Thank you - I already have. As I said however it is only about the German version so you can find my (unfinished) work only in the German forum here on GOG since I doubt anyone not German would be interested in it at all.

Props where props are due once again.....also i'm hoping others also get to try/enjoy the fruits of your labor as well.

Am I really threatening them? I won't give them my money for defective product (compared to Steam versions anyway), that's all. I think it's fair.
Just to be clear, I do have one of their games on Steam, but the rest of them isn't my cup of tea. And I'm not saying I'll never buy anything from them - you never know what's going to show up next and in what condition ;)

1. It is fair, but unless you were planning in buying those games in the first place the "threat" comes off as less substantial.

2. True and good points.

Hear, hear!! I am glad I am not the only one who speaks out against multiplayer DRM, which includes Galaxy requirements for multiplayer. Don't ask me, ask FCKDRM.com (accessed just now today):

"Backup, copy, use anywhere
No one else gets a say in how you store and access your media. You bought it, you own it."

"Access offline
Don't rely on your internet connection. If not on principle, then for stability and convenience." (good argument for LAN and other local forms of multiplayer such as splitscreen and hotseat)

"Keep your consumer rights
Don’t hand your rights over to corporations that wouldn't trust you. Some relationships are based on trust, others on control and suspicion."

"Support digital preservation
By choosing the right sources, you know that the content you bought will remain with you – no matter when it was created or for what hardware."

"Lose all access, just like that
Online ownership checks can, and do, fail. Scheduled downtime, technical issues, and corporations shutting down are just everyday facts of life."

In this case, it is not up to opinion any more than the logical law of identity is up to opinion. Please see above. Multiplayer is part of a game. If the only ways to access it are to navigate through DRM-requirements, then logic dictates the game as a whole cannot be DRM-free. If the guy at the sandwich truck blows his nose on half of my lunch, my lunch as a whole cannot be considered snot-free. It's not some "agree to disagree, matter of opinion" thing, it's a matter of determining the truth, which in this case is quite simple.

You may rightly point out that many of the games in question exclusively have their multiplayer behind some (DRM) requirement, such as needing to have a Paradox account or needing to log in to Galaxy. In other words, this is all they have, there is no option for LAN/direct connect/hotseat/splitscreen. Unfortunately there are many games that fit this description. I would hope you'd join me in demanding more developers make local multiplayer options (which should really be quite easy in the case of LAN, it feels like they almost willfully strip it out in most cases).

If the question is, do these games which have requirements for multiplayer and no local options, belong here? I would honestly say no, they don't, not in their current (DRMed) state. My reasoning being, is this a DRM-free store or is it another Humble which sells some DRM-free but doesn't really appear to hold it in much regard as a principle?

I know that you know about that thread, but it seems like a good occasion to link it here:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/lists_games_that_need_galaxy_for_multiplayer_and_the_ones_that_dont/page1

the only games of theirs I played was hello neighbor and graveyard keeper. both very mediocre games.

1. Most of the stuff you bolded applies to other clients which have SP portions tied to them/being online, imo.

2.a. The bit about an account being needed to play MP being DRM is a matter of opinion, though. To me it isn't DRM if one can make a free account and play any time they wish.

2.b. I think more games should have MP private server capability, but that is up to the dev sadly.

2.c. Again(to me) not DRM....and i'd rather have them than not as to me MP is not a necessity and i'd rather be able to play the SP portions DRM free(and even the MP portions via account based servers) than not be able to play them at all.

Also yes they hold it high as a principle...they also cannot tell a dev or force them to add private server/lan MP.

One could say the almost same thing about the legions of devs on GOG who can't be be bothered to give GOG customers feature parity with Steam on their GOG games, including Achievements. Instead, they give GOG customers inferior, feature-removed versions.

So why is there no massive, hugely popular thread calling for that practice to end?

Yet there are at least two massive, hugely popular threads on this tinyBuild issue which call for tinyBuild to be banned from selling games on GOG.

This is a double standard, whereby many GOG customers are cherrypicking which unfair treatment of GOG customers to object to, and which other unfair treatment of GOG customers to endorse...the latter of which they endorse just because they don't happen personally to like the feature that is removed from the GOG versions of the games.

So, until this massive outrage mob becomes fair & balanced by way of treating all instances of GOG customers being shafted with an inferior, feature-removed product as equal to one another, then I'm all for tinyBuild continuing to sell their feature-removed games on GOG. Because it wouldn't be fair or equitable to hold that against tinyBuild, while simultaneously giving a free pass and endorsement to all the other legions of devs that also sell feature-removed, parity-lacking games on GOG.

1. To be fair, Gog is about DRM free, not fluff features like achivements. They only added that stuff to attract the steam/etc users.

(Disclosure: i like some achievements...I just don't find them to be necessary to have fun with my games)

2. Because not everyone cares about achievements? :\

3. There are 3, actually....and maybe 4.

4. To be fair I would think more would want their games to be updated SP/MP than to worry about achievement,s which are a recent trend that not everyone is into.

5. Again, just because GOG doesn't give everyone every thing/feature steam/epic/etc do that doesn't make them bad for doing so.

I AGREE that we shouldn't rush to judge gog too harshly over this, though.

I already knew your stance on achievements, it's been stated so many times it's been seared into my mind. Don't worry.

Sidenote, what's your favourite game?

graveyard keeper is awesome, wut? the only downside is you have to be OCD to the extreme to get the most out of it. ain't nobody (without OCD) got time for that.

1. And that is all fine and well. I was just trying to point that one point out.

2.a. First off, you know I meant while the servers are running as "any time". Second, it may be a hurdle but it is usually an easy one to bypass/get past to play such portions of a game. It also(usually) doesn't impact a person's system negatively like some actual DRM does(like limit activations/installs and stop a game from working entirely).

But if we count ALL things stopping one from playing as DRM, one could consider hardware changes that make games unplayable to be that(in a way) as there's no guarantee that future hardware/OSs will play one's games 20-30 years or more into the future.

As one here said, hardware/etc changes will likely make some games fade into the digital ether(unless somehow "ported" to new systems over time) anyways regardless of being DRM free or not.

2.b. This, but again it's up to them to implement it.

2.c. Again, i'd rather have the games here and let people choose to play what they want & not limit it to what games I feel fit the store/my ethics or beliefs so everyone can play them. This is not me trying to be mean(btw) just how I feel.

2.c.b. Again, if they refused more games it'd likely turn even more people off and i'd rather have such games than not at all. Of course, not everyone will feel the same and I accept thus. I do agree about the bit about achivements(and SOME updates) not being always needed to enjoy a game, though, and also not being what GOG orginally touted.

To begin with, I don't think the "digital preservation" aspect of DRM-free games is compatible with relying on servers to play the game once you bought it. And I would even go so far as to include private servers in that. To add on top of this a mandatory client or company server would just compound the problem.

The criteria of whether something is DRM doesn't depend on whether it's an especially obnoxious DRM that affects someone's hardware. Valve's Scheme client on its own seems relatively benign, no one that I see is majorly complaining about load times, etc...but you agree it is nonetheless DRM.

And please don't make false equivalences; the distinction here is that there is really nothing the dev/pub/GOG can do about hardware progressing whereas it is an active choice on the part of the dev/pub to gate multiplayer to online-only sign-ins. Join me in demanding better!