And it's true. We all made that compromise. I admit that I am myself guilty of letting that slide because it didn't concern me personally (as I don't care about multiplayer). We thought we were drawing a line at single-player content, but as it turns it was like that Bugs Bunny cartoon.

What compromise? Multiplayer NEEDS a internet connection. Unless we are talking about some really old games that use LAN.

LAN are not obsolete you know. Pretty much every home and every office connected to the internet still needs one. I've seen a couple of indie games coming out within the last decade that had LAN support (Hammerwatch, Factorio, Terraria, Unepic come to mind, there are others).

Furthermore, some more forward thinking games (Factorio and Terraria) have released a server binary that you can use to host your own multiplayer game on the internet.

Unless the core concept of your games is dependant on legions of players interacting online (ie, massive online multiplayer game), there is no reason not to support self-hosted/LAN multiplayer. The concept is not that outlandish.

Besides LAN, that you pointed out, MP does need internet. What MP doesn't need is servers controlled entirely by the devs/publishers or other corporation. That you have no control over. They take down the server, you have no MP.
People used to be able to make their own servers, or connect directly via TCP/IP.

^ this 100%. It is the reliance on a specific remote server controlled by the developer that is DRM. That should not be necessary for MP gaming.

Not necessarily through galaxy, though....which is what a number of those complaining about such take exception to.

(It you weren't seemingly doing mental gymnastics to explain GOG's decisions you might have noticed that/figured that out)
-
-
-

Well until/unless someone "finds a way"....like the ones who made Earth and Beyond and other such games playable again.....but I hear ya.

Well you kind of let the single player part slide too, we had also long before galaxy games where single player content (if you consider cosmetics to be such) was removed or only available on some platform. There was also for example Neverwinter Nights that had some SP content, as in story DLCs, that was only available if you created a Bioware account and purchased said content directly from them (this content was only added as paid DLC on Gog in 2018 after the Bioware store closed). I seems to also remember a Stardock or Paradox game that required you to create a third party account to unlock some goodies usable in SP, but I don't remember which one and I don't have time to look for it so don't quote me on that.

I thought I'd keep a record of games I would definitely have bought, were it not for the boycott.

GAMES NOT BOUGHT IN 2021
(1) 18/1/21: Dread Nautical - $10
(2) 18/1/21: Operencia: The Stolen Sun - $15
(3) 29/1/21: Way of the Samurai 3 Deluxe - $2.5
(4) 29/1/21: Way of the Samurai 4 + DLC - $3.5
(5) 10/2/21: Drakensang - $3
(6) 10/2/21: Commander Keen Complete Pack - $1.5
(7) 10/2/21: XCOM 2 - $4.5
(8) 26/2/21: Cardaclysm: Shards of the Four - $9
(9) 22/3/21: Raji: An Ancient Epic - $12.5

Total so far: $61.5

I think removing all DRM migth be a little hard because what constitutes as DRM may be subjective
Not even consumers themself agree of what shoud be DRM
Some people strongly belive Streaming even if you stream hardware and not the games themself are a form of DRM
and they belive it strongly
Proven by the geforce thread here on gog

Its not bad per see to belive in something
but it can be a detterent to the figth against DRM if several people have diffrent values of what shoud contitute as DRM

If more people agree to what constitutes as DRM
i think the effectivness of such a boycott migth be better
Asuming they are willing to boycott or supporting the campaignn in other ways
becausse lets face it
the number of drm free stores with games on it arent that great
and drm free games on other platforms in this day and age are not really that great

Perhaps finding some common ground
of what constutites as drm withouth barring out those that differ a bit in values migth be a good idea.
Only a suggrestion though
since im not the OP
and its his thread

It would be great if GOG would provide a clear definition of what they consider to be DRM and make a firm commitment to enforce that policy on their store. But they won't, because it is convenient for them to leave it ambiguous (so they can make it up as they go along). If such a definition were provided, we might not all agree on it, but at least it might give some level of confidence that there won't be any further slippage.

Unfortunately, it is easier to gradually erode a principle that isn't clearly defined, rather than one that is.

I'm a "purist". If anything -no matter how small or seemingly insignificant- requires more than a simple downloading after purchase, then it's DRM in my book.
You lock a hideous GOG Galaxy shirt behind a data submission? Cyberpunk 2077 has DRM. No two ways about it. All or nothing, the middle ground serves only to make things deteriorate.

Exactly. In the early days GOG was known for open, clear communication with their customers. But over time, they got more and more vague and silent. Moreover the recent development shows that 'vague' sometimes isn't enough and they have no qualms whatsoever to outright lie. Even ridiculously transparent lies, like the 'many messages from gamers' lie, are apparently more in line with GOG's current policy than open communication.

Nowadays they don't even acknowledge when one of their games has DRM. It's up to the devs/publishers to fix it and make the game DRM-free again. Like Hello Games did after being asked by their customers directly. Without GOG in between.
When a dev/publisher doesn't want to remove the DRM (like in the case of Absolver) GOG will do nothing.

The sad thing is, that GOG would have several ways forward that are customer friendly. Even if they want to go in the direction of more DRM to increase their catalogue at all costs. But they consistently choose the worst path of all options, just because saying nothing and doing as little as possible requires the least effort.

Good idea. Here's my "better late than never" list:

Operencia: The Stolen Sun - 10,00€
Outward - 11,99€
Pathfinder: Kingmaker - 12,99€
Thea 2 - 11,00€
Trine 4: Melody of Mystery - 07,49€
Warhammer: Chaosbane - 11,99€

TOTAL - 65,46€

Seems like I ought to butt in and remind this thread of another definition, which I maintain is the one generally used by the media & games industry at large.

In over 90% of cases (by my admittedly flawed estimate) this definition can be simplified as "anti-piracy technology".

Meaning any technology whose purpose is to fight piracy, or more generally, to protect copyrights and other rights arising from deals between those who sell the product. "Purpose" here being an operative word.

Meaning that by this definition, you can't determine if something is DRM without considering why it's there.

Something like Securom, which has come up in recent discussion, is a textbook example of DRM by this definition, because it's main, and really only, purpose is to fight piracy. So there could be no question that a game that contains remnants of that system, by this definition, is not 100% DRM free.

While a game that requires an online server to play is not inherently DRM'd by this definition, even if taking down the server would lock you out of the game. It can be, if there is also a system in place to check that you're a legitimate user.

I'll grant that like any human I'm not perfect and my life experience is limited, so I could have a skewed view of how the industry at large uses the term. Assuming I'm not too far off, I'd argue that this is the closest we have to an objective definition. But at the same time, I'm not all that convinced that GOG has been adhering to it.

My list of not bought games:

Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night
Rebel Galaxy Outlaw
The Outer Worlds
Uru: Complete Chronicles
Zeus + Poseidon (Acropolis)
Kenshi
Hammerting
RimWorld
X4: Foundations
Age of Wonders: Planetfall

Total = 1738:-