It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
PBEM and LAN play were always meant to be supported by AoW3. They just ran out of time before the release and used the matchmaking system to simulate LAN play until it could be implemented. PBEM will be added later after LAN because they still have issues with file size. It had very little to do with the recent complaints - LAN and PBEM were goals when the game was in its early stages.
avatar
BKGaming: 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.
Thank you for your explanation. I just thought matchmaking would be necessary for MP. Did you (or anyone else) test playing via LAN without logging in?
This would be the point where I'd buy some copies after all. I'm only interested in playing via LAN with my wife. Don't like hotseat. And third-party tools (VPN) or dependency on running servers while sitting in the same room are no-go criteria for me.
avatar
BKGaming: 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.
avatar
rostfreyh: Thank you for your explanation. I just thought matchmaking would be necessary for MP. Did you (or anyone else) test playing via LAN without logging in?
This would be the point where I'd buy some copies after all. I'm only interested in playing via LAN with my wife. Don't like hotseat. And third-party tools (VPN) or dependency on running servers while sitting in the same room are no-go criteria for me.
No I have not. As far as I know it's only on Steam via beta as of right now. So you would need the steam copy to test.

You shouldn't have to log in however, they would get major backlash if they did that as VPN isn't using there servers so there would be no need. It should technically be possible to set up a connection with VPN between 2 computers in the same house when VPN is added.

Once GOG gets the next patch you could ask someone here to confirm...
This is 100% DRM. If I cant install this on 2 of MY computers in MY house and play against my wife without buying 2 copies of a game, that is DRM. When I buy something (read anything) I should be able to use every part of it as i see fit. Its like buying a car and being told my wife cant drive it, but she can ride all day. Yeah I understand there are people that will abuse things like this but thats life. NOTHING can stop piracy!
So, I gather if I install this and just don't make that online account, I can still save, change the resolution and everything without it resetting, right?
I can play singleplayer skirmishes -which is all I ever did in aow2- with no restriction at all, right?
Post edited April 20, 2014 by verwurster
avatar
verwurster: So, I gather if I install this and just don't make that online account, I can still save, change the resolution and everything without it resetting, right?
I can play singleplayer skirmishes -which is all I ever did in aow2- with no restriction at all, right?
But of course.
Doesn't have Torchlight 2 a LAN mode without a server connection and an online multiplayer server mode? The only DRM there is that you can only install the game 10 times... and can get new install charges after you contact the service.

In my opinion far more DRM free as AoW 3.
avatar
BKGaming: 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.
That would be too easy.
avatar
BKGaming: 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.
avatar
realkman666: That would be too easy.
And yet despite the "DRM" and the 1 star review they'll play it for 200 hours.
avatar
realkman666: That would be too easy.
avatar
Furyus: And yet despite the "DRM" and the 1 star review they'll play it for 200 hours.
It's still valid information, even if you end up going through the hoops to play the game you bought.
avatar
Furyus: And yet despite the "DRM" and the 1 star review they'll play it for 200 hours.
avatar
realkman666: It's still valid information, even if you end up going through the hoops to play the game you bought.
What hoops, though? The single player has always been fully operational (including the DLC), and the multiplayer is being added. I wouldn't really call it "hoops", but rather features missing at launch. Not really pleasant, sure (I was not happy either, even if I'm more of a singleplayer guy), but they will cancel the main reservations when the last problems will have been cleared. Just like a game buggy at launch, but correctly patched since, would not warrant its "one star, doesn't work" critics anymore, no?
It would be valid info about the game at launch, but erroneous about the game as is. Reviews are useful for gamers that will think about buying the game in the future, so it's better if they are about the current state of affairs, rather than about the game's sketchy history, I think.

Edit : Hell, the "most useful review" is throwing at least one blatant misinformation, even if you only consider the day-one situation! (The "You can't save without an online account". A very serious accusation, and also very wrong : I had the game day one, I play as "guest", and I never had problems saving my campaign game. Otherwise, you would have heard my hissy fit across the atlantic)
Post edited April 25, 2014 by Kardwill
avatar
realkman666: It's still valid information, even if you end up going through the hoops to play the game you bought.
avatar
Kardwill: What hoops, though? The single player has always been fully operational (including the DLC), and the multiplayer is being added. I wouldn't really call it "hoops", but rather features missing at launch. Not really pleasant, sure (I was not happy either, even if I'm more of a singleplayer guy), but they will cancel the main reservations when the last problems will have been cleared. Just like a game buggy at launch, but correctly patched since, would not warrant its "one star, doesn't work" critics anymore, no?
It would be valid info about the game at launch, but erroneous about the game as is. Reviews are useful for gamers that will think about buying the game in the future, so it's better if they are about the current state of affairs, rather than about the game's sketchy history, I think.

Edit : Hell, the "most useful review" is throwing at least one blatant misinformation, even if you only consider the day-one situation! (The "You can't save without an online account". A very serious accusation, and also very wrong : I had the game day one, I play as "guest", and I never had problems saving my campaign game. Otherwise, you would have heard my hissy fit across the atlantic)
Maybe it was true for some people, I can't say, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be treated as a "guest" when I want to play a game I paid 40$ for. Bug or design decision, some people were pissed off and it shows in the reviews. You can't ask people to review a game in its future state, or then you might just put a waiting time on the posting of reviews. I wouldn't be against that.
avatar
realkman666: but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be treated as a "guest" when I want to play a game I paid 40$ for. Bug or design decision, some people were pissed off and it shows in the reviews.
It's just a word. Perhaps if the button had said "Offline Mode" instead?
Post edited April 25, 2014 by Furyus
avatar
realkman666: but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be treated as a "guest" when I want to play a game I paid 40$ for. Bug or design decision, some people were pissed off and it shows in the reviews.
avatar
Furyus: It's just a word. Perhaps if the button had said "Offline Mode" instead?
I would certainly appreciate that a lot more.
It's kind of sad to read from the comments that AOW3 has some kind of drm (multiplayer online authentication) despite beeing offered as DRM free game.
I hope this will be fixed because I am not going to buy it until then and it also kind of hurts my trust into GoG. I bought games here that were more expensive than on steam, just to avoid DRM. But if it turns out that I can't rely on that, I might as well just buy games on steam instead.