I suppose that it does not really matter to me if games like this get added to the catalog; I can ignore them and filter them out just like I do on Steam. My hope is that while modern gaming concepts are becoming a part of GOG reality, older games like Albion, Blood Omen, Dark Sun, Eye of the Beholder are still being actively sought out for legacy gamers.

I'm a bit biased because I already paid for it on Kickstarter (under the condition that it would be DRM free), but I figure things like this are ok.

It makes sense that you would need an account to use their servers, you need an account for GOG too.

The game itself is DRM-free, and so is LAN multiplayer. The only "unique activation" is to use their servers to play (and presumably not player-run servers?).

I'm not judging you in any way, even though i do find that attitude morally wrong. What i'm trying to say is simple: making multiple copies to be used by different people at the same time is piracy. Is it really that hard to understand?

Let me try to be as clear as possible. When you're playing local multiplayer in game that supports it, you're using one copy of the game. ONE. What you're proposing here is using TWO copies of the game on TWO computers at the same time: one that you paid for and another which is a copy of a game that you only purchased once for ONE user at a time. It's piracy, plain and simple.

Allow me to make an analogy here (another car analogy). If you have one car and you need to go to work, and at the sime time, a friend calls you and says that he needs a ride to work too, but he works at a different place than you. You have two options: you can either take him to his work place and then go to yours or not help him at all, because only one person can use the car at a given time. You purchased one car, not two. You can lend him your car, but then you won't be able to use it yourself.

There's no arbitray line. It's a simple matter of basic logic.

As far as i'm aware, Steam doesn't allow more than one connection to an account at a single time. And even if you managed to do it, it's against the ToS and Valve could ban your account at any time.

Like i said, in hotseat mode you're using ONE copy of the game at a single time, not TWO copies.

And what do you mean by virtual servers? You mean playing online? When playing online you're using ONE copy of the game. Each person connected to the server has his/her own copy. That corroborates to my arguments.

And let's make a distinction here that you are ignoring: being illegal doesn't always mean it's a crime. An illegal conduct just means it's against the laws, principles or a contract. In order for a conduct to be a crime there are other elements that must be taken into consideration. First, it has to be a conduct against the penal code specifically.

I think you're the one that should take a closer look at your insanity. Look at what i said: i stated that both your conduct and seeding a game on a torrent are piracy, just at a different scale. And that's completely true.

You proposed using one copy for yourself and one for your friend at the same time while you only purchased ONE copy. It doesn't matter if it's your PC or not, what matters is that there are two people using a single copy of the game at the same time. That's piracy.

1 copy=1 copy
1 copy=/=2 copies

You get it? Again, my point is not to judge you in any way. I don't care about what you do with your games, it's not my problem. What i'm saying is that, by definition, what you're doing is piracy. Whether you have morally issues with it or not is a different thing which is not the point of the discussion. And sorry if i was too harsh on some posts, i'm too agressive when voicing my opinions sometimes.

So server virtualization is fine? After all, a virtualized server can run as many instances of any program from a single installation. What about hotseat in games that don't normally support it? Left 4 Dead requires modification to enable two-player hotseat... does this count as piracy?

The reason I say your line is arbitrary is because you seem hung up on the idea of running two copies of software at a time. But a single person can do that just as well (as I mentioned before, I do that all the time with Terraria), and you don't seem to consider that piracy. What magic element about another person touching my keyboard instantly turns it into a crime? And if that is what turns it into a crime, then why is that not a problem with a single computer? What is so different about multiple copies running that makes it illegal where the exact same thing with a single computer is not?

I'm not arguing against the traditional arguments regarding piracy. I acknowledge that giving out copies of my software to install on other people's computers should be a crime. But part of owning a copy of software is that I should be able to use it in any manner I wish to the full constraint of the law, on devices I own. Shouldn't I?

And this opens a whole new bag of problems. If my license is only for me, then that means I can never allow anyone else at all to play a videogame.
Actually, it's more like I own a car and need to get to work, and at the same time a friend calls me and needs a ride to work. But according to my car contract, only one person is allowed to be in my car at the same time regardless of how many seats there are.

Or if we want to take the analogy to its logical conclusion, it's like owning a car which I can magically duplicate within any garage I own, but not being able to allow someone else to use a duplicate of my car so long as I don't give them permanent ownership of said awesome magical car. Also, I only allow them to use said magical car when they are street racing against me. But apparently that's illegal.
Actually, I do it just fine with Terraria, and have yet to get in any trouble for doing so. Not in hotseat, but in full multiplayer on multiple computers. The only restriction is that all but one of the installations must be running in offline mode for Steam, disabling your ability to earn Achievements or utilize the Steam service on any but the one logged in copy.
A virtualization server is one that runs virtualized instances of computers. Programs like VMware let a single computer act as many, and allow any computer running a client program to log in and use it as if their own computer.

With a virtualized system, I can run multiple copies of a single game with a single hard drive installation, off of multiple computers all accessing that virtualized server at the same time. Not multiple installations, just one. I had an Unreal Tournament 3 LAN party a year ago using this very technology, allowing our group to play on old computers rather than new ones.
A legal crime is any crime which is not a necessary consequence of the conduct of the agent but determined by others. An example of this is murder in self defense. An illegal crime is any act punishable under criminal laws.

So you have it backwards. Not every crime is illegal, but everything that is illegal is a crime.
Seeding a torrent has absolutely nothing to do with, or even any similarity to, what I have been talking about. Again, as I have stated over and over, but you apparently willfully ignore, I am talking about legitimate installation of software on multiple computers I own.

But let's check this concept for a second. Let's say I was seeding a torrent, and hosting it only to other computers I own so that I can have a copy of it on every computer I have. Do you think that's piracy? Yes or no?
Digital piracy is, according to the legal definition, the "unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright". So let's go through those.

Is this an unauthorized copy?
No. We are talking about fair use copies stored on the actual license owners devices.
Is this an unauthorized distribution?
No. No distribution occurs, and the files remain on the computers they are installed on, without any intent to distribute to other systems.
Is this an unauthorized sale?
No. The license owner has no intent of selling his copy, and no monetary transaction ever occurs.

So again I ask: where's the piracy?

So a game that has hotseat multiplayer can only be played by a single person, unless everyone owns a copy?

The problem with your example is that even if the principal bought a legitimate personal copy of MS Office for every single computer there, he would still be breaking the law. Microsoft explicitly requires business licenses to be purchased for software to be used as part of a business. And one business license functions for every computer in that school.

That sounds accurate. After all, making people connect to account servers would defeat the purpose of player-run servers.

However, I hope Planetary Annihilation is being used to set the bar, that other games would have to meet or surpass in order to qualify. The bar being accounts are optional - if they are present, player-run servers, and LAN.

Yes, if we can get a couple extra keys for cheap. I realize you don't want the world sharing one key, but I like to play online with my wife. Also, with my friends when I go over to their house. They usually have a extra computer (or three, we're nerds) set up so we can double/triple team a server. I don't see anything wrong with having one copy for those sorts of situations since I'm not walking off with the game.

Based on what has been presented here, you shouldn't need extra keys. If you specifically want to play with your wife over an internet connection, then all you need is the client's (your wife's) IP address, assuming you'll be hosting the game. And you can play LAN with friends.

While technically you should probably be having one licence per person in this case, I don't think it's going to make a world of difference if they wouldn't have bought the game anyway and if your friends don't have the game kept on their hard drives at the end of the day.

If I'm honest, I'm hoping that this kind of distribution approach will help revive LAN partys.

I said "No", not because of the game (didn't even watch the video) but based of on the features the survey wanted me to look at, and they didn't do a good job showing me why should I pay for the game or even why should I feel it would be a worthy addition to my (already lengthy) game shelf.

So:
- Multiplayer and skirmish focused gameplay
Skirmish is fun, multiplayer might be, too. But I like story, a reason to get into the mindset of the game.
Multiplayer is bound to wither in this game when another newer, better competitor comes, killing the game by degrees.

- Optional persistent online features
They are optional, so I care not for them.

- No activation
GoG standard, so not an advantage there.

- A unique key is required for Internet multiplayer
Minimal requirement, easily justifiable.

I don't like games without a single player mode (like Quake 3, Unreal Tounament, etc) that don't take into account that the single player still exists and some players just aren't competitive.

But if this game came, would I be pissed? Hell no! I'd welcome it. But wouldn't buy it. Games like these, in any genre just don't click with me. I hate competition.

It still seems to me that GOG is desperately looking for ways to grow without upsetting the fan base too much. I felt that this poll, and the previous one, appeared to be carefully designed so that reasonable people can't say no. I voted no.

Planetary Annihilation seems vaguely interesting, but I already gave it a miss on Kickstarter. And my vote of no isn't primarily about this game, it's about the principle of the thing.

Let's not forget the Sim City 2013 debacle, only a month or so in the past. There, we got a marketing campaign that tried to tell us the game was multiplayer-focused, people love multiplayer, and forcing a connection to play in a multi-player game isn't DRM. Of course, they were (and still are) lying through their teeth about pretty much every aspect of the game.

I like to play games single-player, on my computer, without giving the publisher the ability to disable my game at some unspecified time in the future. I don't want developers to save money by just not implementing an AI and relying on multiplayer for opponents, then calling the game multiplayer-focused. If we buy into this crap, more and more games which if done right could be perfectly well enjoyed in single-player mode will become turds like Sim City 2013.

As an example of what would be welcome, I'd like to see games like Torchlight II on GOG. Reasonably recent, but made by people who respect their players and give them good value. (Disclaimer: I already bought it elsewhere). This would fit in well with the spirit of this site. Or if you want to publish new full-price titles, try to get (say) the new Thief game, I'd buy that if it was DRM-free here and had reasonable reviews.

Problem is that you do get a complete game - as far as I understand it, there will be AI, there will be a skirmish mode, there will be direct IP to play over the internet and LAN modes, which means possibility of hosting your own servers. And if you want to connect on the official persistent servers, you can - but you need an account, of course. It's not a forced feature and the game is complete even without it - a completely different situation than Sim City.

For online multiplayer, it uses account-based system, to a degree. You say you don't want PA, yet suggest the same thing.
I hate competition more!

RTS? You just upset me. Well, any new game is a good thing, they all doesn't have to be some Indie games which I suspect that people who hate DRM or are so nostalgic that they don't even play newer games so they foam about those games so much that others are not heard. =)

Still, nowadays developers spent too much with multiplayer and too little with good story and single player campaign.

Even on steam there is some games which makes you register on some site to look at stats or what ever.

I mean why not, prob some older games have just LAN to play multiplayer and RTS games are better with real people (if I played some). So some activation key is better than non-working game.

So when you are releasing left 4 dead 2? =)

I would like that you would release more new games which aren't so much about multiplayer or who got biggest pixels.

I don't necessarily disagree... emphasis should be put on "that have some DRM in them..." ;)

I voted Yes.

- If it's added, we get to buy an extra DRM-free game and without activation.
- We can play it always without online dependencies.
- Unique keys for internet multiplayer are reasonable to me and there are already such games on GOG.
- The optional persistent universe is a great idea for this specific game, and one would obviously require to have a free online account for it to work (by the way, did you people know you need a free online account to purchase and download DRM-free games from GOG? *gasp*)

Principally, the game fits well with the existing game-catalog and philosophy of GOG.

Now, if an RTS game, an online persistent universe, or a campaign-less game is not up your alley, make THAT vote with your wallet, not with this survey!

The question, after all, is not "would you buy it" but "Whether or not this particular game interests you, do you feel that a game with these features should be welcome in our catalog?"

I see absolutely zero reasons to say "no" here.

So, yes.