Without going far into it, I think that's the major reason. Developers want a multiplayer feature, they don't want to reinvent the wheel to develop their own scheme, and clients like Steam and Galaxy offer an easier way to accomplish that.

-----

Anyway, online / multiplayer is where some of the DRM creeps in - understandably so, in order to incorporate certain features not needed for single-player. This isn't something that happens because of Galaxy, since there are pre-Galaxy games that require an account of some sort for multiplayer.

Well then that depends on how one sees it. In my view buying a game does not automatically give you the right to access their server for which a game may use to play online. No more than buying a car gives you access to every single road you want to ride on. It's provided as a service that can be denied. This has been covered in most TOS for a long time.

I'm also of the mind that DRM is a system that is coded or placed within a game. It's entirely possible this check is completely at the server level, meaning Galaxy request access by sending along your account details and the server checks your account and says yes or no, and in my view means the game is still technically DRM free. Granted I have not done much research into how this is implemented.

You are welcome ;)

And for the sake of it I copy pasted my reply from the other thread over here
So not all might be appropriate anymore ;)

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 ;)

Can you find the GOG Galaxy in this picture?

Yep, right in the eye

if MMO servers are not DRM, GOG Galaxy is not DRM.

Since every MMO need at least one server to play, GOG Galaxy itself does not do anything wrong.

Lazy developers rely on GOG Galaxy to support multiplayer, we should blame those game developers.

One more thing, why this thread is needed. Sometimes it is needed to bring this kind of questions up just to remind GOG of their bases and to voice opinions. How else shall GOG decide which way to go. If we just sit around, they can not really know what we like or not.

you are right, gog galaxy is stealth drm...
still I can understand if a developer use it to support multiplayer.

I would love a gog downloader with cloud saving feature really optional... instead there is a client that don't have cloud save and that you need to use to play in multiplayer.

You do know that you are not allowed to share a game copy even with family members? You have a personal licence to a copy. GOG does not promote DRM-free software so that you can do whatever you want with it. The exact same rules are applicable. DRM-free simply means that the developer/distributor won’t force restrictions upon you to make sure the rules are complied with.

That said, I do think that GOG should make sure that an account is not required to use the multiplayer facilities. Not doing so violates the promise and spirit of DRM-free software. However, I do not think that it is realistic to expect from developers to provide self-hosted multiplayer functionality. If that were a hard requirement, we would lose quite a few games here.

There is, however, a legitimate practical and moral reason.

Online DRM on your single-player games is unnecessary and immoral simply because the developer or publisher is offering absolutely nothing for this, despite its dogged insistence. It is a product that you've bought, and you own. Now I'm not going to get into the industry doctrine of how "blah blah blah you don't own your game, blah blah blah you only licence it" and how the brainwashed defenders of this scheme parrot this expression word for word. This is a topic not up for debate. All I'm saying is that online DRM has no place in a product that would otherwise work perfectly adequately. The developer or publisher is not contributing anything to the continued experience, ergo, they should have no further say in or control over how the game is used.

You own the game you've bought, but just like any product, not the rights to make counterfeit copies of it.

Online multiplayer on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. The publisher or developer is providing a continuing service for which they have ongoing costs. They are actively contributing to your continuing gaming experience, for which they are entitled to verify that you are a legitimate buyer.

Speaking of ongoing services, why do you think you have to log in to your GOG account to download patches? Why do you think you can't download them freely?

I think an apt analogy would be when you buy a kettle with a one-year extended warranty. You're basically buying two things here: the kettle and an insurance policy for one year. The kettle is yours to do with as you please. You can boil water with it, resell it or torture little kittens with it by pouring hot water over them. It's your choice, neither the manufacturer nor the seller have any say in the matter. But if you come to take advantage of that extended warranty, you're expected to present a receipt at the store to prove that you bought the damn thing, because you're taking advantage of an ongoing service.

Good points.

While reading your post, I was thinking about what lifetime do you get? What lifetime is the dev proposing?

And surprise surprise, I haven't found any clear indication for this. I tried to find a list of defunct servers, but not an easy task.

But the main question to those expressing dislike for Galaxy for MP: GOG gives us games which the dev is not longer supporting. They make them run on newer systems.

Whom do you trust more too keep a higher lifespan for a product? GOG or whatever? Gamespy has been shut down already, and that was an independent service. AFAIK most other servers are with their devs and publishers. So you, all you playing MP, are living on the whim off a publisher.

I do remember (without details though) same shouting regarding starcraft and when stracraft 2 was implemented/published that the publisher did something bad. Background info: in the ASian market SC 1 was/is (?) still one of the most played e-league game.

So whom do you trust more to let you guys keep playing your MP-games?

And even when staying with the example of jamyskis, as you don't even have a written statement/warranty/whatever for your MP-functionality you can NOT even expect them to give you a full year lifespan.

In other areas governments set forth certain thresholds how long you have to supply spare parts, but in the gaming world you live of the whim of the devs. Ultima online servers have been in the news a few times to be taken offline already, but as they still make money (subscription model) it is still running. But what about the non-subscription models? somebody has to pay for?

How many of you complaining about Galaxy = DRM (for MP) are willing to pay? How many ARE actually paying? And again the only other server I knew about went offline, gamespy.

It does not necessary mean that Galaxy might mean DRM, but also think about those points. (before bashing/whatever for certain things I have different viewpoints on certain aspects of MP and I clearly stated a few things;) )

For those games that actually are affected by it (don't know how many? Two, three more?) this is the same kind of DRM like having to run the Steam client and letting it check in order to run the game. No difference to Steam there for those games. So yes, it is DRM, not even stealth DRM but simple, plain DRM as it's known for a long time.

GOG has indeed also DRMed games now which is a pity although probably still only a few percent of the whole catalogue, I guess.

I mean how can Galaxy be optional, if you need it to play these games?? This seems to be a plain lie.

The solution is not to buy these games and not to trust GOG too far. They are tempted by the dark side, very obviously.

Anyway, you'll find it hard these days to see GOG advertising DRM free much. They rather don't emphasize it too much.

This thread is not really needed. GOG knows or has a good guess of what we like. We show it every day by buying here or elsewhere or not buying at all. They have heard our opinion many times before quite loudly even and I would dare to bet that they do what they do because they think it is the right thing to do, not because they are out of touch with their customers.

They may lose some customers and gain others. As long as they gain more than they lose, where is the problem for them?

thats what gog used to be, they abandon that in favor of releasing crappy indie walking sims with mandatory galaxy for multiplayer. cause thats where the money is.

To me it seems to be rather some kind of the same kind of fish. Single player or multi player or even online multi player, the publisher and developer always had costs, even after release (patching, offering the download, support, ...) so they are always entitled to verify that you are a legitimate buyer, aren't they?

But sometimes they decide on their own that trusting the customer is the right thing to do. In a way DRM free is the unexpected gift. Isn't it a miracle that people actually buy single player games here on GOG for millions of dollars when they could just pirate them by downloading the GOG installer from somewhere else? One could expect the same kind of miracle to happen for MMOs? Not sure though if this really happens but the logic is kind of the same.
Not only stealth but also the real deal.

Anyway there is nothing wrong with using Galaxy for supporting multiplayer as long as you do not require the customer to log in. I'm sure Galaxy can do that already or could easily be adapted towards it. You use it as a framework but require log in only for downloading. That's how I always had imagined Galaxy to work. Unfortunately it's more equivalent to the Steam client instead for online multiplayer.