And it only complains when the server can reply "this key isn't valid" - if, for whatever reason, the server doesn't give such a reply (for example, if the server cannot be contacted due to connectivity problems at either end), the game works just fine with the bundled key.

Then if I can be honest, it's really not that big of a deal... granted I still feel it should be fixed and I think GOG should have handled this game differently but if you can play full single player offline with no restrictions then that is what really matters.

I have the first Walking Dead on Steam, so I am going to assume it's the same here. At the end of the game (or possibly each chapter), it gives you a rundown of certain decisions you made compared with others that played the game (23% let Greg die, etc.). My guess is the phone home during game play is it uploading your decision for their aggregate. It possibly would be nice to turn that feature off (if you can't already, haven't played it for a few years).

Whether or not you're OK with that is up to you and admittedly there could be other shenanigans going on.

Please tell me you're kidding.

You didn't mention installing the game (on a new PC). That's part of the usage of the game, and that is why I am always careful to mention both the installation and running of the game in my definition of DRM-free. Both should be possible in that bunker of yours, before it can be considered DRM-free.

Steam's offline mode is (at least officially) possible to use only after you have installed the game. However, those Steam games which you can copy to another PC in that bunker of yours and play there too (even without a Steam client), those I do consider DRM-free. There the "installation" part is where you merely copy the game files to the new PC.

As for the rest of your message, I already said that from the political and ideological point of view, that (what DEFCON has) can indeed be considered as DRM.

I, on the other hand, am a pragmatic person, who only worries how the DRM (or lack there-of) can affect me as a user. My view on DRM is "Will it prevent me from installing and playing the game in the future if I don't have an internet connection, and/or if the publisher and their servers go permanently offline?"

I don't see this happening with DEFCON. I can always play it, with or without internet, or with or without the existence of its publisher. The only speed bump is that as long as the publisher is still alive, I am supposed to enter another key, just so that my game installation doesn't become invalidated. Other than that, it doesn't affect me as a user at all, no matter what happens.

I realize though some others seem to have a much stricter, ideological and political, opinion on DRM. Like the complaints about The Walking Dead phoning home: apparently it doesn't try to prevent you from playing the game even if it can't phone home, yet even that is apparently too much for some people, on the ideological/political level. Not because it affects their ability to play the game, but because... just because.

And again, from the practical point of view, I consider these games DRM-free too, if the manual or codewheel is indeed scanned and easily copied. They still cannot prevent me from installing the game onto million PCs in my bunker, and playing it on all of them at the same time. I consider it merely a nuisance that I'd have to enter a word from a scanned document at some point of the game, not any meaningful form of DRM that can in any way control how, where and when I install and play the game.

If GOG provides e.g. some classic RPG that requires you to read part of the story in the middle of the game from the scanned manual that GOG also provides to you, do you consider that game to have DRM, and GOG should pull it from the store? After all, those schemes were also used as a form of "DRM" back then, so that people who didn't have the manual would have problems playing the game. Should GOG sell it only if they are able to hack the game so that that text in the manual is displayed inside the game itself instead (which would mean GOG would have to touch the source code most probably)?

In fact, I am much more concerned by other things which are not really DRM, but can similarly prevent me from playing the game without the publisher and/or internet:

- Games that don't have offline update capability, but in order to update the game, you are supposed to update it by e.g. running some online updater either inside the game, or an online client. "Rise of Legends" is one such game: I think they never released any official offline patches for the game, at least not to the newest versions, so the only way to get the game updated is to let it update itself from the publisher's update servers. Too bad those servers have been offline for many years already, so now you can't officially update Rise of Legends anymore. Have fun playing the buggy unpatched version. (Luckily, some user made his own offline updater tool for the game, using the updated files. I have put that into a safe place.).

- Those darn Humble Bundle "DRM-free" Android games which download most of the game data from the publishers' servers after you have installed the game. The funny thing is that this isn't really DRM (it is not there trying to prevent me from installing or playing the game)... yet it will have the exact same effect to me in case the publisher's servers ever go offline permanently. I can't fully install the game after that anymore, as the .apk offline installer doesn't contain all the needed data. DRM-free single player game that still relies on the existence of the publisher and servers. NICE!

About what, buying DEFCON to investigate the DRM? It was, IIRC, $2.49.

That also doesn't really answer my question. I'm not sure what GOG refusing yet another game has to do with them falsely selling a game as DRM-free. GOG doesn't claim to accept all games, they do however claim to be DRM-free.

I think I read about this DRM issue of Defcon many months ago. It's still not yet been resolved? xD

They ditched once their core principle, now the main principle 'DRM free' gonna be ditched as well? xD

I was just expressing my disappointment with GOG. The connection between the two is they both make me disappointed with GOG.

So a workable alternative advice from the GOG support could have been to just blacklist Defcon in the firewall. Then at least the single player is DRM free.

But the multiplayer part still is. I do not particularly like such games.

Several GOG games require online verification for multiplayer, and DEFCON does come with a unique serial as well that does work. Blacklisting the game would make singleplayer work out of the box but disable multiplayer, applying the unique serial enables both singleplayer and multiplayer without removing the game's internet access (but can theoretically be disabled by the developers at any time by having the server reply "this key is invalid").

When I was using Steam's offline mode about 2 years ago I installed a few games for a trip where I would have no internet access or very limited. After 4-5 days Steam removed my login details, this happened every week for about two months. I wouldn't trust Steam if I was going somewhere with no internet access.

I remember reading many complaints about that, eventually Valve came out saying losing login was a bug that they fixed since (I'm more inclined to believe it was a feature/intentional tho). It should not do it anymore, but I can't say I tested it, I use Steam just as last resort so my experience is limited.

I didn't, and was able to play my GOG games fine while riding in the car two days ago. (though I got a little carsick, and frustrated at the old-school difficulty ;)

Just seemed like the two things weren't really on the same level, hence my original comment to you.