No, absolutely not. Why should I pay the same price as the Steam release to get less when the original game on GOG sported multiplayer just fine? Why have yet another game here with a risk of missing updates?

good discussion gang. some people might be only interested in a single-player experience so I was curious to gauge reception of this.

Problem is, this kind of bad habit (crippled releases) shouldn't exist in the first place.

I reached the point in which I'm forced to extensively research for a game released on GOG (which piqued my interest) before committing a purchase, in order to not end up with an inferior release (exception goes to games from these publishers: XSEED, THQ Nordic, Devolver Digital, or Focus Home Interactive).

truth, it is sad that it does

It depends on the multiplayer mode. The lack of a multiplayer mode through Galaxy is no loss for me. Even more, when that means that the game would not be tainted by Galaxy at all, I actually would prefer such a game build.

When the original game has a multiplayer mode through direct IP I would prefer to have this mode included in the GOG build, although I probably also would buy the game when it has enough single player content for the money. Single player is what I'm playing most of the time, by far. But I guess a direct IP multiplayer mode hardly would hold back a game from being released on GOG. ;)

While I personally couldn't care less about the multiplayer, I agree with this argument.

Some people need to do their damn jobs, especially if they're going to sell a product and demand our hard earned cash. If they can't be bothered to implement achievements or multiplayer but CAN be bothered to charge full or more price (in respect to GOG games in general not having as deep discounts as similar titles on Steam), then that is just laziness and not worthy or respect or cash.

That would be a good solution. Getting rid of shop specific features and not having to pay for them would be a win-win for me. Perhaps, when GOG would have chosen such a strategy in general instead of spending a lot of effort and money on developing Galaxy, their financial situation would be better and they would be more competitive today.

I don't have any particular interest in Risk of Rain 2, but I would absolutely be willing to buy single player-only versions of games if it meant we could actually get the damn things here. It's a constant problem at this point.

My general rule of thumb: if I have to think of the stem version when playing it, then I'm not buying the game. If I end up in a situation where my friends are like "let's play this game" and I have to respond with "but I have the GOG version," I'm definitely not on board.

I want to respond "yes, let's go," and start the show, not give people more ammo against DRM-free if not GOG games.

Do you even know the game you're talking about? RoR2 is extremely co-op centric.

That's exactly what the OP was wondering about. You're confirming that the solo part in this game is completely aimed at people who enjoy multiplayer.

I disagree for the most part. I have lots and lots of games where I am interested only in the single-player part and never even touched (or cared for) the multiplayer part.

I belong to the school of thought that in general, multiplayer and singleplayer games should be separate games. Very often either of them feels tacked-on, just because. The best online multiplayer games concentrate on being online multiplayer games, and don't even pretend there is some meaningful single-player campaign or anything there. Like Team Fortress 2 for example (and no the local training mode is not really single-player, it is merely for training).

Same for single-player games, the best single-player games concentrate on being single-player games.

So are you saying GOG should stop selling also all the old classics where only the single-player part is functional nowadays?

GOG can sell anything they want as long as they make clear what the game includes (or what it is missing).