I don't know the game but at least "leaderboards" are listed as a feature. Also cloud saves.

According to someone in the most recent post on Street of Rage 4's forum, it's indeed multiplayer

Race the Sun: Online features notice: In order to access the leaderboards and browse user-created content in-game ...

So it looks like leaderboards are considered online features, but it's not clear whether they're consistent about that sentence (would they ever write it if leaderboards and multiplayer were the only online features?). Do you know what the non-multiplayer online features are for Van Helsing?

Apologies if you already realized it, but you do know you're using the internet to post in this thread... right? It's not uncommon for modern developers to assume in a modern game that requires modern systems you would have an internet connection.

Saying that, I get the frustration, but there's only so much GOG can do. This issue is with the dev/publisher, and if GOG were to stand up and proclaim "FIX YOUR GAME OR WE PULL IT" that would severely damage their brand rep as well as decreasing the likelihood of HG ever publishing on GOG again for anything.

Is it worrisome to me that you need to have an online connection to update the quicksilver shop? Not particularly. Do I view this as DRM? No. Someone said mmorpg's can be played without DRM and obviously they don't realize the average GOG'er views *any* online requirement as DRM. I do not.

In a vacuum, you could say that GOG is slowly tolerating more and more. I do not see it that way. I see it as GOG probably does not test every game completely offline anymore like they used to, and for *THAT* yes that's a GOG issue.

They're still the best storefront around. I understand you all want to keep them that way because you love them as much as I do. However, instead of nagging GOG for a month, perhaps you should have contacted Hello Games and let them know your displeasure, as they are the creators of this game and its code.

If you did that, apologies for assuming you did not. It's incredibly popular around here to browbeat GOG into submission instead of browbeating the actual people releasing the games on GOG.

Kind regards,
-CymTyr

I believe Race the Sun's leaderboards are not Galaxy leaderboards. The game predates Galaxy and I believe its leaderboards (and user-created content, which is neither leaderboards, nor multiplayer) are tied to a user account on the developer's site. I may be wrong.

No idea about Van Helsing.

Sorry, but that sounds like a passive-agressive dismissal and completely misses the point. It's not a question of the modernity of the player's PC. The problem here is that the developer has given themselves the power to cut you off from accessing certain content within the game. They pull the plug or block your IP, and the game will obey. This isn't "game requires internet connection to reach other players," this is "game checks whether you've successfully authenticated online before unlocking certain items in a shop." Actually the average GOG user doesn't give two shits. There's just a few of us who grew up with DRM-free multiplayer, and we still care about it (most of the others can't even seem to imagine how DRM-free multiplayer could be implemented.. haha). And many among the rest of the users who don't care about multiplayer do start caring about it when you lock quintessentially single-player content behind third party authentication and call it multiplayer. Yeah you don't care. You don't mind some DRM. That makes you one of many. That does nothing good for the rest of the users who do care. But GOG knows about it and has done little about the increasing amount of DRM. Indeed, they support it with Galaxy. They just tell us that now this and that is locked behind such and such. It is clear that they are tolerating more and more of it. I agree that people should do that, but it's also important to discuss where GOG stands on this and what their responsibility is. It's ultimately GOG who promised us DRM-free games.

Meow.

True. The leader boards are dependent on a third party account - Galaxy is no help there.

Can't help with that. Always played offline.

Thanks for not chewing my head off. I'm not trying to be passive aggressive, but I can only take so much of "GOG is bad because of X" when they're the least bad storefront out there.

Understood. GOG is the only storefront where I shop (I do also have an account on itch.io but I never bought anything other than the BLM bundle plus one or two titles).

I think it's less "GOG is bad" and more "GOG is pretty good but they probably should get their priorities straight and do the right thing." You just have to read between the lines a bit. And I think many of those who really do imply that GOG is bad are still talking here because they have some hope left in them that GOG might choose the right path.

If they don't.. well, for me there's a tipping point where least bad doesn't cut it and I can just stop buying games altogether. I imagine other people have slightly different values, and it is indeed possible that there is another store that is less bad (or about to become less bad) for them than GOG if GOG doesn't do the right thing.

The issue I see around requiring internet connections is to do with preservation. If a game today requires internet for something (be it multiplayer, whatever), then at some point in the future, those servers it is reliant on will be turned off and access to that content will be lost. If there is some small amount of single player content in NMS that is gated behind an online requirement, then in 20-30 years, when their server is eventually pulled, users will lose access to that content. So, in a sense, mandatory internet connections are similar to DRM - someone who bought the game doesn't actually own and/or control that content.

The way I understood it, GOG's mission was not just about making older games available, but with their anti-DRM philosophy, it was also about fighting to ensure that new games today will still be playable in 20 years' time, when they are themselves old games.

That is why we cannot and should not tolerate any DRM (even 1%), because it totally screws up the concept of game preservation.

The impression I get is that these days, GOG is seeing anti-DRM more as an inconvenience that is standing in the way of growing their corporate profits. The people in charge of the company clearly see it more as a marketing tool, rather than an ethical cause they truly believe in and want to fight for.

Someone else mentioned that in a comment on the wishlist entry. My reply to them was essentially two points:

1. I believe the message will be more effective and persuasive if it is delivered by GOG to the developer, rather than by an e-mail from some random user. The wishlist seems to be a good tool to send a message as a community that we feel action needs to be taken.

2. The game is being sold on GOG's store and I think they need to be 'in the loop' on this. They are claiming their store is DRM-free and so they have a responsibility to be aware of games that may include DRM and they should be more pro-actively enforcing their policy. So, I think there is also a message to be sent to GOG.

They're not at the bottom, but they're heading there. If they didn't offer game installers, I wouldn't bother with their constant nonsense and amateurism. GOG is only "good" because Origin, Uplay and Epic are trash.

GOG was about preserving older games. That changed in 2012 when they started introducing indie games that were considered modern at the time, and since 2012 there's been a misperception that was largely encouraged by them for what they stand for and what they do and do not tolerate from game publishers.

I'm not disputing that any DRM on this site is bad. I'm saying that the people like the person above this post, who complain about how poorly the service GOG offers is, are what triggers me.

I am all about game preservation where it matters. In 20 years, will you really be wanting to do quicksilver missions for No Man's Sky when in 20 years it will be considered most likely not a classic?

There's a point where you have to choose your battles. That's all I'm saying. I was more trying to point out the hypocrisy of the people who seem to despise GOG yet choose to post daily on its forums.

Anyone who wants GOG to succeed is an ally to me.

I own the game on Steam and then later bought it on GoG.com

I have over 500 hours between the two.

This really isn't an issue of a drm, as as it forcing people to play multiplayer.

I've gotten around this by modding in my own quicksilver. I log into on Galaxy and buy what I want from the Quicksilver shop, then I play the game without Galaxy again. Most of the quicksilver shop is cosmetics.

The Quicksilver shop gets updated so frequently with new cosmetic like items, it sort of acts like a cash shop in MMOs. It would be too much patching and the quicksilver shop is supposed to be rewarding players for playing online multiplayer.

Anyways, if Steam were to drop dead or Hello Games stopped updating the Quicksilver shop, then I could still play whatever is left of the game drm-free even if GoG.come and Hello Games stopped.

That would be nice for a post in 2013, but some of us have seen how little GOG cares about its old shtick. What you want to preserve is more and more a burden to them. I won't unpack my whole list of grievances, but you seem to be coming out of some time capsule.