When a game with multi-player functionality is released without the option to use a non-proprietary client for multi-player, you have a paywall, which is every bit as bad as DRM, and serves to make DRM a moot point -- which renders the notion of "DRM-free" a hollow sham that has no real value.

At this point, I think it's pretty clear that GOG *has* made it's choice, and is not in any way, shape, or form, committed to DRM-free gaming per se.

Yeah, oddly enough, most of the nerd apolitical proud old fart gamers I know still live with their parents, organizing cringe-inducing pen & paper D&D sessions every week to people who are exactly like them; the few that no longer live at their folks' lead really shitty lives doing jobs that get them closer to suicide each day and all they do is complain about "kids these days" and how the video game industry is ruined (probably forgetting they were kids at some point and that the generation before theirs likely thought they were pretty shitty individuals, wasting their lives away with "classic gem" video games).

As for me, I'm a coffee swilling lefty. Proudly so. I've worked a fulfilling steady job ever since I got my master's degree and I've never been job-shy in my life, unlike the majority of "traditional gamers" I know personally (see the paragraph above). I haven't lived with my parents since I was 22 (18, even, if you count when I moved to Lisbon to go to college). And, yet, I mostly play short indie "artsy" games, I tend to welcome innovation and experimentation in video games, and I think most old games are just overrated pieces of boredom that people blinded by nostalgia praise like they're the best things ever because they're just like old people way before their time, and live in a sepia-like dream state in which the past is everything that matters; that "golden age" that can range from 30 to 5 years ago.

Old fart gamers tend to forget most old games were pretty shitty. Yes, the majority of contemporary games are crap, but it's always been like this; the "classics" that stood the test of time were like oasis of goodness in a desert of mediocrity. That still happens today, with the added benefit that, now, you can look up any game on the internet, watch gameplay videos, etc., whereas in the "good old days" you had to take huge risks, "judge a book by its cover", buy a game that was probably a turd because it had cool box art or an interesting enough blurb. Today, like yesterday, great games are being made, and I more than welcome them.

I have absolutely no patience or time for elitist, self-entitled gamers that are stuck in the past. Maybe you feel fine being one of those prejudiced twats, that's fine, it's not like I care. But this nostalgia-driven community that admittedly helped GOG so much in the beginning is now holding GOG back. Luckily, I think most GOG users (the ones who buy the games instead of bitching and moaning about everything) don't care about this community. They're better off that way. But the damage has been done, most gaming communities out there seem to think we are all elitist snowflakes that welcome nothing and rage at everything. I think GOG should be for everyone, not just some "elite chosen few". We should be welcoming new games and new people, instead of shooing them all away because they're ruining "our lawn".

I would look up humour in the dictionary old chum, or maybe the smiley face at the end was too subtle.

Claims he doesn't care, proceeds to write a book about it. lol

I feel you see the move akin to a Vegetarian cafe offering bacon butties, while I see it more like said cafe opening a stall at a farmers market.

While I see your point of view and prefer my games not to have a core component rely on an external service, I do not believe there is any way to run a secured multiplayer system without an account based system. Linking the game to an account invokes a financial penalty for abuse. The only other option is highly invasive identification, that often require credit checks.

I'm fine with external services, as long as we have the *option* to use ones that are non-proprietary.

What's the big deal with you being able to use Galaxy while I use a non-proprietary option, because it's not like they are in any way mutually exclusive?

GWENT: The Witcher Card Game is currently in public beta. The game requires an online connection to play and offers optional in-game purchases. Single player campaign will be added at a later date.

As being a beta it's not a full game and has this requirement... a solo single player ALA Witcher 3 style will be implemented. As with AVP they needed to test and refine multiplayer first prior to releasing the game popper. At such time it will have a singleplayer campaign, which should not require an online connection.

that said its a 100% free game, so there is no monetary loss. If you make in-game purchases you obviously are ok with the requirements and the non-drm-free status is a moot point for you.

My bad, then, I apologize. Though it's true that you can't really convey inflection and tone all that well when writing, thus making humour or sarcasm relatively hard to discern from a totally honest and serious sentence, you *did* end your sentence with a smiley face, which I was too quick to dismiss altogether.

I must say that it's an interesting definition of humour. But then I suppose, just like appending a smiley in an apologetic manner, there are people who will quite happily garnish a pile of shit with a cherry and call it a chocolate sundae.

nvm XD

I'm stoooopid

True, but when it comes to some people, I'd rather concede than keep the argument going. I was actually starting to type a second paragraph in that post (a rather sarcastically passive-aggressive one), but I opted to back down from the thing and just let the dude think he's "won". After all, it's all that people on the internet care about, these days, winning, proving everyone else wrong, etc. Some times there's just no argument to be had; especially on these forums, with all the fear mongering and slippery slope logical fallacy spewing that has become the norm.

It's amazing all the things you see when you learn how to "read between the lines", innit? o.O
.
*If* you don't make in-game purchases, in which case it's worth is exactly what it costs.

Your missing my point. If you didn't use galaxy the game would come with a unique key which would have to be used with a private hosted service from the developer.

If you want a competitive system it has to be controlled, the basis of any control is uniquely identifying each player.

I don't know if your happy signing up to a third party system to play the game, I know other people are not.

If your are happy with running an account on a third party server then to answer your question. No they don't have to me mutually exclusive, its simple the former takes a lot of the work away from the developer making it more likely for a release.

Part of the reason Steam got popular with developers is it offered tools to remove a lot of the complex and somewhat boring aspect of identifying and tracking players. GoG can't do that without galaxy, and with out galaxy developers can not easily release multiplayer based games on GoG.

Again, for clarification, I'd prefer that all games sold on GoG had a private server/LAN match option. But I know that it can be an additional cost for developers that may not see any benefit from it.

OK, here's another way to solve the problem: make Galaxy open source, which would give GOG the opportunity to become a real leader in the game industry, and a force that could potentially break the stranglehold that Microsoft has on personal computing.

Don't scoff at the idea, because there's a significant number of people that would actively support a company that had the guts and integrity to take up that challenge.

This cannot happen or we would never be allowed to cross-play with or use steam servers/databases for certain titles, current and future.