Does anyone know if they are doing/planning this? A requirement like this would seem to be the multiplayer variant of requiring a game to be DRM-Free.

I wish more GOG games would have LAN capability. In some games they have been changed to singleplayer-only like Worms 2.

Not sure if GoG, at least at first, will really be in any position to "impose" anything to developers ;-).

But on the other side, maybe LAN, direct connect support could be a feature of Galaxy, allowing Galaxy games to transparently work either thought the Net or in a LAN.

Would this be any different from their No-DRM stance?

In fact, it's exactly the same I'd say.

As some people said, despite all the changes GOG has been through, DRM-Free has always been the one main defining factor of GOG. To have a game that is playable anywhere and is free of restrictions and services or who force you to be online.

And that's what LAN and Direct Connect allow a game to do. To be free from relying on multiplayer services that will have died out when you play your 'classic' 10-20 years down the line, and with LAN they wouldn't even require an internet connection to make use of the game's multiplayer features.

If Galaxy 'supported' multiplayer games don't have LAN/Direct Connect, they'll be actively promoting games to design around a multiplayer that isn't futureproof, an account based multiplayer service which requires you to be online. Between that and a game with LAN/Direct connect, can you really call the account based one DRM-free?

Hi!

Wow, maybe you are over thinking too much this matter, may I say. If wasn't for you, I would not have think the subject you are bringing out.

Now, lets see. GOG team has stated very clearly that Galaxy use will be OPTIONAL, so I trust them. On the other side you pull out the possibility of multiplayer games that will need Galaxy running/use mandatory in order to play multiplayer games. About that, I want to ask you, when a restrict multiplayer service have worked? Ask for it to Steam/Sony/Microsoft/Blizzard. We all should know that the answer is NO.

Neither GOG nor any company have the power to tell original game developers to change the way they are creating a game. And maybe I am wrong about this next, but most multiplayer PC games works with P2P connection so the lack of LAN option in the game shouldn't be a real problem since those games does not work in a dedicated server like Diablo 3 does, and most console games. That's why we can play through Garena/Hamachi easily and quick.

I kinda understand your concerns, however, we should not be negative about GOG team behavior, they are not the enemy and have demostrated how cool they are with GOG users. You know who the enemy is? Ubisoft, they are the new EA and even WORST. Anyway, hopes your thought did not became real and GOG defraud us :(

Cheers!

And who is going to write all that networking code?

GOG obviously. Remember I'm talking about the matchmaking part of Galaxy here. GOG is the one offering a multiplayer matchmaking service, and coding that part of it. Considering GOG's DRM-Free position, it seems only natural that if they're going to opt to handle multiplayer for other games, they should offer, or even enforce part of that to be LAN/Direct Connect.

@Montcer, I'll respond when I have some more time.

So, your solution is for devs to allow GOG access to their source code? You do realise that Valve or any other online service provider only provides server-side APIs that devs can call from their games, and that the actual client-side implementation of said APIs functionality still lies on the devs' hands right?

And considering that each game has a separate networking code written in a number of different languages, and that GOG has had so many problems running this website, let alone something more serious, I find your idea hilarious on so many levels.

I'm not a programmer so I'm not specific to how or what is feasible. So what you're saying is, it's not feasible. If that's the case then why not require it to be done if they want to make use of Galaxy Multiplayer, or give incentives to do so?

Are you fine with DRM-Free multiplayer being down to the developers discretion? Shouldn't GOG be taking steps to enforce it just like they have with their single player games?

That means that the GOG releases would have even more specific requirements than they have already, ones that may require a pretty large amount of additional work (depending on the game) and many devs would be even more inclined to ignore GOG altogether.

I think GOG should encourage devs to include offline LAN play but not make it a requirement to be on GOG.

There are client-side libraries, if I remember correctly the are written either in C or in C++ with various unofficial wrappers available in many other languages / frameworks. However, these libraries provide access and interfaces to the Steamworks service, they don't magically provide networking and syncronisation code, matchmaking algorithms and logic, and a billion other concepts that go into developing a multiplayer game. The point is, Pheace mentioned matchmaking and all of that, which is what I was referring to.

A service such as Steam or GOG could provide access to players' accounts, and keep storage of limited data per game per player, but it won't magically provide the matchmaking logic that each game does in a different way. Matchmaking logic in chess is completely different than matchmaking logic in Left 4 Dead or any other game. The services could store players' info and related data, but other than that, everything falls to the developers to implement matchmaking solutions.

I'm ... Not sure that's what Pheace meant, but I do believe that it would be feasible if Galaxy just offered an option of connectivity trough a GOG server and P2P connectivity. In other words, you code your game to make use of GOG API and that then takes care of LAN connectivity, rendering the game's multiplayer DRM-free... Sort of (presuming Galaxy actually has fully working offline mode)

The game wasn't "changed" to singleplayer only, the game's original multiplayer simply didn't work on any modern system, certainly not with any known methods that make other IPX games work. So in order to save both the users and the support staff some effort they removed the option from the interface altogether. But it's not like they intentionally crippled the game.

I have to wonder, though, whether it actually can be that simple in case of most of games. I mean, it's one thing to allow direct connections in case of a game that does not have any kind of meta game. But the moment account based character progression and maybe even more complex stuff come into play things will get messy. I have doubts that the Galaxy API can provide a reliable "one size fits all" solution for these scenarios.