mainly)
Even in the days of old PC games MP was exception rather than the norm, I think we agree here as well, or? (And Yes there are/were some really good MP games, MoO2 jumping to mind ;) )

For those to young to know, a network card or a private network was anything but usual! You really had to be a real nerd to have NIC). And even Internet was anything but casual as you had to dial in via modems. So it came with a hefty price. What was a bit later quite normal was support for LAN MP, which was later in the days.

This really changed with the advance of quicker Internet-access and flat prices. Devs took advantage of this and started to implement Internet MP.

So there was a break from the old idea to the new medium.
Ok enough of background info ;)

If we now look at gOg (Old) we have roughly 400 games pre 2000 release, falling under the above, 250 pre 2005. Were I assume that mainly IP based solution were applied (if applicable). For pre 2000 only 1/4 had MP (according to GOG), this is just to show that MP was always only a minority of those games. Hence the definition of old games means no MP, you are with me? (and take a mental note of it, will ya ;) )

So after a certain point in time devs went Internet and implemented centralized servers (first one jumping to my mind gamespy), those servers which could get defunct on a whim. gamespy went online 96, defunct 12, so just 16 years lifetime, right? (and I see quake as the first of its kind there)
So with the introduction of this principle it changed also how devs implemented MP and became the norm (although devs sometimes still supported the old IP-based solution)

For DRM-definition: Is gamespy/uplay/whatever DRM, the way they implemented it, yes, no connection too server no MP. (Which I think is your main point concern, right ? ;) )

Is the industry to be blamed for this shift, mood point as it is clear ;)

You complain about misinformation:
Galaxy being non-optional. It was the industry pushing for the solution mentioned above. To fulfill this requirement, GOG would need to come up with a solution of their own unless opting for cut versions of those games, which pisses off people as well ;)

I think the main problem is a trust thing, we already know how much other platforms have screwed users over, we went to this side, just because of their emphasizes, right?
Were I do agree with you, if they go for the same approach for local MP-games as those others, it is not longer optional, but we don't know yet, as we are not yet there, correct?

And now: coming back to the mental note: YOU went to this side with certain expectations, right?
After reading this and keeping the mental note in front of you: Are you not to be blamed a bit as well? Only because you expected that everything can/will be done in the good old way, don't you think that was too much off a unreachable dream, albeit a nice one ? ;)

Till now GOG always tried to find/implement workarounds to keep to their promises. Unfortunate it is not always in their hands. But do I trust them, that they will try to keep their promises, yes, you bet ;) (If we will be satisfied with it though... ;) )

Back to you
EDIT: Yes I saw your reply ;) hope my/your point is better put to words, now ;)