So... how do you feel reading all these wall of texts? Zz (:

reading this forum is making me kinda sad..

considering all anyone who logically proves each other wrong

gets insulted by purpl because he's 'superior' to us all and cannot be wrong.

online account to play MP does not count as DRm

online account to access single-player+MP and your internet drops for a second you get kicked off = DRM

same with starforce oh you have a disk rewriter, i won't launch your game sorry no problem. = DRM

limited installs = DRM

AOW 3 does not have any of this, hell the only DRM that my version of the game has is steam because I own AOW3 on steam

the account system allows me to play with the lovely people who own it on GOG.com that is the only reason they used an online account to ensure the entire community can play togethor not be separated by the service with which they purchased the game.

What is the point of your post? you share nothing new. Like me, i have to repeat myself over and over again just because you have read the topic, made you sad and with all that you learned nothing.

Well, i don't like to insult people, is just a fact. I just let you know that you are misinformed or stupid (like BKGaming, that guy is... damn... :)) ). Anyway, i don't expect from you or anybody else to accept or to understand that as long as you can not understand and accept the fact that ANY form of control access to copyrighted material is DRM, like requiring a serial number to use the copyrighted material that you own or having to give my consent to let them spy on my PC every time i want to play a online game (or LAN :D) by authenticating on their servers. This is a ethics problem and also a privacy problem but the biggest problem is that the game was intentionally crippled just to restrict the usage of the same game copy by multiple users (that is DRM) by not adding features like LAN, direct TCP/IP, over email (the developer has told us that the data required to be send over email from a use to another is too large. Lets be honest, it can not be larger than the size of a save file. That was another lie). Is that easy to understand all that, you really have to be stupid to just keep blabbering about how non-DRM this game is.

I want to note again that online multiplayer is NOT a service. World of WarCraft is ONLY online multiplayer and is a game, not a service. But lets presume (just to prove how fucked up peoples can be), that online multiplayer is "a service", than why does this games doesn't have a multiplayer mode that it is not "a service", like LAN or direct TCP/IP, if only online multiplayer is "a service" and the multiplayer that is not online is actually the game (ROFL, BKGaming, tell me more :))))) ). Is it because their DRM requires you to authenticate to their server and if the game would've had those modes (modes, not services) DRM would've been useless?

Plain logic doesn't do too much good here but, anyway, people have voted, this game has DRM: https://secure.gog.com/game/age_of_wonders_3#reviews=1

That service is currently compulsory - as long as no other forms of multiplayer are supported (and again, I will point out that previous versions of AoW offered multiplayer that didn't rely on such services, and which still work today as a result) then it qualifies as DRM, though multiplayer-only DRM.

Singleplayer is DRM-free, yes, but GOG has promoted itself as 100% DRM-Free, not 50% DRM-free. So people here are perfectly entitled to challenge GOG's credentials, especially given their willingness to compromise on regional pricing to get AoW3 here.
If multiplayer is included in the game description, then it is a feature which consumers have as much legal entitlement to as single player. Your attempt to single it out as a "service" is both artificial and irrational.

If we look at the practical side of it without the whole philosophy:

If you paid for the game, you get access to multiplayer. If you got it illegally you can not. I would have to agree that it is a service as well to a certain degree. Basically you get the whole game you paid for and you can play multiplayer. It's not that big of a problem. Heck, I have not even touched the multiplayer and sunk hours and hours into it.

I can see the other side of the coin as well. It would have been better if they made the interface of the launcher:

A) Start the game
B) Start the game with multiplayer enabled
C) Options
D) Exit

And yeah, for multiplayer you need an internet connections. Surprising? No. It does not even take longer than 1 minute to make an account and use your key to unlock multiplayer. I'm sorry that you guys are upset and some of you rather wished this would not be released on GOG but I am damn glad it did. You see, on contrary to popular belief, I do think the developers cared. They put quite some effort in to make a GOG version of their game. They could have just released it as a steam exclusive. Instead they found a way around enabling both Steam and GOG players to play with each other.

I have showed the difference though time and time again, one your entitled too with a license the other you entitled to as long as they provide it.

I never claimed they "had" to use Triumps Server... many games go with player hosted servers or p2p. I'm saying there are clear benefits to such a system (dedicated servers, less cheaters, other services they can provide you) that they choose as a design choice for there game... and if they don't offer you a way to play without there servers doesn't automatically mean DRM. It's there choice as there the game developer, and because what there offering you is a service (something you know before purchase) what right do you have to complain when asked to make an account or when you know it will eventually go away because you know what there offering you?

You know before you buy a game that if they are not offering LAN/ or direct connection then they are offing you a service for however long they provide it. Do you buy MMO's knowing before hand that use a companies servers and are offing you a service that can terminate at any time then complain afterwards?

I made it clear before direct IP/ LAN is different... I was talking about online multiplayer provided by a company...this is a service.

Perhaps I should have clarified, when you buy a digital good or physical good (a disk or files on a hard-drive) you get a license to said good. There is no service involved for the single player of that good other than the storefront where you bought said good.

Clound gaming is a service... that you knowingly buy into, your are correct about that. Nothing is stored and everything is streamed with a service like Onlive. Like Netflix they are free to terminate service at anytime. So yes there are times when Single Player can be included in a service or have services intergrated... however we are not talking about cloud gaming... we are talking about a physical digital files that are stored on my PC and don't need anything other than my PC to function.

Rather if cloud computing is DRM is another matter.

I have never played SpaceChem... but there is no reason that I can see if they were to end there high score service that that should break single player? You would simply not be able to compare scores. Can SpaceChem be played offline? If so how does them removing there service break single player?

Again never said they "had" to use there servers, rather it's a design choice not DRM.

When you buy a physical/or digital game there is no service in single player needed to function (meaning nothing you need to be online or connected to for it to work) otherwise it wouldn't be single player.

I see no problems with my conclusion... I just can accept that a game company can provide me a online service without offering me away to continue to use the features of that service when it's not longer around. I can also accept because what there offering me is an online service I elect to use it knowing full well it's a service therefor I am not going to complain and call it what's it's not DRM. As long as I know before hand that the single player is not depended upon any service to function (thereby creating DRM) since single player needs no service to function and the my purchase of what I'm guaranteed too by a license remain intact.

This lets please agree to disagree... I really have no want to continue this discussion.

Until they shutdown the multiplayer server, or when they have server downtime, or until they otherwise decide to remove your access.
You are not entitled to the last word, just stop replying to him when you are done. (You don't have to reply to this message either).

Which was my original point if a company blocks single player within a service then this is when we cry DRM because single player is not depended on a service to function. Unless your connecting directly, 9 times out of 10 you using either A) a companies servers or B) a third party service such as GameRanger or Tunggle. To provide you with ways to do this is again a developers choice when designing a game.

Your really trying to use a near impossible outcome to relate it to this issue. The car is your's and is not depended a service for you to drive it... the car (like single player) is not depended on one manufacturer or shop staying open. You can get a new engine, fix it yourself or take it somewhere else to fix the issue.

Assuming you bought the game... so even though you knew before hand that no such options was available (as written on GOG's page) and that you were getting a service your still going to claim this DRM rather than a bad design choice? If they had provided LAN or another form of direct connection and then locked that behind a service... I would be right there agreeing with you... I just don't in this case because you knew what was being provided.

It's not common nowadays... it how it's always been since multiplayer started. When ever a company uses there servers to connect you with other people you are using a service. DRM is not about choices, it's about controlling digital software from being pirated. Since multiplayer is being controlled at a server level, there not actually controlling or restricting the digital software at all. This is not DRM.

Maybe it's because I have been both a console and PC gamer for since the 90's that I can understand that companies don't have to provide LAN and other features. On PC I agree LAN /Direct connection is common but it's not DRM to not have that...
DRM is about controlling and restricting digital software to prevent piracy. Online multiplayer is controlled at a server level... please tell me how there controlling and restricting the digital software if multiplayer is DRM?

No you don't, this is why it pays to read Terms of Service... your entitled to it as long as it's provided, and until someone challenges this in a court of law that is how it will be.

No it hasn't and AoW1 and AoW2 are examples of this. They don't require an account and they don't require a Triumph-maintained server (which is only likely to be affordable from AoW sales for the next couple of years). If you really have been into PC gaming since the 90s, then you should be well aware of other examples too (Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, CivNet, Mechwarrior, Command and Conquer, Masters of Orion, Dominions, Space Empires) which can still be used, though in some cases requiring IPX emulators like Kali.

You totally lost was was said there... whenever you connect online to a companies server to access multiplayer this has always been a service since multiplayer started. That was what I was referring to in a reply to what DF1871 stated.

Server level DRM is what systems like Steam, Uplay or the late, lamented (or should that be lamentable?) GFWL operate. The one difference here is that AoW3 is partially locked down (multiplayer DRM) rather than fully. So you seem prepared to recognise the issue but just refuse to use the name.

CD-keys are not in themselves DRM if they aren't subject to remote validation (many games only check keys locally against a known blacklist of warez keys) and given that NWN has been quoted as an example, its keys don't qualify as DRM since it is possible (and indeed now necessary) to connect via alternative servers as detailed in the Discontinued Gamespy support sticky.

Yes... the difference is those systems control the digital software which is what DRM is. This is not the same thing, the digital software is not being controlled or restricted at all here, your access to the server is which you're not entitled to anyway.

Eh? What Steam, etc do is verify your account with an online server. What AoW3 multiplayer does is verify your account with an online server. So the restriction/control mechanism is as near-as-darn-it identical from the consumer perspective - only the effects of failure (server down, etc) are more limited for AoW3.

No what Steam does it verify you own the game, controls if/when you can install it ect... this effects the digital software because it's depended on Steam to work... this is why it's DRM.

AOW3 (GOG version) does not have any of that at all. Trying to claim a server has DRM when you not even entitled to it goes it against what DRM actually is. DRM restricts and controls the digital software to prevent piracy, the GOG version of AOW3 does not do this. Not having access to a server for multiplayer doesn't control or restrict the actual digital software at all. You just don't have access to feature.

Denying access to a feature *is* exerting control, so thank you for finally coming around. Have a nice day. :)

PS: DRM isn't simply "piracy prevention" (especially since software pirates are the least likely to be affected by it) - it is more about maximising income from those who purchase software by ensuring they pay higher prices (by creating artifical scarcity), limiting usage (region locking) and forcing repurchase.