What's the difference of logging in to Steam to play multiplayer and doing the same with GOG Galaxy? Are both DRM-free? I think a test of whether a game is DRM-free is the possibility to break the game's terms and conditions without any stoppers, like a log-in for example.

CD-keys and their master servers are DRM-free because they don't stop this activity. All they do is make sure 2 people aren't playing online at once, and to ban online cheaters if detected by the master server (or however it's done). A master server is also like a tracker site which points people to each other and the CD-key is like a passable and sellable log-in.

I love GOG but kind of wish whoever thought of GOG Galaxy took into consideration whether log-ins were compatible with being DRM-free. It seems a contradiction to me personally.

GOG has only ever (as far as I can remember, but my memory is faulty at the best of times) promised that the singleplayer part is free of restrictions.

Yes, multiplayer accounts are DRM.

No, GOG is not to blame.
If the game doesn't have DRM-free multiplayer, GOG can
- force the devs to strip multiplayer out for the GOG version (which won't change the price, which will lose buyers to Steam and make GOG look a less powerful participant in the market than they really are, which will reduce their bargaining power), or
- not sell the game at all, or
- make their own service and kindly ask the developer to implement that, so at least your multiplayer availability will be 100% dependent on the financially secure store you gave money to rather than the developer/publisher who can go bankrupt or shut down the servers for the lulz every day and thank you for your mutual incredible journey.

What they can't do (at least, not yet) is force developers to spend programmer-hours on DRM-free multiplayer.

I bought Victor Vran, turns out I need to make an account to play Multiplayer. I guess that's no Multiplayer for me. :l

GOG could have just been the global master server for the DRM-free versions and their loose CD-keys, and agreed to take a small annual slice directly from the developer to cover its running. Maybe 10% or something like that.

The gog.com version of Red Faction has a 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free multiplayer.

Go install Red Faction and then launch the multiplayer, there is no email account creation needed and there is no CD Keys needed at all either.

It has A Server Browser List, which PC gamers can set up themselves and you can find their servers on the Server Browser List to join whatever server you want to join.

It's not LAN either.

The gog.com version of Red Faction also uses a master server, the day before yesterday I tried connecting and had a problem and it said THQ servers cannot connect. I'm guessing Nordic Games acquired THQ's master servers.

Unreal Tournament also has similar.

I'm not suggesting online multiplayer does away with the easy ability to connect to others, and just saying the 1994-2001 system (or whatever period it was) was more DRM-free because you could move your purchase around freely (a single key).. I agree!

This kind of online verification isn't DRM, although it achieves a similar function. Lack of local multiplayer is more of a missing feature than anything, since implementing it in a user-friendly way requires extra developer effort, distinct from the effort of setting up company-hosted servers which are much easier to manage and debug.

Edit: or is this thread about local multiplayer games which "phone home" to a server anyway?

I consider it Digital Rights Management (DRM).

I hate so much and hated back in 1999 when I purchased the physical boxed version of Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun needing to enter a CD Key every time I installed it.

I just want to install the video game and go straight to multiplayer through the Server Browser List and play.

Huh? Isn't that contradictory? If the TOS or EULA or whatever says only one person can use that game (license) to play online, how isn't it DRM if the CD key check prevents two or more people playing online with the same CD key (copy of a game)?

I think it can be said many GOG games have DRM in their multiplayer, but I am personally mostly fine with that, because:

- I am less interested in multiplayer overall (less likely to buy a game for its multiplayer; I think online games should be mostly free-to-play, like TeamFortress 2)

- multiplayer DRM brings some benefits to the user (me) as well, like the ability to ban certain gamers for good from the online game. I'm not sure how that would be possible without somehow marrying that particular copy of a game either to an online account (that you have to use while you play the online game), or that CD key which identifies the copy of the game you are playing (if that CD key is blacklisted by the server, then sorry, you can't use it to play it).

Then again I can understand if some people would also like at least optional DRM-free multiplayer too (LAN, direct TCP/IP connection to another player, maybe even the ability to run your own game servers), so I am not against games having those as well, even if I wouldn't necessarily use them myself.
.

This is FALSE, you yourself can ban hackers on your own server or if you got admin rights on another server if there is absolutely no Digital Rights Management (DRM) in the multiplayer of a video game, at least the PC versions of video games that have multiplayer.

Red Faction is a video game with multiplayer that's 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free.

Go launch it's multiplayer and make your own server, other PC gamers will join if you think a PC gamer is hacking ban her or him.

But if a game simply lacks IP-to-IP multiplayer, that's not really DRM just because nobody bothered writing the code, is it? DRM implies some kind of deliberate anti-cracking check that the game could easily function without, not something that's inherently part of the online implementation.

So what prevents the hacker from joining the game again? How exactly do I identify him later that it is the same person trying to join the same game?

The most straightforward way I can think of (just using common sense) is that each copy of a game is identifiable in some way. Something like a CD key specific to that copy of the game, or the game is somehow married to an online account.
Then when you want to ban some hacker for good, you are actually banning the copy of the game he is using. He'd have to get hold of another copy of the game (like repurchase it) if he wanted to join the game again.

I guess there might be alternative ways too, like collecting some kind of HW identifiers of the PC that the hacker is using and blacklisting that particular HW ID, but then he could join the game again as long as he used a different PC, or was somehow able to change or fake that HW identification.

While I do not have the game, and thus cannot try it at the moment (not to mention being at work, so buying, installing and playing a game might not be the best decision I could make), I do wonder how said ban works.

Banning by IP - user could easily reconnect with a new address
Banning by user name - make a new name and reconnect
Banning by account (if said account is not bound to a CD key) - make a new account and reconnect