Except they are not, they are still DRM-free it's just that you, and some others, disagree on the extent of this DRM-free "coverage".

Since the beginning DRM-free hasn't covered multiplayer, some peoples act all surprised now like it was some recent proof of Gog dropping their principles, but we had games using online activation for multiplayer more than 10 years ago already and we had countless ones since or games where the multiplayer was removed.

Nowadays they haven't drop the DRM-free any more than before it's just that they don't consider optional, cosmetic stuff, or stuff that don't impact single player gameplay, as being important and covered by the DRM-free promise. That's why when it's a real DRM issue like the Deus Ex or the Escapist Walking Dead one they fix it while they don't care than an optional paint job on X4 requires you to create an account with Egosoft.

If they were really "DRM-agnostic" like you pretend they wouldn't need to do the former.

And again it's not exactly a new thing either because before Galaxy those type of bonus were often simply missing from the Gog version, and lets not talk about all the store exclusives that were popular a couple of years ago. Ironically less peoples complained about it because it was less visible.

You can agree or disagree with what is covered by the DRM-free coverage, you can even ask them to remove totally this optional content like they did before, or make it more visible on the game page, but saying that they are now a DRM-agnostic store is plain silly.

Thanks and thank you for being so understanding and for writing such a civil reply back.

Agreed.

To me this would be one good compromise, as then people could avoid the titles that have things in them that they don't want(or things like skins and such cut from them).

It was never much of a problem for me, thankfully, as I don't trust businesses too much in general & also I strip DRM out of games I buy.

(As I told another: DRM will sadly likely not go away, barring a miracle...so I just make do and give less money to DRMd games[sales/used copies] before stripping out the DRM)

Many businesses do this, either at the start or in time.....which is why while I don't often boycott, I do criticize companies like gog/etc constantly.

I know it's not to me, but: they don't state the percentage of drm free anymore, now do they? ;)

(reminds me of 100% beef patties at Burger King...they're actually partially soy filler....but the BEEF is 100% beef, so they can label them 100% beef. Gotta "love" business technicalities, eh?)

For some like me, it is drm, but is also "not as big a deal"....like in the case of 2077's skins.

That's OK. no one likes you either.

or indeed diasgree with what DRM actually is

Maybe because veganism is an ethical choice based on principles? It just doesn't make sense to pander to something you're claiming to be fundamentally opposed to, and not just because it's against your own preferences but because you actually deem it unethical and harmful to all in the grand scheme of things. The whole "live and let live" argument is kind of ironic when used as defense for mass consuming the life essence of other sentient beings and hurting nature in the process. The reason why vegans are disliked is precisely that noone likes to be made to feel like you're supporting harmful and unethical practices. Anyway, where do you live that every restaurant panders to vegans? Sounds like utopia to me ...

But here's the thing: if you give in at all, you give up it all. There's no meaningful way to draw the line with where it's acceptable to carve out the content, so the only rational way to treat it is with total intolerance of fuckery. No DRM.
No, that's a terrible compromise. You say that as if compromise is a good thing. It's not. It's a total "fuck you" to us. Those who don't want to avoid the shit titles can go to myriad other storefronts that enjoy getting off on giving customers nothing in exchange for their money. This move would make GOG effectively valueless.
I don't get why there are so many people (you included) who are in such deep denial that the demonstrated things are DRM. The games in question are not in any way DRM-free. It doesn't matter that "most" of the game is DRM-free. DRM-freeness is kind of an all or nothing thing. You can't be DRM free and have DRM.

In that case Gog wasn't a DRM-free shop when you joined as there was already games using online activation for multiplayer.

That's the difference between pragmatism and fanaticism, some peoples consider that if you can play the single player part of a game offline installed on a computer that never was online then it's DRM-free. It doesn't matter if there is some optional multiplayer component that requires activation / client / etc... and it doesn't matter if there are some optional cosmetic DLC that might be missing because they requires some subscription or other non-sense.

And I think that Gog decided for the later too. Of course if you want to be a purist you can say that a game like X4 should be rejected because there is some paint job that requires an online connection, but is it really smart to refuse a 100+ hour game that can be played fully offline and DRM-free just because of some optional skin ? especially when the game is mod friendly and tons of paint jobs mods exists, including one containing the exact same one that you can unlock online.

Of course the line is not always perfectly clear and you have some games like Absolver where it can be discussed whenever or not the single player part of the game is "enough" for the game to be considered "single player" at all, given that the endgame is mainly multiplayer only and everything you do after completing the short main story is training for PvP fights. But those are exceptions and not that common.

I'll just leave you with this quote and let you contemplate it's meaning for a bit:

“The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.” - Confucius

=-=-=

Well said

Absolutely 100% agree. There is no room for tolerance or compromise with DRM-free. The whole concept is based on rejecting pernicious industry trends and not compromising. Once we start 'compromising', we will be on a slippery slope: you compromise a little, then they push it a little further the next time. There is a reason for the phrase "if you give an inch, they will take the mile". I will fight tooth and nail for that inch. That inch is critical, because if it falls, everything falls.

If GOG turns into a store that has some DRMed games that are clearly labelled, they will be no better than Steam, which also sells some DRM-free games. Those that want DRMed games can go and buy them somewhere else. It's not as if they don't have enough options already.

"Survival is insufficient." - Seven of Nine.

I think Confucius may have missed the peasant with sickle in hand.

(And did you 'contemplate' yourself?)

X4 contains some single player content which can only be accessed by creating an account with Egosoft.

That is a fact and it is also a fact that this is by definition DRM.

You are of course at liberty to justify your personal acceptance of DRM on any title, be that because you believe its a really good, engaging long game or because you believe the DRM'ed aspect is superficial or the DRM'ed content is cosmetic or can be bypassed by mods.

The nature of the content protected by DRM is irrelevant to the fact that it is DRM.

This brings me to my final point:

This game contains a DRM element by definition. Gog claims to be DRM free.

Hopefully you can see where the confusion lies.

I don't even remember what i said. did i say FCK or FCUK the fashion brand?

I suppose, it's an action when one wants to sound louder.