With the announcement of GOG Galaxy this seems the perfect time to revisit this question.

GOG classifies itself as a 100% DRM-free. This seems to predominantly be about Single Player however. There have been arguments in the past where some GOG games which get a multiplayer key are seen to have DRM (at least for the multiplayer part).

The most relevant question then would seem to be "Can Multi-player be DRM-free, and if so, when?"

While Multi-Player in itself is not necessarily a form of DRM, the most effective DRM of the last decade has been to wall off part of your game behind 'Online Play', something which only rarely gets resolved in pirated games, and part of the reason online, multiplayer and social features are a big thing these days in games.

So at what point does having features walled off behind online play become DRM? Does it ever? Is a game that's 50% single player, and 50% multiplayer DRM-free? What about a game with only 10% single player. Is that really still a DRM-free game? Or perhaps to you as well does DRM-free only mean 'I can install and play the single player part anywhere, and they can't take that from me'?

Is a client requirement+ account login for multiplayer, DRM-Free? What about just an account (Login) requirement?

My usual answer.

If in X years I can install and play the game in a period-comparable PC that I have isolated inside my bunker, the game is DRM-Free.

Rise of the Triad has online multiplayer and it's DRM-free.

That's probably the best answer. Thus, to answer the OP more specifically, I think a multiplayer game with LAN support is as close as you're going to get to DRM-free. Failing that, if the game can be set to act as the server for several people, that might work as well.

Let's take Watchdogs as an example. As far as I'm aware, to unlock *all* the skills, at some point you need to participate in Online Play in that game, else some will remain blocked to you. (I believe AC did something like this as well)

In 30 years, you're in your bunker, playing the single player. But some skills are locked since you can't go online anymore. Acceptable? I'd call that a form of DRM, it requires you to be able to use their service (ie have a legit game), to progress a certain part of your otherwise single player game.

My classification would probably be "DRM-Free, with (optional) DRMed content". Whether the optional part is worth it to you or not, it depends on both content and the individual judging.

Alright.

2 Multiplayer games.

1. Peer to Peer matchmaking based on CD-keys.
2. Matchmaking through an online service which requires an account login and/or client.

Are both DRM-free? So is an MMO if it has an offline Single player Tutorial and a standalone installer. Is that still a form of acceptable DRM-Free games though? An argument I see come up not too infrequently for DRM-free is the concept of games preservation. At what point does that become pointless if more and more of the game is locked behind (perishable) Multi-player services.

"It depends" is for me the best answer... it depends of the game.

Is the game thought from day one to be an online game ? If yes then... well it's an online game... I am fine with it requiring to be online to be played, I will most probably never play it but not because of the DRM simply because I don't like online or multiplayer only games.

The same way if a game as a solo mode and an "optional" multiplayer mode, I don't mind this multiplayer mode requiring some sort of registration, as long as the solo mode is more than just an excuse and is fully DRM-free.


The problem begins when you take an "offline" solo game and tries artificially to force it to become "online" just to justify an always online DRM, or when you remove solo features and only make them available online for the same reasons.

Good example being IMO first Diablo III; there is absolutely no reason for this game to not have an offline mode. (and no the excuse "gamers are too retarted to decide by themselves if they want to play offline or online so we have to decide for them" is not a valid excuse).

Another example, or examples, being some Ubisoft games like the latest Anno or Heroes 6 where the games forces you to be online if you want to have access to all the "solo" features like the Ark or the dynasty weapons.

IMO, no. But I do not think that RotT fits in the definition of MMO.

1 is, since (assuming I have 2 PCs in the bunker) I can play in the scenario above. It does require me to have multiple CD-Keys obviously.
2 Is not, since it requires an online service, and the isolated PC cannot access it. If the account login is local, and any client is included in the installation, then it can be called DRM-Free.

Again, with my definition.

The DRM aspect will not last long in multiplayer oriented games (versus micro transactions among things). why ? Because with the vast amount of multiplayer games, the value of "time spent by a player populating a game" is worth more than a retail price if you catch my meaning : with TF2, dota-likes and such .... gathering players is an investment, selling games is pocket change.

There are definitely varying levels of how open a multiplayer system is, which could be called DRM versus DRM free.

Personally I think a lot of GOG folks are like me, and pretty much never play multiplayer, so we just don't concern ourselves with the issue.

It's a question of whether they're adding something that couldn't exist without a central service, or whether they're restricting something by taking it away from users and migrating it to a central service.

For instance, adding cloud saves is cool. Yes, it depends on continued upkeep and availability of the cloud servers, but that's just the reality of how such a system works and I wouldn't consider that DRM. Mandating cloud saves instead of local saves is not cool, since you're now taking away from the user and making the functionality of the game dependent on continued access to your "service". That would be DRM.

So the big question is, can I play multiplayer without being dependent on your central service to do so? Some features, such as friends lists or matchmaking, are dependent on that service (which is fine) but I don't need a third party to facilitate direct connect.