Yes these are all true, banning the PC gamers who are hackers their IP addresses they can change IP addresses and reconnect.

Banning their username they can change their username and reconnect.

But I would rather keep banning those PC gamers who are hacking than have the multiplayer of video games have Digital Rights Management (DRM).

Regarding your first point my issue was mainly with game's needing a log-in for online play, but keys can easily be transferred around a million times BUT still maintain a single online user by the master server.

With your second point people find each other through the master server and keys can be blacklisted if people cheat, but if the user stays clean they can pass the key around a million times (DRM-free).

I'd rather have all video games that have multiplayer that are sold on gog.com have truly 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free multiplayer like Red Faction.

If some master server checks your CD key each time you play the game online (whether it is a valid CD key at all, banned or whether there are several people trying to use the same key to play the game simultaneously), I see that as kind of a "automatic login". The DRM point of logging in is to perform an online authentication for your copy of the game, and that is what seemingly happens also with the CD key, it is is checked and used to somehow control if or how you can play the game online.

I still see that as DRM, if your particular CD key is being authenticated, and might be made invalid for any reason. Or, as suggested earlier, it would check that only one person is playing online at any time using that key, and prevent others from joining in with the same key at the same time.

It could be just as well said that if the online game requires an online account, you could pass the account details (login name and password) around million times. Does that make it DRM-free?

Multiplayer is a game feature, not a right you are entitled to, therefore, multiplayer clients, keys, servers, etc. are not inherently DRM. Your rights to be managed by DRM are defined by the law in your region and the EULA on the game. Those rights basically consist of the ability to install and use the software, transfer it or sell it, modify or re-use any part of it and not much else.

So for example, if you are forced to run that client to install and run the game in the first place and also use it for multiplayer, that client is DRM. If you only need that client for multiplayer connection but not the install or running the game, not DRM. If that key you entered to access the server is invalid for anyone that you sell your game to and there is no way to issue a new key without re-buying the game, that key is DRM. If the key itself is transferable (encoded in the game disc, for example), then not DRM. If that multiplayer account you created is permanently tied to your individual copy of the software, that is DRM. If it's just a server login permanently tied to you personally, not DRM.

As to the question "is account management of multiplayer DRM?", the answer is " depends..."

Regardless, on-line "clients" are shite and I don't use them, end of the story. When GOG.com will make that crap mandatory, I will stop supporting GOG.com...

External or GoG Multiplayer Accounts are a form of DRM, since the Account is being controlled by an external service. Problem is that even a Master Server listing the currently available servers to play on is a form of DRM, since it is an external service you need to connect to and that could one day cease to exist. So the argument is complicated, account or not.

So in short, as long as the single player is available offline and without ANY form of external service involved, the game is DRM-free in my book. Ideally, the game supports LAN play or comes with a server tool. Like UT2004 for instance.

Isn't one of Galaxy's main selling points is that it can potentially allow you to play certain multiplayer games with those that are purchased from Steam? Does your solution above account for that?

The difference is accounts usually have more than 1 game tied to them so it's not possible to pass the multiplayer around.

Yes I agree as accounts may involve multiple games that can't be separated, and the single-player (if any) requires a firsttime log-in to start..

Agree because the account created would only consist of 1 game that could be passed around (providing you can change the email address tied to it)..

The key itself is like a physical disc that can be carried anyway, no restraints other than 1 identity, so I'd say it's DRM-free. Having a key helps a tiny bit with punishing online cheaters by removing them from the pool. You've just got to be careful not to scratch the cdkey (caught cheating) like you do with a real disc, before passing it on.

This is like how normal CD-keys work as they're only relevant to themselves, no user names or passes to remember, not tied to multiple games, just like a physical disc that can be carried anywhere. It's just a self important long number to use at one place when online.
.
I would say they're the same thing as long as you can change the email address and it's only tied to a single game's multiplayer, then both are DRM-free. In this situation you could transfer your user name and pass on easy...

If GOG can or should eventually bring one thing or another, I'd rather like that they bring back the old days where you just don't need any accounts at all. Connect to a masterserver (optional step, and the master server could be run by a third party or even implemented as a third party feature) to get a list of servers, then directly connect to the server you want to play. And you're done...

I'm sad that people here would ask for DRM.

This is why we, the consumers, need to push for direct IP/LAN play in games all the more. Because server-based multiplayer may just as well not exist. Because, eventually, it won't.

we, the consumers, are always online, use steam, origin, galaxy, whatever - and generally do not care as long as the latest game work nicely.

ME, the consumer, actively avoid using on-line accounts. And I DO CARE about that, it's the whole reason why I use GOG.com. Don't assume things you think they should go where you want them to go.

So it's...

1/ Full DRM that keeps all your games into a single library and requires log-in to begin anything.

1/ Single game accounts that work a bit like the old CD-Key system, giving the option of cheaters being banned but not needling a log-in for single-player and LAN. You still get the annoyance of remembering log-in details for MP though.

3/ The old CD-key system which still leaves an option of banning cheaters but doesn't require a log-in at any stage. Not in single-player, not in online multiplayer or LAN. The key is just your identity.

4/ No checks what so ever. So no need for cdkeys/log-ins anywhere. The downside is cheaters wont have an identity to get banned by.

5/ The no.4 way but with option of banning a persons physical hardware. That might be good.

I now want to lay down lol.

If GOG Galaxy starts removing an existing multiplayer key system from already existing DRM-free game then that would be worrying. But I suppose if Galaxy just sticks to doing multiplayer for previously DRM exclusives then maybe that's OK?

Thanks for all the replies.