Reposting Time4Tea's wishlist entry for better visibility:
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/remove_no_mans_sky_unless_the_drm_is_removed

*Sigh* This again?

I'd just like to point out that Absolver has been here for ages - featuring single player content locked behind multi-player events.

I remember feeling excited about the concept of the game, but then being instantly disappointed when I finally learned what they did with it.

I've pre-ordered the game back then, having pointed out here and on the game store-page review, and this is NOT an excuse to let them keep this way, if anything, it should serve as the opposite, to AVOID further BS.

So is this sentence, from Absolver's game page here, incorrect?
"The single-player mode pits you, and you alone, against lost Prospects and legendary warriors in the ruins of the Adal empire - complete with all content, free of interactions and encounters with other players."

Never said it was an excuse of any sort and I agree with you. I was just pointing out it's been done before, sadly.
If you want to level up your character to the full extent the game allows, you can't really do it without multiplayer. I guess you can go through all the content in single player once, but to revisit boss battles on higher tiers, in single player, you first have to go to PvP.

I'm not faulting that, I'm more worried about the slippery slope. I appreciate peoples' lack of concern, and I understand it. I disagree with it, but I don't completely miss your point. I just feel like it is something that should be addressed by GOG in some way other than "They added gated content. We know, but we are celibate, because we give zero fucks."

You can do it in singleplayer BUT the game is design with you interacting with other players online. Unless you are not into that you might as well skip it as it's the games main selling point.

Thanks. I would say, then, that the sentence is incorrect.

One more question, as all this is all news to me: Was this the case since day one, or was this introduced at a later update, like it was with NMS?

Grown ups are talking. How much one does or does not like Galaxy does not even factor into this. I love Galaxy (mostly) and I'm still fervently against this.

Since day one - which is why I think nobody took it to heart that much. I was expecting single-player content on par with what you could do in PvP (with optional multi-player), though, as some have mentioned, the game has been marketed as a multi-player-first experience in the end. Which led to a lot of disappointment, but ultimately it was the developers' decision.

That's a horrible idea. If they were to remove No Man's Sky from GOG, then the devs would stop providing any updates to the GOG version of this game.

And thus everyone who has already bought it would be getting shafted a lot worse than they already are in relation to any of the allegedly DRM-gated content that is being complained about in this thread.

Thanks.

I respect your view.

Three points:
1) Time4Tea's suggestion does not call for unconditional removal. His other option is that "(what he calls) DRM is removed".
2) Delisting a game does not mean that it has to stop receiving updates (just like having a game listed on GOG does mean that it actually receives updates available on other stores). There are games on GOG that are no longer for sale, yet continue to receive updates (though, admittedly, not many).
3) The question is what is more important to you (and to others), having updates for this game, or not having any single-player features locked behind online-only walls in any game on GOG. For me, the latter is more important.

So, basically, once you get some people to buy your game here, you can introduce DRM into it later, using them as hostages. Thus, GOGs DRM-free policy becomes a meaningless joke.

I will repeat again, but for the last freaking time: no one sane could blame GOG for the game that violates their basic policy being delisted. If people should have a problem with that, they should pick it up with the devs. The idea that GOG should start allowing breaches of their fundamental policy because the alternative might inconvenience some users is insane and makes basicaly any store policy a flimsy pretense.

I don't, it's bloody ridiculous.