Sorry but your thinking of it wrong. You can have it installed on every computer you own BUT you only have the right to play it on one of those at a time. Why on earth would it be ok to use your 1 copy on 2 computers at the same time?

No it's exactly piracy, it's using a copy you don't have the right to use. The games aren't freeware they are paid for and you want to use an unlicensed copy that is piracy...

Just because it's DRM free doesn't mean it's license free you still have responsibilities not to distribute it etc.

Yeah I don't remember ever thinking buying a DRM free game was supposed to give me such an automatic right. I'm buying a game that allows me ease of install, and is somewhat future proofed. That doesn't mean I get to call all of my buddies over and have a party off a single copy. Installing a copy on multiple systems and running a copy on multiple systems feels like very different things.

Its great if a game is made in such a way as not to care, but I don't really expect that one. Maybe it just because I don't personally like playing on-line.


I think it is fair to feel that it is some form of end user control, but I'm not sure I'm willing to extend to it DRM status given that on-line gaming has a certain amount of inherit future-play risk to it.

And you CAN use them but only you not a friend who is round, and only on 1 computer at a time.

I wasn't singling you out. Its understandable how one might be tempted by the possibility of such a situation. If you are buying games and not handing them out like Halloween candy I'm sure you can still be considered a good paying customer.

Why not? That's exactly what it is. Digital Rights Management. They don't want you to play that single license online with more than 1 person/copy at a time, hence the key restricts you from doing that. They managed what you can do with it.

It's quite clearly DRM. Just because it doesn't apply to the entire game doesn't negate that fact.

I realize it's a grey area. However, where No-DRM generally allows you to make that decision on your own, by only allowing you one key for your product GOG (or the original developer) basically made that decision/restriction for you.

Painkiller requires one for MP, I know that much.

In fact, it's very difficult to play more than one at the same time :-)

EDIT: No wait, reading fail. My interpretation: In a multiplayer turn-based game, only one person is actually "playing" at once, the others are just waiting their turn.

But I've just cloned myself yesterday since I'm short of friends ...
Am I actually suppose to BUY another game for playing with my clone even if I'm technically playing against myself since HE IS ME :( ?


That just sucks... pffff. Why did I even bother cloning myself then ?

Thats what PBEM or hotseat modes are for :P

Normally I think I would be inclined to make that mental leap, but for now I'm sticking with not sure, because I'm not sure if it is or if its just benign enough that I'm not bothered so much about it. Perhaps because its one of those "it hasn't effected me personally," things since the only game I have ever played on-line was UT2004 and I'm quite happy without that ability.

Depending on the scope of what is happening I could be persuaded to rethink my stance. Like when talking about clouding significant content or devs deliberately omitting any off-line modes of play simply to leverage the automatic control inherent to on-line gaming. But then I have to be careful because some games are only possible in a community setting and they should have the right to exist. But then why make games dependent on dev's own servers when players used to be able to create them on their own?

"Playing" is not equal to "playing well" :)

I understand that. I feel the same way about Steam. CD-keys especially can be considered especially benign.