I think people get attached to narrow terms like DRM and we can get very lawyer like about a precise definition, but for me, it boils down to a fundamental principle:

You are selling me a copy of a product (they'll try to finagle their way out of this with unreadable license agreements that nobody can read, but from a common sense perspective, its what most people will perceive they are doing and this is what they should be held accountable to).

Now, given the above, are you doing all you can to ensure I can keep enjoying my purchase without hindrances (including if you going under) for the remainder of my life or are you being a selfish control-freak about it (I understand the motivation behind wanting to fully cash in an ip without dilluting its value, I'm just not very sympathetic toward the idea)?

Because if you are gonna be a control-freak about it, then at least be honest and shift your business model to something that is openly rental (like Netflix is doing). From there, people will look at it for what it is and adjust how much they are willing to spend accordingly (spoiler alert: You'll be making a lot less per game produced).

Honestly, I'm mostly tired of all the BS and dishonesty at this point.

Yes, but what you are talking about here is game preservation, which is important. And yes, DRM hinders game preservation. However, it does not logically extend from here that everything that impeeds on game preservation is DRM...

I wish people cared more about game preservation, it is important to preserve what has now become a very important part of our culture (and seem to be more an more so), but I do not feel it is helpful to just sweep it under the term DRM. There is just too many other issues confounded into it, and you will most definitly not get large companies to agree to it. And for game preservation to work, i do think we need more neutral outlook, and you need al stakeholders with yoiu.

edit: basically, why not call game preservation "Game Preservation", and digital rights management "DRM"?....

It is drm, it doesn't matter if its a framework or not. The fact is you cant play mp without galaxy therefore it is drm.

I agree with all your points, OP. ...the real answer is because there is no other viable option for DRM-free nowadays. And as you pointed out, GOG itself is becoming less viable as a DRM-free platform every day.

But with no alternatives, what can you do?

I don't see how "choosing Steam" is a good solution. Just because I don't like the direction GOG is going, that doesn't mean I want to rent Steam's DRM-infested games either, all of which they can easily steal at any time simply by banning the user's Steam account.

I'm not saying sticking with GOG is necessarily better than Steam.

But better to choose neither than to choose Steam.

That's nonsense. Any & every time when GOG Galaxy is acting as a gateway that locks content behind itself which cannot otherwise be 100% accessed without using Galaxy at all, then Galaxy is certainly DRM in any & all of those cases.

And that happens quite a bit on GOG. GOG has lots of Galaxy-DRM'ed games.
No it's not; that statement is also nonsense. On the contrary: with Galaxy 2.0, GOG has amped up & doubled-down on their pro-DRM stance far more so than ever before!

It's potato logic Sunday today!

Being able to "play a game without" Galaxy does not necessarily mean that Galaxy is not still functioning as DRM in those games.

Something that frequently occurs, is that a game may be "playable" yet still have some of its content DRM-gated behind the Galaxy DRM, like Cyberpunk 2077 does, for example.

Thanks for letting me know you're mad.

This is absolute nonsense and I'll tell you why: because you are making the assumption that all dependencies are equal. Therefore, if a certain type of dependency is categorized as DRM, then so must all dependencies. This is a false equivalency.

DRM is not DRM simply because it is a dependency. It is because it is:

1) an unnecessary dependency. It adds no value to the consumer and is not intrinsically required for the game to function. The game would be able to function without it.

2) it is a dependency that is completely controlled by one corporate entity, which gives them control over the users.

It is those aspects of the dependency that characterize DRM. Of course, games have many other dependencies as well, such as on software libraries like DirectX. However, unlike DRM, these are necessary for the game to function and are not controlled by one entity. You might argue that DirectX is controlled by Microsoft; however, alternative compatible libraries have been developed, e.g. Wine and DXVK, which make games preservable without Microsoft's involvement.

That is why a reliance on a external server for MP is DRM, because it has those characteristics: it is unnecessary and under the sole control of one entity.

What is DRM for you? Can you give a proper definition or just tell me what you think is DRM?
I study software development so I know what a DRM is and I can confirm that is not present on GOG Galaxy, I use the launcher, and when I went to my friends house he borrow me his computer where he has installed Wasteland 3, when I access to my account the game was available and I was able to launch it, with the MP functions intact, he told me he played the game in co-op with his brother, the fact of being able to do that, automatically make the launcher DRM Free because doesn't have any software that verify your license and lock the access to the game or content.
Now, it true that is inconvenient for preservation purposes, because, like a read in other comments, when you lost access to the remote servers you lost that content, but there is a big difference between the use of remote servers and DIgital Right Management tools, I can creat a remote server and make if free and open and that will make totally DRM Free, but if I intruduce a software like Denuvo for example, that is constantly check in the content and if it notice something wierd activate a trigger that close the system or limitate the access per day to a limited amount of computers, when you launch it you have to connect to a remote server to verify your license, that is DRM and something very different.... To resume one remote server is to organize the content (DRM Free) and the other to verify your content (DRM). Hope this help you to understand :)

Thank you for reading my post, and not rsponding to / understanding a single word....

So the only reason something is DRM is "becuase I say it is", good argument, I am have complety changed my mind now.
I have never seen this point as part of any definition of DRM, how do you define DRM?

I have never seen this point as part of any definition of DRM, how do you define DRM?
edit - by the way, this means that a game that for example needs Windows - is DRM....

Imo, it can be defined quite well using those two features I mentioned: an unnecessary dependency that has the main purpose of giving some third party entity (usually the developer) control over what users can do with a game after they have bought it. It could apply either to the entire game or a subset of the content and typically takes the form of a dependency on a remote server.

you will then have a problem with "unnecessary".... who decides what is or is not necessary? you can also argue that both electricty and a ISP is also DRM, or copyrights, especially with "parts" of the software, and so on. In a way, yes you cover the D, but the R and M is unclear.

This definition is extremly vague and broad, so it is not strang you see galaxy as DRM, I can see why..... you could see a whole lot of things as DRM here....

Agreed. But to imply one company should do that for their game is one thing, they doing it - out of our hands. P2P server is a good solution when it comes to this, but it's like someone said, they're rarely doing this for new games.

So "I understand" their necessity of Galaxy - even if disagreeing and don't playing anything that uses it.

I got your point. Thanks for explaining it!
But I must say it's subjective. You're actually hoping they will not develop Galaxy to become a Steam-like DRM.
I hope your hope is right, but what if it isn't?
And we don't need exactly a third party program to run a game into a server. It's just like @Lifthrasil said. We can use P2P connections. For example, I can use my Steam Terraria copy to play with someone that uses GOG's Terraria through IP using Hamachi or even without it. It's not that hard to do that.

Some say that it is kinda obvious now what way GOG is turning to. Im just observing.

Also, this^.
Many companies think clients are idiots that can't understand what's going on. They're tightening the space of 'client freedom' more and more until we will need to rent everything and the "Buy" word won't exist anymore.

Whether a dependency is necessary or not is usually fairly self-evident, based on the questions: "Could the game have worked without it?" and "Does it add value for the user?"

Electricity clearly is necessary to play a video game and, furthermore, it is not controlled by one entity. In most places there is a choice of electricity providers available and there is an option of microgeneration, if people want to be self-sufficient. So, electricity clearly doesn't meet those criteria for DRM.

In the case of the ISP, I would argue that actually is DRM. Because, there is never a dependency on just 'an ISP', the dependency would be on a connection to a specific remote server. That is DRM, because it is unnecessary and controlled by a single entity. In the case of single-player games, there is no valid intrinsic reason why they should rely on a connection to a remote server. For MP games it is the same: a remote server is not inherently required for MP gaming. MP games could provide an option for LAN or direct IP, as mentioned before. Therefore, I would argue that in both cases a dependency on an internet connection to a remote server is DRM (as I said earlier). Neither single- or -multi-player games should ever require a connection to a remote server to work or for the player to access content.

The definition is actually quite clear.
DRM means nothing else that there is a (digital) check if you are entitled to play the game or not.

But of couse we can fight for hours if a game has DRM when you can play the base version of it without any checks and a bonus DLC for the game requires you to log in to the publishers servers.
In that case I would say it's both. You don't need to log in to play the game, you only need to do so if you want that bonus DLC.
A multiplayer game needing a internet connection is also not DRM. If the developer decides not to implement LAN servers, that's his business decision.
A login to play MP? Questionable. Usually it has nothing to do with rights managament, but with keeping player records and statistics. If you can create a second account without buying the game again, it's definitily not connected to owning the game in the first place and therefdore not DRM.
But what if the game uses a network offered by the platform you bought it at? Let's say Galaxy for example? In that case the platform CAN be used for DRM, but not necessarily.
Try to create a new GOG account and play your MP game using that one. Start Galaxy with the new Login, but start the game manually. If it then works, it's not DRM. If it tells you, you can't play the game since you don't own it, it is.