Yes there is a slippery slope, yes it's unfortunate how this multiplayer/singleplayer interaction works, but let's say GOG would get Homm 6 here, would you prefer they'd rip the dynasty stuff out completely or have it in the game but it would require connection once in a while to activate it? For example. Or Mass Effect 3 where multiplayer would affect single player? Would you prefer if GOG released it completely without it (and there is precedent - XCOM 2 for example) or would it be better DRM free but with multiplayer needing Origin/Galaxy/Whatever? With modern games it gets harder and harder to draw the line between online and offline stuff, so it's very hard for GOG to appease everyone.

Source: https://nomanssky.gamepedia.com/Update_3.02

Let's hope this settles it.
Of course it should be optional. But I fail to see any use in this kind of "control".

Let's hope the latest patch fixed the issue. Sounds like it.

You raise some interesting questions. Xcom2 was launched here without the multiplayer option, for instance.
Speaking for myself, if I had been given the choice to have the game here - but always needing Galaxy for it to work - in order to have it 100% complete or have the option to have it released here with cut content as is, then I prefer the solution we have now.
Although I admit that I'd have no problem in GOG selling games needing Galaxy for multiplayer gameplay, ONLY IF they provided a full single-player offline experience through their offline installers.

My, oh my. How embarrassing for some people on this thread, huh? Quelle surprise.

Same time next week, Breja?

Not really. Fixing an issue doesn't mean there was no issue. Doesn't make anything I said wrong, and doesn't make your hysterical rant any less mean-spirited and pathetic.

That said, has the issue actually been fixed? "Fixed an issue that prevented items from unlocking in the Quicksilver shop" could just as well mean that some people playing online were experiencing a bug that's been fixed, doesn't have to mean it's all available offline now too.

Well if not many GOG users are also forum users, then it makes sense that the outcry would be small if they might not even see this thread. That's why I've been confused about why nobody seems to be sharing anything outside the forum; did I miss something about this?

While I'm not upset on the level that others are, since most modern games don't even interest me (heck I rarely play games in general right now), I agree with Breja in one of his early posts that (iirc he essentially said something like this) things are just going to get worse and worse for DRM-free fans. Most gamers don't care. The more passionate DRM-free fans might prefer GOG essentially go out of business fighting for DRM-free/"die a hero", than "become the villain" (or something like that); I don't know if I agree with that (especially since GOG has employees that would be out of jobs), but I can sort of see that argument, especially with emotional investments for this service.

Sure. ;) You "still think he's not a cripple," right, Walter?

This is hardly what we are looking for: this is more about an hotfix regarding unlocking items from quincy, which is a different thing.

Also @ToxicTom, regarding one of your previous post in which you said "quicksilver can be obtained in SP fine", it's utter BS: the quantity is very limited and the grinding for it would be a terrible idea to follow: the unofficial "fix" (the save editor) is still the best solution, as it enables both dailies and the quincy shop items as if you would be online, shoplist of which cannot be obtained through offline only, during normal gameplay, unless you connect the game online.

Fingers crossed. It's not out on GOG yet based on the version numbers, but I'll test it and report back when it is. Thanks for letting us know about it!

I will say though, if this is fixed and really was a bug like the notes there suggest, it really adds question as to why GOG's response to all of this was to add that bit to the store page.

By the way, while admittedly I haven't kept up with the thread given how much it's taken off, I want to thank you in particular for staying respectful despite being one of the only people expressing skepticism over the issue (at least earlier in the thread before I stopped reading everything). That can be a tough thing to do when feeling outnumbered, especially when it's an understandably sensitive subject like this where people are going to be very passionate about their viewpoints.

I hope GOG gets the offline installer for the patch together quickly. Awaiting your report then. :-)

I simply believe in "In dubio pro reo" and detest the "hang'em high" lynch mob mentality some people show, not only here, but in general.
I'm sure most people mean well, want to protect what they feel is "theirs", regardless which side they're on, but rash decisions based on black-and-white thinking never lead to anything good in the long run in my experience.

I know it's probably hopeless, but still - can we stop with this "lynch mob" nonsense? It makes as much sense as calling you a "russian bot" would. You disagree with the arguments raised by me and others concerned about GOG breaking it's rules? Fine. But no one here acted like a "lynch mob".

The offline installers for NMS were apparently updated today. For those who have the game installed, can anyone confirm if the new version fixes the "online" issue?
Thanks in advance.

I think the difference between the two groups here is not necessarily "do I care or not", but "was this intentional from GOG or not?".

Some in this thread seem to imply that this is GOG's plan, as if they have asked Hello Games to design the game so that some single-player content would be available only online with the Galaxy client. And that now that it was "called out", GOG just tried to brush it under the rug by adding a note to the game card page, and that's that.

To me this sounds much more plausible:

1. GOG had no idea there is such a feature in the recent NMS update that introduced single-player content that is locked online.

2. After they found out (due to public outcry), their first reaction was to add the note to the gamecard, as a "warning" to potential buyers. This is the least they could do. (Some claim this was a proof that "GOG doesn't care", which is just ludicrous. It is the exact opposite.) And no, I do not believe GOG staff wasted their time play-testing every new game and update for things like this (especially before they are released to the site), I am pretty sure they have other duties as well.

3. On top of that, I am pretty confident GOG has already contacted the developer what is the deal with this and could they rectify this somehow. I'd be surprised if they haven't. Naturally those who still believe this was GOG's plan all along think the opposite.

So this is basically a similar case as with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided (where some DLC couldn't be activated without Galaxy, if I recall correctly, but was fixed quite soon afterwards), most likely.

Is it somehow possible to check that with a fresh install, or do you have to have played it for some time already?

I have the game on GOG.
I am not using Galaxy.
I haven't installed nor played the game yet.

I haven't played NMS (although I have seen some YT videos/reviews), but honestly the more I hear about it, the less it appeals to me.

First, this thing about major content updates being made to the game years after release. I mean, if the game isn't finished then it should clearly be labelled as 'in development'. If I buy a game that is labelled as 'released', then I expect it to a certain degree to be stable and 'finished'. Sure, I'm ok with patches if there are bugs or issues that need to be addressed, but imo major content additions should be in the form of (optional) DLCs (whether they are paid or not). Otherwise, if the game 2 years later isn't the same game that I bought, what do I do if I don't like it? Will they give me a refund 2 years later? From what I'm hearing, it sounds like the devs should have cut the cord on this baby several years ago and incoporated some of this extra content into NMS2.

The second thing that bothers me are these reports of being able to 'dip into' and out of multiplayer at the touch of a button. I don't know about anyone else, but personally I like there to be a clear distinction in my games between SP and MP. SP should just be single-player, standalone content. MP should be clearly separate - a different instance of the game, hosted on a server somewhere, that keeps a healthy distance from the single-player experience, for those that aren't interested in multiplayer. From what I'm hearing about NMS, it sounds like it is almost an MMO in disguise ... you can pretend you're playing it SP, if you want to, but the MP is always there, lurking behind the curtain. The first point about ongoing major content updates also seems like something you would expect with an MMO.

It's not a game I feel very inclined to try (I'm not a fan of MMOs either) and I hope it doesn't become a model for how games are structured in the future.