Oh ok, sorry I misread that. All of the content, assets, and gameplay are stored locally on the players' hard drives. The single-player and multiplayer portions of the game are essentially identical, only that the former is versus the A.I. and the latter is versus other players. The only role that King-Art's servers have is to facilitate the connection between those players.

I think they may also employ some sort of stats tracking and matchmaking on their end, but that doesn't mean they couldn't allow players who have no desire for superfluous features such as those to use their own servers instead.

The way that King-Art has described the game, the focus appears to be split between pretty evenly between single and multiplayer. Like I said, it's essentially the same game regardless of who you're playing against. For me, with a game like Battle Worlds, both parts of the game are equally important.

Yes, Steam is DRM. Even Valve freely acknowledges that. Any software that requires permission from a third party to install or play has DRM. It's not a subjective term. People often draw distinctions between DRM that is "bad" and DRM that is "acceptable," but all of it is DRM.

When some claim that DRM like Steam is ok because "everyone has Steam" or "everyone has internet so who cares" or similar arguments, I feel they are missing the point of why DRM (account-based DRM in particular) is a problem. This point was made very clear a couple of years ago when Valve made a controversial update to their subscriber agreement that took away their customers' right to sue for damages.

Regardless of how you felt about that particular update, the problem is that if you didn't consent to Valve's new policy, you had to forfeit ever being able to play any game in your Steam library again, with no refund given. That is why this type of DRM is unacceptable to me, because publishers can update their terms whenever they like, adding whatever abusive clause suits their fancy, and if you don't like it then however many tens or hundreds or thousands of dollars you've spent with that company goes down the toilet.

Very recently? Not really. Blizzard games have used Battle.net for decades and since D2 it needs an account. Also, many old games required a Gamespy account (and even the client) in order to play online. Account requirement for multiplayer games is not new by any means.

By the way, not everyone considers account requirements for multiplayer to be DRM.

Or maybe they're just trying to make the multiplayer experience better by having an account system? To prevent people from trolling, hacking, griefing the game? There is no way to ban users without an account system (IP bans are completely useless) and that's unfortunately the only way to keep trolls and hackers away.

LAN multiplayer is. I loathe the fact that today's games in 99% of the cases use a central server and you can't play them only on lan. This is why I don't play multiplayer anymore.

Needing a key for multiplayer is not DRM. When using a company's servers you are costing them money and the key is there to prove that you covered that cost with your purchase. This is a technical necessity.

DRM is when it puts restrictions on you for no practical reason, like having to authenticate your single-player game online. One could argue though that a lack of any other multiplayer mode like LAN or private servers is a form of stealth-DRM. Or the devs are nerds and can't associate with people who want to be around other people, so why would you need LAN. Old Blizzard games for example allowed to to do just that, so if you didn't care for Battle.net rankings you could just play with your friends and use all sorts of mods.

It does not have to be bad by definition to be DRM, DRM is just any check at all placed onto digital content to make sure it is a legitimate copy. Requiring a CD key during install may be a simplistic version but would still be DRM. If they are doing something to "prove that you covered that cost with your purchase" as you put it, that is DRM.

In this case it is the closest DRM gets to being legitimate but that is not the issue here, it is still DRM and should be disclosed on a site that has the policies and selling point gog does on the subject - at least in my opinion.

I probably would not have made the mistake, but that does not mean I should just say someone who did make this mistake should be screwed because I knew.

Yes, CD checks are definitely DRM, online authentication was just one example. Basically anything that's not needed from a technical perspective could be classified as DRM (or copy protection, whichever you refer). That's also why no one is complaining about always-online in MMORPGs, it is technically required.

Though the Blizzard games earlier than World of Warcraft can still be played in LAN (and thus over VPN for online connectivity), without connecting to Battle.net. I'd be tthe same is true for most of the Gamespy-using games.

It is not a technical necessity. Every multiplayer game could include the option of either playing on official company servers, or allowing users to set up their own private servers. Many multiplayer games allow exactly that option. Private servers cost the publisher nothing - all cost would be incurred by the users only. And further, that option would ensure that owners of the game would still be able to play even after the official servers are shut down.

King-Art is not allowing this because they do not want to allow their customers to play the game without their permission. That is the definition of DRM.

It doesn't matter why a publisher requires authentication in their games. If authentication is required, in any form, it is DRM. DRM is not argumentative or subjective. People can draw their own opinions as to whether the restrictions are good, bad, or just acceptable. That doesn't change the fact that it is still DRM.

There aren't any publishers now who actually admit that the DRM in their games is intended as an anti-piracy measure - they all claim it's about "enhancing the user experience." Blizzard swears the always-online restriction is essential to Diablo III because it is a social game at its heart and allowing offline play would harm the integrity of the game. So because Blizzard says it is necessary, does that mean that Diablo III is DRM-free?

Wanting to make the multiplayer experience better on official servers should not preclude the option of players to play via direct-IP or via a private server if they want. Banning users for hacking or trolling is meaningless and completely unnecessary if I am playing an online game with my friend, so why wouldn't King-Art allow this?

ROFL, you haven't been on these boards for very long have you?

I am surprised you have not had a response from GOG. They could be called many things, but cowards wouldn't be one of insults. I suspect it has fallen through the gaps, or has been escalated for a more appropriate response.

Perhaps we'll get a bluetext in here to let us know the question will be addressed.

I've been with GOG, and on the GOG forums, since the very beginning. I know there is an attempt by many in the gaming community to change the definition of DRM to only apply to "bad" or "unnecessary" restrictions. But that will never be reality. Every game that requires permission from a third-party during installation or play has DRM.

I very much hope you are correct, but I suspect the reason they have not responded to my ticket (and probably won't reply here) is because of what I feared - They do not consider account requirements to be DRM, and so they have no intention of informing customers of that requirement on the store page.

I've been here a long time, I may be harking back to the team that was, but I'm pretty sure that the team that is, is still dedicated to helping the customer base (most of them are still the same people).

GOG are not treating their customers with such strategies as you suggest, and I will stake my own reputation in trust that they will respond to your complaint.

They're a good bunch in there, and they aren't trying to screw anyone over, they've just got a lot to do.

Well it's good to hear optimism. If they do respond to my ticket I will post again here.

Diablo is no MMORPG, there is no reason not to have an offline mode. They could make the auction house and community features online-eclusive. on the other hand World of Warcraft is an MMORPG, it just cannot be played without internet connection. it's not about what the developers declare to be an MMO, it is what the market decides is an MMO that matters. No one ever wanted to have an offline mode in WoW, but people do want an offline mode in Diablo 3.