Everything I described still happens whether the player has Internet or not. No need to worry, that's the first thing I tested - the game plays if your Internet connection is inactive.

Previous versions of Age of Wonders offered several options for multiplayer (Internet, LAN, PBEM) which didn't rely on a single server or publisher and therefore can be expected to work indefinitely.

It's fine for Triumph to provide an optional service requiring a login, but until the choices present in previous versions of AoW are restored, this login is compulsory for muliplayer and therefore qualifies as DRM (the acid test being "Will this work after the publisher closes down?"). Yes, there are similar (and worse) examples, but this is from a store that marketed itself from the start as "100% DRM-free" and who's MD stated recently:

"To be straightforward (excuse my French):DRM is shit-- we'll never have any of it..."

Kudos to Triumph though - they seem to have been able to persuade GOG to ditch two core principles, fair pricing and DRM-free gaming. Not even EA could manage that.

Well, I'm sorry to intervene here, but there's some flawed logic going on.

But first of all, let's talk about the "spawn games". There weren't very much of them:
Look at Wikipedia, GOG forums won't let me post links.
Probably more, but it wasn't the standard at all. Often multiplayer wasn't possible if you shared the cd key or you needed the game disc. Picking out the few positive examples isn't really legit here. There were also games which didn't give a shit when you removed the play disc while playing so you could share it amongst your buds for multiplayer, but I'm sure that wasn't allowed by the TOS.

Having to buy one copy per player was always pretty much the standard for all non-local multiplayer games. (Some games didn't check cd keys in LAN, but that's another matter.)

About the DRM case:
First of all, I think Triumph's decision with its account system is kinda bad. And making LAN games require an online account defeats the purpose of LAN altogether. But here begins the flawed logic.
Someone said, having online servers needing an account and key for internet multiplayer won't mean DRM, but requiring the same for LAN would probably a prime example for DRM. Which means if AoW3 wouldn't have LAN support at all, it wouldn't have DRM. So, removing a feature while having the same systems for authentification in place can be considered removing DRM? That's the flaw.
Either, the game has DRM - or it has no DRM. (Well, someone would argue that, but you'll get my point.) So, if you add or remove features to a game, it shouldn't even remotely meddly with its DRM-ness.

That leaves us with the following question:
Is the requirement for authentification (online or otherwise) for multiplayer DRM or not?

Huh? You should know that that isn't true at all. AoW3 is neither the first game with regional pricing (first on was Witcher 2) nor the first one requiring some sort of authentification for multiplayer.

Sorry if I am a little late to the party... but is it true what the reviews say? That playing without loging in one can't save the game or change settings? Or is loging in only for multiplayer? Sorry if this has been answered already, but it's not clear to me.

Playing offline (without having a triumph account or a login anywhere)

-You can save the game
-You can change settings

The only yhing you currently can't do is save the settings, so if for instance you change the language or resolution or something like that it will revert to what it was when you exit the game - meaning you'll have to change the settings once again next time you start the game. This is a bug that will be corrected in the next patch.

It's not clear to me either.

Well then... I really don't think the problem is that big. It is something of a grey area, but not relly a reason to call "BETREYAL!"

I don't play multiplayer at all (that's what board games are for;) ), so I, and other people like me, can get AoW 3 DRM-free on GOG. If, because of the multiplayer restriction, the game was not on GOG, I (and others not interested in multiplayer) could not buy it DRM-Free at all. As to people who want multiplayer, but consider the log-in restriction unacceptable... they lose nothing, as changing how multiplayer works was probably simply not possible for GOG team. You were not cheated out of anything. It was either that, or nothing for everybody. As long as the multiplayer account restriction is clearly stated on the game's page, I think everything is alright.

Still, like I said, something of a grey area, and I hope this is not going to happen more often.

I have no stake in the on going discussion in this thread since i've always maintained that, within the scope of DRM/DRM-Free, multiplayer and resale are lateral discussions, DRM Free, at its core, means DRM Free Singleplayer. Just like you i don't touch multiplayer ever, i'll leave the arguments for or against this release on GOG for the folks that do make use of multiplayer functionalities.

Even though i have no complains regarding this release i do understand some of the concerns regarding compromises made for the sake of padding the catalogue with this or that game.

From my understanding AOW3 doesn't have LAN... If you have to connect to a server to play with someone in the same house that isn't LAN. So you can be mad that they didn't include all the past features, but I can see why honestly LAN and PBEM are not very popular today as they were 10 years ago.

Now if they game really did have LAN, meaning no connecting to there servers instead it was a direct IP connection and still required you to make an online account... then you have little more to complain about. That I can consider DRM.

This doesn't make it DRM though by how the game is currently done. Multiplayer is a service... I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. It always has been and it can be taken away at any point.

So why is it suddenly a big deal to create account when A) You're online anyway B) Using a service that won't last forever anyway and C) Doesn't actually restrict you from doing anything with the actual game from how it's currently done.

Can you install as many times as you want? Yes.
Can you install it on any PC you want? Yes.
Can you copy it? Yes.
Can you play offline? Yes.
Are all the offline features available to you offline? Yes.
Is everything physically included with the download available to you with zero restrictions? Yes.

The game itself is DRM free... this is just nitpicking from a retro gamers who don't like the way modern gaming is heading. Creating accounts when accessing mutiplayer is as old as the internet and gaming.

This is the exact reason why I am pretty upset by those 1 star rating 'reviews'. They're spreading lies and are making people upset and afraid to give the game a chance based on false information. Since when has the GOG community fallen as low as to spam lies about DRM in the review section? A review section is meant to give an opinion on the game itself. Basically I can tell that I don't like x game's installer, and it counts as a review. I think GOG should read and approve reviews being posted. It's okay to address things like a bug that is currently in the game's release that does not allow one to save their settings in guest/offline mode, but basing your entire score on just that and flat out lies? Giving it a 1? Really? i agree the game is not flawless and there are some things that I am not too fond of. Even things that could improve the game. That's why feedback is important to developers. This will inform them about issues and gives them tips and requests for things to add to the game.

My point is: Try to be professional when it comes to reviewing on GOG and contribute to improve instead of whining about certain things that are not correct to begin with. I mean seriously? Needing an account for DLC? Yeah on the Steam version, but this is GOG.

Alright [/rant]

I guess those user's were simply mistaken, or wrote their reviews poorly, thus leading to further confusion. I doubt they intentionally lied. And despite the misinformation, I still would rather be warned of DRM that turns out not to be there, then to buy a game and then discover that there is DRM. I think the intention was genuine, to warn, not to misinform, and I apploud that. Even if it is false alert, I think it is good that GOG community remains vigilant about DRM and the like. It's the only way to make sure things stay the way they should. GOG is most of the time a great and absolutely fair company, but in this day and age I don't think we can trust any company absolutely. And even if everyone has the best, honest intention, mistakes can still be made. So I don't mind the reviews as initiall warning, but now they should probably be removed, and some clarification notice from GOG put on the game page instead.

Isn't that the situation currently? Playing AoW3 multiplayer involves direction connection to other players' systems with Triumph's server providing a matchmaking service.

Historical note: In the early days of online gaming, LAN connectivity differed from general Internet access as it used a different network protocol (Novell's IPX rather than TCP/IP) and offered significantly more bandwidth (10/100Mb/s Ethernet compared to the then-typical 28/56Kb/s dialup modem). With IPX long gone and broadband connections now rivaling Ethernet in speed, there's little technical difference between the two currently.
Again, look at previous versions of AoW. Their multiplayer options did not rely on an outside service (the original AoW did include an option for Sega's now-defunct Heat.net matchmaking service but didn't rely on it). The only thing able to prevent AoW/AoW2 multiplayer (aside from lack of gamers) would be a change in network protocols (total adoption of IPv6 say) and even then, an IPv4 tunnel or VPN should provide a workaround.

So while singleplayer can be described fairly as DRM-free, multiplayer currently isn't. That makes the fairest description of AoW3 as "partial DRM" or "multiplayer DRM" and the problem is that it then represents a dilution in GOG's DRM-free core value (and just after having the "fair price" one dispensed with).

GOG will find it harder to argue against DRM generally with publishers ("If you now allow compulsory login for multiplayer, why not allow it for our singleplayer game?") which will result in publishers pushing DRM through the back door (e.g. having patches which add DRM like Stardock has done, or requiring DRM initially while "pledging" to remove it in a later update).

I really do not think we are going to see "old style" LAN Play implemented for this game. Why should they, when the internet works fine if you have a PC sitting next to you or on the other side of the world. By getting rid of LAN the developer can implement Multi-player DRM requiring an account and Internet Access to play the game.

If I am wrong and LAN is implemented I will eat my words but I am not holding my breath on this one.

Doesn't matter, it's not a direct connection therefor it's not technically LAN. LAN is a local connection, and connecting to there servers is not local.

It doesn't matter how the past games were done. We are talking about AOW3 and if it has DRM. DRM in general is an effort to restrict or control the consumer/product in regards to digital media. In that respect multiplayer in itself is DRM because it's controlled and restricted by an internet connection, which you are not guaranteed to have access to 24-7.

As a consumer you are never entitled to multiplayer, is has always been a service as stated by literally every TOS I have ever read... and since AOW3 is technically not providing you with LAN, it's not now DRM because there asking consumers to make an account or use keys to connect to multiplayer servers that are paid for by the company.

You can be mad that AOW3 doesn't provide LAN or other features... but that doesn't mean that the game itself now contains DRM because they ask you to make an online account while playing online. Call it stupid, call it a bad game design... whatever... it's not however DRM just because they offer you a service which includes you using there servers but don't offer you away to play locally or with no account. That is a pure design choice.

Are there other options that they could have chosen to make getting online better and more future proof ? Sure... but it's there game... and you are not entitled to multiplayer.

Furthermore a large part of GOG games require CD-Keys to be used to play online... so why are we complaining now? That in itself should be enough to claim GOG games not DRM free. But a majority understand that that isn't the case.

Multiplayer should always be looked at as a bonus... an extra... the real prize is the single player. Why because your only entitled to a indefinite licence for the single player. This is what makes games significant reliance on multiplayer scary.

This is blowing up this situation more than what it actually is... there is lot of gloom and doom in your post and very little fact. Not I or anyone can predict where GOG will stand in 6 months or a year from now.

I really don't understand this "online only multiplayer" move. It's a tactic that stinks of fear (and DRM) of the players using LAN tunneling to enable GOG users to buy fewer copies and cut into their money. Not only is that pretty disingenuous to the whole purported mission of GOG, no DRM whatsoever = more buys, but weren't the original AoW games on here successful despite having DRM-free multiplayer?

Sending my signal around the world to ultimately go 3 feet on my LAN is something that I cannot countenance.

If we have to have keys, perhaps GOG could make buying them less of a pain in the ass? Why can't I buy several keys with one account? Having to make multiple dummy accounts just so I can have a copy of the game on my computers is ludicrous.