More a case of saying you have a valid point, though one I don't fully agree with. Aside from serial numbers being unaffected by publisher closure (as long as people keep them backed up), the lack of online verification means the Management part of DRM isn't present (though a similar argument could be made of media checks which are a PITA and can, in worst cases like Starforce, inhibit hardware and software).

Perhaps defining subspecies of DRM (online versus offline DRM) would be a better way to focus debate - offline DRM = may be bad, online DRM = inevitably bad.

All DRM is bad and doesn't belong on GOG so there's no point in such a scheme.

I worry about the precedent that AOW3 might set: if AOW3 can get on GOG while being rife with DRM why should other publishers/developers concern themselves with removing their DRM? :(

And in NWN the keys used to be part of online DRM before it was gutted.

I agree on that distinction.

Offline DRM is bad because it introduces bugs (NWN actually dumped securom because it caused too many crashes years before they went on gog) and because it can become incompatible with future OS (I have had games that I couldn't play anymore because their offline DRM was only compatible with 32bit OS)

Online DRM is much worse because every company eventually shuts down their authentication servers. So even if you are still keeping a copy of the ancient OS needed, the game becomes unplayable

It doesn't appear to me that there is universal agreement with this assertion -- especially in a game designed with multi-player gaming as an integral feature.

A lot of this debate has simply been arguing over semantics -- what counts as "game play"; what aspects of a game count as an integral "feature" as opposed to an optional "service"; when is denying access to an aspect of a game "DRM" as opposed to simply being a "design choice".

As it happens, the GOG game page for AOW3 lists both "single-player" and "multi-player" as "game modes". They even encourage you to "master the many modes!" and "compete in multiplayer wars" in their game description. Granted, they do offer hot seat play as a multi-player option, so there *is* a limited form of multi-player gaming available to anyone without any online authentication. But in my opinion, "multiplayer wars" are clearly an integral aspect of game play, and this feature is being advertised as such.

Allowing access only to hot seat multiplayer gaming is a significant limitation, because many people primarily (or exclusively) play multiplayer games with remote players. Even for local multiplayer gaming, many people strongly prefer to each have their own instance of a game on their own computer.

So the question becomes whether allowing only a limited version of multiplayer gaming without online authentication counts as DRM. Personally, I think is *does* count as DRM -- I'm denied access to an important game feature without online authentication. The feature exists -- online multiplayer gaming has been fully implemented. I just can't use it without online authentication each time I want to start a game.

Making sure "only legitimate copies can play MP" is *inherently* a form of DRM. Once you acknowledge that an essential aspect of the current scheme is to make sure that only people with legitimate copies can access an aspect of game play, you've pretty much already conceded that the scheme is a form of DRM.
Insulting people is certainly unkind *and* an extremely ineffective form of persuasion. It also makes the discussion unpleasant for most participants (including those just reading the discussion), and it tend to alienate people who might otherwise agree with your point of view.

Multiplayer gaming has not "always" been a service. Historically, there have been plenty of games that provided peer-to-peer or private-server multiplayer gaming, many of which did not involve any online authentication or use of any developer-provided services.

Now, online *matchmaking* has usually been implemented as a service, and server look-up has as well. But not all multiplayer games have offered such a service, and of those that did, not all of them required that you use it in order to initiate online games.

Multi-player gaming itself certainly *can* be a service -- for instance, in cases where the game developers are providing a persistent shared-world server where numerous players can interact (or ignore each other) to their hearts content; where character / empire and game state data is saved remotely on the server; etc.

But in this case, it appears the publishers are only providing a matchmaking service, not a game-play service. It sounds to me like the actual game play is implemented through peer-to-peer gaming. They've just walled off peer-to-peer multiplayer gaming behind a front end which requires use of their matchmaking service.

Once you've implemented peer-to-peer gaming, allowing players to initiate such games without a matchmaking server is trivial. You can say that not providing such an interface is a "design choice" -- and obviously it is. Requiring the use of their matchmaking service is a design choice. Requiring online authentication for multiplayer gaming is a design choice -- just as requiring a CD check for single-player gaming is a design choice. Ultimately, implementing any form of DRM is a design choice.

Anyway, the main issue here (from my perspective) is that they've chosen to implement peer-to-peer multiplayer gaming in a fashion that requires the use of a corporate gatekeeper, thus making game play dependent on the reliability and availability of this server. I'm not going to buy this game at this time because of this limitation. I'll wait for them to remove this dependence, or for the game to become substantially cheaper.

And you fine to think that... because that's how you personally see it... other's see it differently. My issue with this thread is it has become what people believe to be fact... instead of what it is personal opinion. You can call it semantics but those semantics are the only leg we have to stand on... and we agree to the TOS for games which usually describes online services as services which were not entitled too.
I clarified that I was referring to online services where your using a companies servers. So I agree there is multiplayer that is not a service. All online multiplayer basically boils down to p2p or dedicated servers. Take consoles for example all online games on a console are normally p2p. Is this not a still service that you being provided? Does it not offer more than p2p such as leaderboards and other features.

According to this beta patch which I assume GOG will get... AOW3 is getting VPN so this should not be an issue anymore.

http://ageofwonders.com/vpn/

Yes as stated in last patch notes by GOG... VPN is coming to the GOG version.

http://www.gog.com/forum/age_of_wonders_series/age_of_wonders_iii_has_been_updated_to_version_109 So this really isn't an issue anymore... and hopefully now these DRM complaints will be no more.

Ha, suddenly it went aaaaall quiet here.

That tends to happen when the people complaining get what they are asking for (direct peer-to-peer gaming with no server login required), which appears to be the case here. But technically, this thread had already pretty much gone quiet (the last posts before my posts from yesterday morning are from 3 days ago, and when I broke the silence, it was still quite a few hours before anyone replied).

Anyway, I suspect that the real reason VPN is being rushed out has less to do with customers being unhappy about online "DRM" per se, and more to do with many people who purchased the game being unable to play online at all. A lot of people could not start or join multiplayer games because of the way they had implemented their online "service" (especially people using university or corporate WiFi to connect to the internet), which was resulting in a lot of unhappy customers. The VPN patch is supposed to solve this problem for those customers.

Assuming the patch works, well done by the developers on responding to complaints reasonably quickly.

Whatever the reason for the patch, if this means the game has DRM free network play then I'm happy and will finally be willing to buy. I'll be waiting to see if they come through first though.

It would be nice if they allowed a direct connection to a known IP address, since broadcast can be finicky when you have multiple adapters, but thats hardly a deal breaker for me. It's also funny to me that we are now calling this VPN mode instead of LAN but whatever, personally I use openvpn so maybe the naming is not bad.

I hope you guys who gave this game a 1 star review for the sole reason of DRM will update them now... the DLC always worked without signing in, the setting issue was fixed, and now VPN will be added.

I don't see your point. It is still necessary to connect to triumph studio's server, isn't it?

Local Games: If you are hosting a purely local game on one network please use the “Local” option. Matchmaking is still handled through our server, but this option lets you easily connect with players on your local network.

(ageofwonders.com/support/networking/)

I don't think there is a difference while using VPN. Correct me if I am wrong.

Well that sucks, it appears that they are really jumping through hoops to keep the DRM in.

No, matchmaking is handled through there server that means you can host a local game, but if you want there multiplayer which matches you with people around the world you have to log in and use there servers... there would be no reason to log in with VPN at all because you not connecting to there servers so I highly doubt they would require that. Someone with the steam version and the beta patch could confirm this.

VPN/LAN is a private connection that services like tunngle/gameranger ect use to connect you directly with people... think of it like this: matchmaking may have person A,B,C,D and will randomly put them together A+D, or A+B based on skill... ect using AOW3 servers.

VPN/LAN when using a service like tunngle connects you directly to someone...it's not random... it's a direct connection to them. It's not matching a butch of players together.

Read it again... it says matchmaking... this is basically what there offering you now. VPN is not matchmaking (not technically anyway).