Bethesda's Horse Armor was laughed off the yard. Did anyone really spend money on this? Not anybody I know.
What maybe paved the way for endless content additions was MS Flight Simulator. I remember whole shelves lined with boxes for single planes or airports, and they weren't cheap either. Someone must have bought all those little expansion - shelf space was valuable after all.
I guess companies like Paradox and Slitherine were inspired by that.

Well, after Witcher 3 people were begging for a stand-alone MP Gwent game. I guess it was too tempting to cash in on that. At least it's F2P. I doubt it drew serious resources from SP game development - it even spawned Thronebreaker as SP version.
In case of CP2077 we simply don't know anything yet about how it'll work, and will be paid content. Frankly, I'm not interested in it anyway. I'm pretty sure SP and MP are made by different teams. Art assets will be double use anyway, game design is vastly different, and story telling... well.

One thing that serious binds resources is MP infrastructure, and that is managed by GOG. No wonder they don't find the time to fix the website and Galaxy development is so slow and bumpy.

Please stop using the downvote button on posts that don't agree with the consensus. We're better than this.

And after Oblivion, Bethesda (the publisher) became probably the best out there when it comes to substantial and worthwhile DLC packs, after CDPR.

I went back to play No Man's Sky yesterday after the newest update. I've been playing offline and didn't notice anything different about the game. Thanks for this topic for lettimg me know that there might be content that I'll need to go online to access, but I doubt I'll get far enough in the game to find it.

In other words, the applicability of GOG's DRM-free policy should be determined by the game's popularity. I guess GOG should just bring on in all the AAA titles with whatever DRM the publishers wish. After all, those games have a lot players.

Do they work offline? Because NMS does work offline, start to finish. The only thing you can't get is an item which leads to a single mission which leads to a - admittedly - cool looking ship, which is still afaik not more useful or important than any other ship in the game.
All other stuff you can earn with "community missions" are decorations for your base. Should those be forbidden too? Because it's "DRM"?

Have you played the game? I have the feeling most people here don't know what they're talking about.

If there was a racing game here, with dozens of cars and tracks, all available in SP, complete with a campaign, different modes and all that. And the devs adding tracks and cars all the time - all SP. Except for one (nice looking, but otherwise not special) car, which you only can earn by winning an MP race (and can than use in SP too), would you scream "DRM!"? Should the game be delisted?

Again, this has nothing to do with real DRM that prevents you playing the game or enforces censorship. It just hides a bonus item from you, which you can earn in "community play" as a reward. Compare this with people losing their Steam accounts, GTA soundtracks being crippled, Germans forced to play censored versions, Amazon removing 1984 from people's Kindles. Because that is DRM working.

If they removed the Living Ship completely, would it be fine?
If they had added the Living Ship as free or paid DLC with a remark "MP only", would that have been fine?

Yes, I see how you might get that impressions seeing how you are the only person here constantly either misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting the issue.

I'll try to explain once more - the content in question is not inherently connected to online play. It is only arbitrarly made an online only feature by the decision of the devs and GOG. How "important" the content is is entirely immaterial. It is really. Very. Simple.

OK, so said content is made an online only feature. Thanks for clearing it up.

I'll probably buy NMS in the future, sans that online feature, as I prefer single player, and said online feature does not take away from my single player/offline experience.

This indeed sucks. And If a game had that at launch, I would be mad at GOG for selling it. However I don't think some of us are wrong to point out that it's A) a tricky thing long after launch, and B) is far, far different from a real DRM authorization.

Dear GOG, fix the problem asap. I will not be buying games here anymore in case i have to research if a games single player component is indeed fully drm-free or not before every purchase .

Just sain in case a gog emplyee reads this.

So... From what I could gather from all this controversy, this is almost as if in "Oblivion" Bethesda had required an online activation in order to get the Horse Armor quest or the private castles, is that it?
Since I never played NMS I have no clue about the game mechanics whatsoever.

HAHAHAHAHA! You think all of that was free? Heavens no, you paid it all in advance. 4 years too early, according to your claim of a day 1 purchase. They're just delivering now what they promised years ago. And you're being suckered into praising them for finally keeping their part of the deal. Should we also commend them for doing any other stuff that is expected of capable adults?

Maybe I'm just being thick here, but... why? Why does Hello Games needs to give an incentive to people who play online? Why do they "deserve" things that the offline crowd doesn't? Are they prettier than me? (Not according to my mom.) Does their shit not stink?

The only things I could think make them a more desirable crowd for HG is that
a) us offline old farts don't let their data be sold as easily (which I don't know if HG is doing);
b) the people who are used to restrictions, for example having to be online for an inconsequential SP DLC and stuff like that, are the first adopters of other anticonsumerist practices. It becomes easy to rationalize accepting an always online DRM for the whole game if you get used to doing it for their smaller parts after all.

Both reasons I could think of are inherently bad for us customers, but maybe you can think of some I did not. So fire away. I'm all ears.

I'm probably just being dumb but I'm just not seeing why this whole stuff HAS to be a "community feature" like you keep saying in the first place. It has zero interaction with the multiplayer mode other than being locked behind the MP gate. (BTW: isn't that DRM? Won't that perfectly SP-adequate content disappear the day HG's servers shut down?)

If you're going to claim I don't know what I'm saying because I never played this game... you're partially right. I never played NMS and do not want to; I was never interested in it at all. However it's not the game I am concerned about, but the erosion of Gog's DRM-Free principles. If they accept HG doing this every other publisher will push some smaller inconvenience on us and our freedom too. This would be the start* of the slippery slope of Gog's last redeeming quality.

* or another step, depending who you ask

Gog Galaxy is great cause it has cloud saves, overlay etc. Don't see why one should not use it. Most people including me have over 1 tb of storage so installing a launcher doesn't hurt them much

That's easy to answer. Because it's optional, at least yet. So I don't care how many features you like about it, it's my decision if I'll use it or not.

Now either contribute something to the point of the thread or go away.