Any game that is "shine however only when they're played online" is just really poor design. Good design would make it work for everyone - whether online w/ other players or offline w/ AI/bots/party members.

And since you said you did "solo" this many years ago and since Nightfall does have bots/AI/NPC's/party members that you can have tag along w/ you (yes. I own all the GW pieces, but never finished it and own GW2), then all main-story and single-player content should work when offline period.

Plus, GW is actually decent w/ storytelling and stuff like that, too. Not the best, but it's at least there for solo-players.

There are say arena-based MP-style games like Quake 3 Arena, which are blast even in offline mode. More skirmish modes should allow for offline play and also offer LAN support...besides you usual tie yourself to THEIR central server stuff.

You can't tell me, there's no good games like say the MP for COD4: Modern Warfare or any modern COD just can't work offline in a skirmish mode, like say Q3A/TA does.

I mentioned Warcraft 3 several times now for a reason. When your games require multiple people and last short periods, in the range of 30 minutes, then a formal lobby isn't going to work. The time it take to look up players and get them together as a team is too difficult. The same can be said of instances like the entire MOBA genre(at least in the multiplayer aspect) or shooters like TF2, which dont function optimally when below 9 players on both sides. Meanwhile cooperative games like Artimis Bridge simulator and 4x games, where you are given games that go for hours and often multiple sessions with considerable coordination, are best served by direct Lan.

Guild Wars 1 I will 100% agree with you. Nothing in that design requires online play, but games dont work when you have a raid balanced with 30 people, and 29 of them are prescripted bots. At that point your involvement is so limited you might as well not be playing unless you design the game to give you much greater control. GW2 has a problem with non-scaling map enemies that make forming parties with friends for anything but dungeons far too easy, and dungeons requiring 5 people which makes close games with friends not very pleasant.

So yes, there are times when a game is non-functional offline without hard changing the design of large sections of the game to accommodate what is basically an entirely new gameplay system.
It also doesn't mean they understand it. Really who needs to playtest. If IO walked in and said "wlel this part of the game has online lockout, but it totally doesn't effect the game we promise," and the guy playtesting it doesn't know the game or genre(or game design) enough to recognize why removing the progression is a problem....it's easy to get past.

Also, GoG knew about the lockout, they have made it clear cosmetic and multiplayer frameworks as fine. But knowing does not equate to understanding.

About raids - those can be designed for lots of AI running around, if they want to go that route. And/or they should make those battles scale w/ the leveling scale just to the amount of players in the area and the level/levels of the player(s).

No, no you can't.. These bosses are made with the coordination of 30+ people. You can't take The Greta Jungle Wurm from Guild Wars 2 and make it work for one person. That boss, along with actually good raid bosses, is about timing and coordination, you need people to be in certain positions doing certain things and responding to certain threats. You can't just change the whole boss fight so one guy can do it. And you can't just put 49 bots in a battle make for 50 people, then the player would have so little say you might as well be watching a movie.

Sometimes, offline just doesn't work.

The irony here is, the more discussion I see about how a raid can't work with bots, the more it makes sense that raids and bots go perfectly well together, moreso than human players. Who better to coordinate attacks and time movements than bots scripted to react to raid bosses (and adds) and their various attack phases - which are also scripted. As you say, it would almost be like watching a movie - with the exception that you would still have to do your part ie move to the blob, stay out of the fire, dont die, etc. If you think about it - when in a raid with a well rehearsed and organised group, it IS just like watching a movie. The hardest thing to script for the other 30+ bots would be to make them simulate a FAIL in the same way only a bunch of humans could. Best part is the bots wont give an item that drops (which suits your class perfectly) to their bestie for their off-spec. >conniption<

I am happy that GOG at least listened to this and realized that it couldn't keep a game up that violated the basic reason this game shop was founded on in the first place.

Again online features i can get. I have no issues with an online game needing online. The game is useless even if it was playable offline since it needs the interaction with other players to be worth playing. You can't do anything about that, BUT single player elements needing online is unacceptable DRM and HITMAN had that.

Single player is were the line should be drawn and not tolerated. There is no line after that. If you allow that then there is nothing left.
And don't get me wrong i love Hitman games. I am from the few that even played the original first Hitman on PC.
I would love to have this game on my GOG library but i want a true free DRM version that allows me to play all single player elements of the game with no need for online connection to any servers.

Because of that i hope that GOG can manage to convince this annoying developers to stop with this silly practice they started with the last two HITMAN games and accept giving us a true DRM free version. After splitting from Square Enix and becoming independent i thought they will be more gamer friendly and yet their last two titles DRM features makes them seem even more horrible than big corporate publishers. In consoles they were even selling special deluxe editions with a statue of Hitman etc that had everything except the game.
Buying a game without the game. What horrible behavior. Of course the worst is obligatory online saves etc.

It's a 5 year old game by now going for 6 why are they still so stubborn on keeping their online connection demands is beyond me. The sheep that buy anything you feed them and had interest in this game already bought it in consoles and Steam anyway.
The only ones looking to buy it now are the people that want a more honest products with true ownership instead of rental until servers are kept up. There is no reason to be so stubborn and not get money from those players too.
The game run it's circle by now, they got their money from those tolerating DRM. Just let a new free DRM circle start that will also guarantee the preservation of the work your developers did even after your servers are changed or down or your company closes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
[url=http://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Digital_rights_management_(DRM]http://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Digital_rights_management_(DRM[/url])

I cant find DRM on GOG... Except that stupid DLC *for Cyberpunk* (that not for CB, but some features should be ingame, some else are not needed not here on GOG, not anywhere - and deffintely THIS one is not for GOG store - but again, technically this is not DRM at all).

This Hitman game got online account requirement removed long ago - before GOG, they not related to this. It still have online accounts, but offline single player content available without it. Instead of Steam version this one be really DRM free available offline.

Optional features only (3rd party ones, like mods in Quake Enchantment launcher Bethesda release). Alternatives? Removed that features entirely. Like any games in Steam with Steam Workshop (initially or after update - eg Star Wars Empire at War).

This is wrong too. Should be some balance. Or you got nothing - like this time entire game been removed. Now you dont have ANY offline content, cause you do not have any content at all.

Stupid jerks. You all are. Same lamers like linux-users whine about DRM in installers, or like those persons who dont like increasing price for gifts(sic!) (i wish Steam will have that functionality - pay games at hey cost in US to get proper US regional version instead of -RU ones, even for myself - not just as copy to some non RU-friends).

This means the dev's actually have to make the bots/NPC's good though.

About raids or things w/ lots of NPC's to help you out during big boss fights - they (dev's) could always do the spawning "monster closet: characters out of portals thing that Doom 3 did: just keep spawning them out of nowhere. Preferably, the game would do it where the player's camera is NOT looking (behind them, off to the side, etc etc), so it looks like they are just showing up naturally from somewhere on the map.
Can't wait until Back 4 Blood tries to get onto GOG....and nothing of much gets changed, when it comes to GOG. What a crap-show that'll be.

For those that don't know - always online game (even for solo mode); Denuvo is equipped too; basic game is accessible in solo mode (sounds like it's 5-7 hours); solo mode does NOT count for anything as there are no progression (no unlocks, no stats, no Achievement, no new Heroes to unlock there); true multiplayer is the ONLY way to progress.

See what happened when players give an inch to the stuff like Hitman 1: GOTY (2016) was doing w/ progression? Then you get madness like this and even more Draconian stuff, like Back 4 Blood's doing.

Games as a Service = Games as a Rental.

Do you guys think it will come back or IO will just pass on it? I was really looking forward to it but you know.. =/

It's been 5 years on a game they have no intention to keep up, and they outright tried to pull a sneaky to get the game on GoG. I wouldn't put money on any chance IO takes the DRM off of -any- release.

No word from GOG on what's been decided with IOI?

Honestly unless Gog do something themselves that IOI is ok with I highly doubt. As I said before if there is any chance of IOI ever making the online progression offline it would be with Hitman 3, I don't see them spending any money on Hitman 1 when the third one is basically an upgrade of the first two games and allows you to play their levels.

I don't think it'll be back. Unfortunately, I imagine IO probably doesn't want to spend the resources to DRM-free it or let GOG handle it. (perhaps not enough money to be made here to justify it)

Emphasis mine...how do you "know" that's what happened? If anything, wouldn't it be more likely that GOG were the ones who tried to "sneak" a DRM-laden release into the store while hoping there wouldn't be too much backlash? I ask this, given GOG's increasing direction towards DRM (content locked behind proprietary client requirements, partnership with Epic Fail where DRMed games can be sold, shifting definition of how developers and publishers can design their games how they want)?

Questions still unresolved:

-How do we know our existing games (not necessarily new releases) won't be "improved" with online requirements in updates?

-How did Hitman Online Edition come to release here in the first place?

-Why is there no mention whatsoever in the staff response to assure that GOG is and will remain DRM-free?