I remember there was much bemoaning about the lack of LAN when it was released, and they said it would be added later. You're saying it didn't happen? (I have AOW3, but I'm singleplayer only, so I didn't check)

Ah, well if you have to log in even if you want to play via direct connection then that could be considered DRM. After all, the peer-to-peer game only has the players' computers involved, there's no reason you should have to log in to a server.

What I find alarming is not what the OP said, which is total nonsense of course, but rather that there are quite a few forum users who would agree with OP. Is this what it has come to around here?

No. It was like this for ages already.

Maybe but I've only seen a recent uptake myself with regards to Galaxy being out and online multiplayer. It's rather sad that when a game with galaxy multiplayer is released, were not talking 10 or 20 pages about how good or bad the game is or what the game offers, no were talking 10/20 pages about if it's DRM or not.

It's the sad really that good games, that potentially should sell well here are being dragged through this crap with every new release...

Probably that AOW3 has a VPN option which is similar to LAN I guess, but no there is no real built in LAN as far as I am aware. You still have to log in before you can use it though but the reasons being is the game server is still needed for matchmaking, so I would not call it DRM, rather how the game was designed. The VPN option was also added later on after release primary for those having connection issues, not to support LAN..

http://aow.triumph.net/vpn/

Or disable multiplayer, as they've done before (Brutal Legend, Full Spectrum Warrior and probably many others).

I'll give you an even better target for your misdirected anger: Humble Bundle. Recently they sold a supposedly DRM-free Android game bundle, while some of the games in the bundle were actually just codes you activate on GooglePlay with your Google account. We are not talking about multiplayer here either, but single-player games. Burn them at stake, right?

I'm fine with the suggestion that GOG would elaborate that only single-player is guaranteed to be DRM-free, and online gaming may need an account (I think they have mentioned this on some game cards, if some features (leaderboards or multiplayer) need an account somewhere). I'm a pragmatic person so I'm fine with the multiplayer part needing some kind of online validation since that is something that can clearly benefit me as a customer as well, in the form of cheater control etc. With single-player games, I can't think of any benefits to me for the game requiring online validation.

Also the fact that unless I am able to set up a server myself, the multiplayer part will become defunct anyway if either the plug is pulled from the official multiplayer servers (hello EA!), or no one else cares to play the game anymore besides me. The single-player part is unaffected by such things, which is why I care about the DRM-freeness of the single-player only.

The main difference to me is that the GOG single-player games are supported as such as well. If I have issues trying to run Steam games which were supposed to be DRM-free (like the DLCs for Crusader Kings 2), Valve nor the publisher will help me because they never promised I should be able to run the game without the client. It was just some guy on the internet who claimed so, but i don't think that guy will refund anyone their money either.

Also if you "install" (move) such a game to another PC in order to play it there without the Steam client, and that game adds registry entries and such when you run it the first time, how do you "uninstall" such a game so that those registry entries are also removed? With GOG I know: by running the uninstall from the Control Panel, just like with any normal program.

To you the difference between a DRM-free game on GOG and Steam may seem minuscule, but to me the official support for being able to install, run and uninstall the single-player game DRM-free is an important benefit.

Is there a technical reason why online gameplay (not LAN) would REQUIRE a login / serial key in order to participate? Each connection can already be differentiated by the IP and other identifying markers, to make sure the correct data goes to the correct user.

OMG! I have a multiplayer game and I have to log in?

Seriously? Have you no experience with multiplayer online gaming?

If you want an anticheat system where you can even permanently ban someone from the game (server) even so that they can't create another account and login with that to the server, what options are there to marrying the multiplayer part of the game to a certain account? (Honest question, probably there are alternatives to that.)

If you don't care for anticheat systems, then I guess no login should be needed for online multiplayer, just like there are web forums where you can write messages anonymously without creating an account (GOG is not one of them, albeit you can always create another account since your account isn't really "married" to anything).

I think his point was more of political and ideological one, than a practical one. As in "it is not fair GOG uses DRM-free in advertising because it gives them an advantage over Steam".

It is quite common that the people who proclaim they don't personally care for DRM, seem to have the biggest issue with this. I guess it is because they are not looking at it from a practical point of view (ie. how does it affect them as customers), but from an ideological/political/biblical view.

In a way though, they have a point I guess, and I am all for GOG clarifying its stance further in e.g. "What do we mean when we say our games are DRM-free?", and mentioning in the game cards if an account is required for e.g. the multiplayer and leaderboard parts of the game (I recall they've been doing that already at least with some games?).

That's what I was getting at. It would seem that multiplayer itself does not require a serial key or login. However, using those allows for multiplayer features like blocking, and global stat tracking and leaderboards, kill-death ratios, or whatever other metric they're trying to track for individual players.

I think if a game or its online servers don't actively do things that are directly game-related and don't require a unique identifier, then I can understand the OP's point. If a leaderboard is a fundamental part of the multiplayer play, then I don't really see this as Digital Rights Management. That said, a company could easily add a leaderboard or other stat-track mechanism as an excuse for instituting on online serial #.

It would be nice if games claiming to be DRM-free - but that use a serial # for k/d and other such stuff - make it optional so that if you don't want to be tracked in this way then a serial # is not required for online play. Because even if you don't care about the DRM-free aspect, maybe you simply don't want that sort of player-linked tracking of your activity for whatever reason, whether or not that reason makes sense to anyone else.



Anyway, it's a fuzzy subject. As others mention, it kind of depends on how one defines DRM-free. But to me, it also depends on whether or not the serial # is a necessary part of the online play.

Please think before you speak: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=528061883 LAN/Direct Connection multiplayer with DRM.

I know what I'm saying ffs. Take a look at games like spellforce; games that have a button that straight up fucking says LAN, as well as a button that says 'multiplayer' separately. AOW3 strictly has one means of connecting with other people and that's peer-to-peer based, only after the fact you need to connect to a server mandatorily.

Fucking hell I own the god damn game.

Here are some exerts from people on the triumph forums:

"Yes, but when you start a multiplayer game you must always first authenticate with a remote server which means you both need an internet connection.
After that its a peer-to-peer affair and you can play like you would in a LAN setup, and you wont need an internet connection anymore unless ofcourse you are playing with people who are not on your LAN."

"Yes, and no.

You'll need a Triumph Account to use our online services.
So if you want to play on two computers, you'll need 2 copies."

"You need internet to start a multiplayer game. It will always run through the Triumph Studios server to set up a game.
Once a game has been established its a peer-to-peer affair.

LAN games are set up in the same way. First you need to authenticate through the Triumph Server, likely for anti-piracy/fair-use reasons considering the GOG version of AoW3 is DRM free.
And then once the game has been set up you are connected to eachother through your LAN and you shouldnt require an internet connection anymore.

But everytime you want to setup a new game, or presumably resume an old game where you left off, you would have to go through online authentication again."

Now shut up please.
edit: this is in response to you saying I don't know what I'm talking about, therefore I'm using supporting statements. If you had noticed when I started this conversation, I spoke nothing of DRM, only those who responded to me did.

So basically, you think that the game both artificially restricting what you can do and having the potential to impose heavier restrictions on what you can do at any moment, even though you purchased the product, doesn't constitute as being DRM and/or is perfectly fine and reasonable thing to put up with, from a company that prides themselves on selling products that don't feature these schemes?

Yes you're right that it's to ensure no piracy happens, that's what all DRM is about, reducing piracy at the paying customers expense. I am saying the game uses DRM for a game mode that shouldn't have DRM because it has been demonstrated numerous times in the past that LAN multiplayer is possible without DRM/Online requirements and that GOG is knowingly selling a product that has DRM for these game modes even though they pride themselves on selling games that don't have DRM. The "supposed" lack of DRM in their products is meant to be the main difference between them and their competitors, otherwise there's no major reason to buy from them lol.

I can also somewhat understand DRM/Account system for online multiplayer, as players need to uniquely identify themselves and protect their rank in ranked game modes but that's only really relevant if you want to participate in ranked play. You shouldn't have to go through DRM/account systems for unranked online multiplayer or private matches.

Anyways, I'm okay with, but disappointed in the game having any DRM. I'm pretty pissed off that a game mode that shouldn't require online connectivity to work, arbitrarily requires online connectivity to work. I'm also pissed off that if you get banned you'll lose access to the game mode that shouldn't need online connectivity to work.

Edit: That wasn't the best example but it IS a perfectly valid example. Here's 3 more examples.

Get home and want to play some multiplayer with local friends/family, when you arrive home you find there is an issue with your online connectivity and that your ISP is performing maintenance or some such. Guess you'll have to hope that everyone's work schedules won't become an issue once this potentially multiple hour long delay is resolved.

Get home and want to play some local and/or online multiplayer with friends/family, when you arrive home you discover that although your own internet connection is working fine, Triumph's servers are out of commission. Guess you'll have to hope that everyone's work schedules won't become an issue once this potentially multiple hour long delay is resolved.

I'd like to continue to be able to play the game online with my friends, family and online friends long after Triumph goes bankrupt, gets bought out by someone like EA who like shutting servers down or Triumph's network supplier goes bankrupt and/or gets bought by another company that doesn't renew contracts with Triumph.