It has a button marked Local, it's just after the mandatory connection. I don't see a problem with what Franpa is saying, making you log in to an account online to play against someone locally is DRM. There's no functional reason you should connect to their server, it's just so you can get their permission.

A lot of people seem to be confused over issues like:


1.)
What DRM is.
-Look it up, it's on wikipedia. Many GOG games are clearly not DRM free by the definition of DRM as it is actually defined, i.e not whatever idea of DRM you like to imagine DRM is to fit your perspective. Sure it may not be -your- definition, in which case you might want to look up the definition of the "relativist fallacy". If you have your own individual definition of "relativist fallacy", then congratulations you special snowflake you're likely living in your own little universe you have all to yourself, and you also scored some circular reasoning points, yay! =D

2.) Whether it's ok for GOG to be selling DRM games while claiming that they're not.
This really depends on whether you're an anarchist or not...
For the uninitiated, we have this neat little thing called the "Law" here in the civilised world these days... You break a law, and often times there are repercussions in situations where that law is being actively enforced. False advertising claims, as distinct from selling things with the claim that they are in fact something they're not, is against the law in just about every modern country if not all of them, and it's common for those laws to be enforced.

If GOG defines "DRM Free*" as being something that doesn't meet the criteria normally attributed to "DRM Free", then that's a loophole that gets them out of being accountable for selling something that would otherwise not be what they're claiming (as the relativist fallacy doesn't apply in the wonderful world of business!). But doing that still amounts to false advertising, misleading the customer by using a deceptive ploy to sell them something that's not what they thought it was.

3.) Whether it's ok for GOG to sell DRM games.
I personally think GOG would be better with DRM games, and non-DRM games available in store. GOG is a good game store and having DRM games available would help them keep up with new releases that they otherwise wouldn't have available. They could for example, give customers access to both DRM and non-DRM versions of the same game with the purchase of one of the two. Much like they do with the various versions for different OS's.

Fun fact. The DRM definition on Wikipedia is different from the DRM definition on DRM.info, which is also different from the DRM definition of Information Society Standardisation System, which is also different from the definition offered at Defective by Design.

So which definition is the correct one? The one in a site anyone can edit, the one in an activist site or the one by a European Committee? Or could there be yet another definition, which is the legal one, assuming there is a law defining what DRM is and what isn't?

P.S. You are aware that while Wikipedia is great for a quick look into something, it is not the best source to quote, right?

No. Just no.

EDIT:
1 hour after doomicle's post, and still ninjad.

So are you also against this list of DRM-free(?) games on Steam? Should the list be removed?

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1

It also cares only about the DRM on the singleplayer, not multiplayer. Many of the listed games require a Steam account for multiplayer, so those Steam games shouldn't be considered DRM-free, right?

GOG has previously disabled the online multiplayer part for some of the games, if it needed e.g. a Steam account for that. Is that an acceptable solution to you? (I personally found it fine, but then I understand if someone else doesn't like the GOG version lacking multiplayer). That's also how HumbleBundle does it, their DRM-free versions of games generally lack online multiplayer, and you are supposed to use the Steam key for multiplayer.

It is fully up to them, they alone can decide for or against it. For some reason they choose not to, what is your theory why not?

My theory is that if they don't differentiate themselves at all from e.g. Steam regarding DRM, then they lose almost the only thing that really sets them apart from Steam. Let's say they do what you suggest. What incentive would there be to buy a game from GOG,com, instead of e.g. Steam (or Origin)? Why would you buy the latest Batman game here, instead of Steam (in case the GOG versions didn't offer e.g. DRM-free single-player for it)?

So now that we have established you personally don't care about DRM, why then do you find this as such a big issue? As I said before, quite often the people who complain the loudest are the people who elsewhere seem quite fine with e.g. Steam DRM (CEG or GEC or KEK or whatever they call it nowadays).

Congrats,jackass. You made yourself look more of a stuck up snob whothinks his word is the truth.
And WIkipedia isn't a great souce of information(unless is for quick reference) and you still think that games that require multiplayer keys(something to make sure you BOUGHT the game legally) is DRM. DOes GOG require constant internet connection? No. Do you have to be on the internet to play a SINGLEPLAYER game? No.

You shouldn't believe everything you read on Wiki.

That's how World War I got started.

I know, because I read it on Wiki.

Hah! That -is- a fun fact! I'm no expert by any means, but it seems logical to assume that the definition would be as defined in the laws of the European Union, or otherwise in Poland, if that's where GOG is based.
Yea I definitely think GOG should keep offering DRM free games (if there even is such a thing?!) but it seems clear they're struggling to get new game titles that are DRM free. So as I said before, instead of removing non-DRM free functionality for example (or toying with the actual definition of "DRM Free" is), it'd be good to have both DRM, and non-DRM versions available for download upon the purchase of any game.

Wasn't your original point that GOG is already doing that, as some game's online multiplayer component can be considered to be DRM (with an online account login required for multiplayer)?

If you mean GOG "should" start selling also single-player games with DRM... for some reason they don't seem to quite agree with you. I already told you the probable reason for that, ie. then there wouldn't really be much of a reason to buy such games from GOG, over e.g. Steam.

Proof is in the pudding, there must be some real reason why GOG is not doing what you suggest they "should" do. Apparently you feel you know GOG's business better than they do themselves.

Some people seem to be missing the point, I guess.

The OP was complaining about... lemme guess. Multiplayer games that require you to create an account and REDEEM A KEY ON SAID ACCOUNT.

Notice the part in bold and italic? Yes. You then need to redeem a key on your account. If the developer felt like adding this step for multiplayer gaming, then that means...:

*He cannot use the same copy of the game on two computers to play online. Someone said that in order to do this, you have to be 'omnipresent' or some sort of crap. Sorry. What if he had a sibling and they wanted to play together online? They'd be using two computers. But not with the same copy of the game; so he needs to buy another copy.
*He cannot make another account with fresh stats.
*He cannot opt-out of activities such as leaderboards and achievements, those normally tied by an account.

Most importantly is point one. With DRM-free single player games, two people on two computers can play one copy of a single game, e.g. The Witcher 2, simultaneously. By having an account that is being tied by a code, you cannot do the same with online multiplayer even if the game was advertised as DRM-free.

I'm 100% certain this is where he is coming from. Not that he needs an account to play multiplayer, but that he needs to REDEEM A KEY on an ACCOUNT to play multiplayer.

It is indeed logical. Unfortunately, there is no legal definition of DRM. Even the 12 year old report by ISSS on DRM (see external links on wikipedia's article on DRM) does not have legal status.

So, once more, there is no legal definition of DRM, and Wikipedia's definition is as valid legally as my definition (gaming in a bunker). At least until someone takes a case in court, and a legal precedent is made.
Which games do that? I do recall the survey a few years back asking if we were ok with having to create a 3rd party account to play multiplayer, and the majority of answers were negative. So what games, if any, require you to make an account and redeem a key to play multiplayer?

I'm also waiting for him to clarify this point for us, as to which games do that. However, I did run into a recent example of that on Humble Bundle, called "Race the Sun." Apparently, GOG.com also sells Race the Sun and it even has this disclaimer: Source:
http://www.gog.com/game/race_the_sun

While that isn't particularly multiplayer in a sense, it seems to be one of the many games that do what the OP suggested; DRM-free games that work fine but otherwise require a key or such and an account to access online features.

No, my original point was that they're already doing that while claiming to their customers that they're not... I don't know why that is so hard for some people here to understand. I'm going blue in the face repeating myself here.

But as Jmich pointed out. "DRM Free" is a term that is devoid of a consensus definition. Therefore if that's correct, anything is DRM Free if I say so, anything on Steam, Origin, Half-Life2 and Battlefield 4. It's all DRM Free if someone says it is, because there is apparently no actual definition of what is DRM Free and what isn't.

Maybe other users are not as stupid as you seem to think, and know and are fine with what GOG is offering to them. That is, DRM-free singleplayer. As mentioned with e.g. Race the Sun, GOG already points out in the gamecard that you need an online account for the leaderboard or browse for user-made content.

You raise this as some kind of huge issue, even though on the other hand you make it clear that you don't care about DRM. Odd. It seems to be some kind of ideological and political dilemma to you. I would understand you better if you were vehemently against DRM in any games, but obviously you are not as you are happily using Steam too, and suggesting GOG should start selling DRM games too (which according to yourself they are already doing, so...?).

As far as I've understood, Half-life 2 actually is considered DRM-free nowadays. After you have downloaded the game from Steam for the first time, you can copy the game as-is to another PC, and play it there even without the Steam-client. I haven't tested that myself, but I recall someone mentioning that. Maybe it is already in the "DRM-free Steam games" list.

Careful now though: I'm referring to the single-player part. HL2 multiplayer will most probably not work without a Steam client and an account. So I guess it can't be called DRM-free in your books after all.

Humble Bundle also routinely sells "DRM-free PC games" where only the single-player part is functional, and in order to play online, you have to install and play the Steam version. Or, create an online account for the online features, like Race the Sun. Is Humble Bundle wrong in advertising them as DRM-free games, lying to its customers?