Nope I'm not saying that. I don't think it's DRM because non of the more common definitions of DRM have ever included online multiplayer under the term DRM (even if the term is highly debated). DRM to me is a system that is designed and coded into a game with the explicit goal of restriction after sale like SecuROM or other systems. If a game includes account based online multiplayer or LAN has always been a design choice to me. Account based online multiplayer is not done typically to control what you do with your purchase (what DRM does) rather to prevent cheating, create community features, offer leader-boards and other online account based features. And a developer should be free to do that if they want to design there game with those features.

It's the handful of extreme right wing people in the forum that believe account based online multiplayer is DRM simply because a handful of people here believe everything a game offers should always be attainable offline or online. Even though DRM has never really been applied to online multiplayer systems.

However GOG is the one who determines what they consider to be DRM free, not us because there is no universal definition of DRM or DRM free... and it's pretty clear they hold more to the overall definition of DRM free which is being able to install something unlimited times, without restrictions or annoyance during installation and being able to play single player offline indefinitely. And that is pretty much true for every game on GOG.

The only part of Galaxy that can be argued as DRM is the account based online multiplayer, and what I'm saying is it's been here all along... with or without Galaxy. And don't give me people don't know... most people just don't care about online multiplayer being restricted. As I said it's the handful of people on the GOG forums that think all features should be usable offline or online, and they bring it up with every game like this. They did it with Victor Vran, and they will continue to do it probably with every new release that requires Galaxy for online multiplayer, which is only going to increase as we go on.

But the vast majority on GOG either don't care, or don't consider it DRM, and that is clear because even with all the complaining these games usually still make it up there in the top 5 bestsellers list, if not number 1... so at this point you either accept it or you don't. These companies are not going to cater to GOG, they don't need GOG... GOG needs them. They might sell here and largely (or arguably) DRM free to pick up some more sales, but there not going to design there games to cater to GOG users, especially years later in case of when a game get's older.

I'm rather glad though that GOG has at-least managed to get what I feel is more important unrestricted installs and a unrestricted single player experience.... that's personally all I want from my games.

Since I don't play multiplayer games, I don't care much about how GOG handles multiplayer games. But I still think that there should be some clear rules about how multiplayer games should be handled in GOG/DRM free world.

I think that there are two types of multiplayer games. One is a local multiplayer game and another is an on-line multiplayer game. In local multiplayer settings, you don't need third party to play games. You only need your computer and your buddy's computer. However, in on-line multiplayer settings, you need third party to play games. The third party can be the game developer itself or game vendors such as GOG, Steam, or Origin.

My understanding about DRM free games is that they should give you a full control of your games. This is actually only possible for single player games. In local multiplayer games, you need your buddy. But as far as your buddy is happy with you, you still have almost full control of your games. However, in online multiplayer games, you will never have a full control of your games. Regardless of who provides you multiplayer servers, there will be the time when the server will be shut down.

Steam and Origin are both game developers/vendors. Unlike them, GOG is a pure game vendor. Steam and EA are both big corporations unlike GOG. Then probably you can say that Steam and Origin will be there for the next decade at least. How about GOG? I wish GOG will stay with us for a long time. But we are not as sure about GOG as Steam or EA. On the other hand, game developers tend to drop multiplayer servers fairly quickly especially when the games are not popular. GOG multiplayer servers will serve any games in their catalog as far as GOG is still with us. Then which is better between GOG and game developers?

I think that the reliability of online multiplayer games is fairly poor this way. On the contrary it might be a good idea to enforce the implementation of local multiplayer in any newly developed games which wish to sell their games on GOG because local multiplayer mode doesn't need 3rd party services and reliable although this type of restrictions probably hurt business for GOG.

The right answer about how online multiplayer games should be is thus not easy.

And a central server where your account or key can be revoked and excluded from playing at any time is no such mechanism? Not to talk about "revoking" all accounts by shutting down the server.

Most people also don't care about DRM. But that never has been a reason not to fight for DRM free products. ;)

DRM free music and games have been a dream some years ago. We are much closer to it now. Free and unrestricted multiplayer modes in all multiplayer games may be a dream today. But there's also no reason not to fight for it. Not implementing it in Galaxy is a missed chance for me.

Indeed, unrestricted single player mode is a first success. We agree on that. Regarding multiplayer I'll stop here. I won't convince you to care more about unrestricted multiplayer modes and you won't convince me not to fight for it. ;)

Not necessarily. There are a lot of games which provide dedicated servers which you can run yourself. No need to rely on a third party server.

When you run the server yourself you of course have full control of it.

You're tackling the why and denying the what. Using a client app to play: what it is, is a form of DRM. Why they choose to use it is beyond the point because what GOG likes to advertise is that all games are strictly DRM-free. If matchmaking is not for free, the code for multiplayer is complicated, if you "completely agree" with the decision, it's all fine. It doesn't change the fact that this DRM in a game in GOG.

GOG created the policy they're breaking, not me. You don't care about a little DRM, so why the hell do you care if people are pointing it out?

But that is the problem: What comes next after implementing DRM-multiplayer with the so-called optional client? People care about and I don't think GOG needs companies like Kalypso here. I have no problem having here a store which refuses newer games because of their featureset. But I have a problem with GOG now breaking their own ruleset more and more. We've discussed the same issue with Victor Vran and there was some kind of compromise regarding the multiplayer-mode. To mention about Two Worlds: It was designed as client-server-model compared also to Victor Vran and I was exactly aware about that issue when buying the game. But I also knew about the DRM used for the complete game and I was happy with that. But know the DRM comes right now into this platform and that makes the difference for me. Multiplayer-modes of games may be inoperable after some time, for example when using a service like GameSpy. We are not talking about an external infrastructure or some kind of service like GameSpy: We are talking about this complete platform here. And as I've mentioned in the beginning of my posting: What comes next? The installer only to be downloaded with Galaxy? Side by side the groundbreaking principles of GOG are undermined with that.

Like many other posters here I have a big problem with GOG breaking their own commitment to DRM-free games more and more as the years roll by.

It was bad enough that they stopped focusing on only GOOD, OLD games, but the lack of commitment to their initial promise of a totally DRM-free catalog has made me stop purchasing much in the past 2 years.

If it continues I will soon stop supporting GOG entirely.

Ridiculous discussion. Its the devs decision whether you can play multiplayer without running services so why accuse GOG of anything here? Should they just let this one slip? Get used to how it is (if you aren't already). For the devs its just not economical to let the mp features work on its own (LAN, dedicated servers, ect) because half of the potential customers will download your game from torrents. Be happy now that you can play singleplayer offline with GOG, and lets hope the crossplay thing gets fixed soon. GOG, please update us on that matter. thanks!

Now THAT is ridiculous, why would this logic not apply to singleplayer offline games?

I think the issue here was that GOG are such evil liars because they accept a game on their platform which is not 100% totally independent from any online service, even if its just the mp that needs identification. Erst lesen ;)

Oh, okay: So we should be happy with getting more and more half solutions, some little DRM-method here and there. Well, no thanks. Get used to it that there are more people not willing to accept that.

Sure is, but that is not all you wrote about, so maybe you should lesen your own post erst.

Why do you even buy games on GOG?

There's little use in having a DRM-free game that requires you to use the official multi-player servers if you aren't interested in the single-player.
You can bet that some day the official servers will be shut down, so why do you even buy a DRM-free version, then?

With not being able to play mp with steam users and the preorder DLC being deactivated I am starting to ask myself the same question.

It's not that I don't appreciate DRM free software but I am not a die-hard so I don't care at this point. I want what I paid for now. In my view that the mp is only possible with online services is as I said understandable. What is not understandable is that I don't have what I paid for right now. GOG feel totally free to jump in at any point taking my mind at ease that these things are in the process of being fixed hint hint ^^

In my opinion, it is rarely understandable or acceptable if a development studio implements an online multi-player function but doesn't allow you to use some sort of "private" multi-player (local/ lan/ private servers).

I'm sorry about that.