I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, but having to be online to play a single-player game is DRM (of course). Because, there is no good reason why a player should have to be online to play a single-player game.

If you describe it as a dependency, then I would argue it is an unnecessary dependency, that restricts users ability and freedom to play the game. That has exactly the same effect as DRM.

Some tries to host a server worked but others randomly crashed.That applies to skirmish mode too when I gave it a quick test..

AvP Gold was the old version that came on CDs.

nope, nor do I care enough to do

that's understandable

Again - do they manage your rights to play the game?

I do not really care much about individually games here, just making sure that there is no confusion about the term DRM. Today, the problem is that the definition of DRM is rappidly becoming: "DRM = Things I Do Not Like" - which makes the term completely meaningless.

Well, yes. DRM is used in an arbitrary fashion. But central to DRM is, whether it checks the legality of your purchase. I.e. some online registration or a Galaxy requirement, that connects to your account.

In that case, Galaxy-Achievements might be considered DRM for some, who actually want their games with achievements. But that, again, would clutter the list because there are so many games with achievements due to many strange players actually wanting them. Even wanting Galaxy achievements for an online bragging rights comparison. So, as not to swamp the list, I'm not including games with achievements as long as they are entirely optional.

This is mainly about single-player games after all. Single-player doesn't need online achievements. Sure, you also don't 'need' some ship designs or the ability to set your name yourself. But those are things that would reduce my enjoyment of the single player game. I don't want textures to disappear from the game just because I'm not online. But online achievements don't impact the single-player game in that way. If you like achievements, offline achievements that are just visible for you are entirely possible and are included in many games. But if you want online achievements to compare with other players, you automatically actually want to be online. So the online requirement there is something you choose. Not something that is forced on you to verify your game.

tl;dr: I don't consider the fact that online achievements require you to be online a case of single-player DRM.

If they do not manage your rights to play the game... how do you define DRM? is it "things-I-do-not-like"?

I don't agree at all. DRM is an umbrella term covering a wide range of artificial restrictions on what you can do with a product. For example, DVDs are encrypted so that you're only supposed to be able to play them with a licensed player (conveniently, one that doesn't allow you to copy them or rewind past splash screens / commercials / other bullshit or watch with a player made for the "wrong" geographic region, .. all restrictions that apply to perfectly legitimate copies!). Same thing for modern encrypted video streams (web DRM / EME..); those things are used even if there are no purchases whatsoever involved, because rightsholders want to control and restrict you. PDFs might disable copy paste, because they don't want you to copy things. Games might have mechanisms in place that try to prevent you from running it in a debugger, or prevent running modified binaries, etcetra. None of these things check legality of purchase, they're solely there to restrict you in certain (and rather arbitrary) ways. All fall under the scope of DRM.

That ultra-strict personal definition of yours never has been a universal definition. Examples:-

"DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies" - Wikipedia

"With relation to PC gaming, Digital Rights Management (DRM) is commonly used to refer to copy protection and / or technical protection measures employed by companies in an attempt to limit the manipulation and copying of game data and content by end-users after the purchase, download, and/or install of the product" - PCGamingWiki

So both anti-cheat and anti-tamper systems that do no specific online check to check your "right" to play a game but exist to control / remove the right to modify a game offline, as well as offline copy protection systems (eg, code wheels, CD checks) and increasingly "gating" some single-player content behind an online server for copy protection reasons whilst claiming it's "bonus content" are all in practise widely regarded as DRM as well. Same reason why no-one falls for the "Denuvo is not DRM it's anti-tamper" BS, why PCGW has sections for "physical DRM" & "disc DRM", and why no-one calls Diablo 3 a "dependency" as if it were no different to bundling a VCRedist inside an offline installer that works offline.

Pointless argument : "But, but, but they may have other reasons. Eg, it may be BONUS CONTENT so therefore it's not DRM"

Reality : It's both. No-one's that naive anymore that they think post-purchase access control issues can be neatly separated in some 100% vs 0% black & white world, when devs have previously openly admitted they have ulterior motives to requiring online-only "bonus content" in single-player games as an indirect form of DRM.

umm... none of this has any relation to what I was saying... I only said that needing to be online is not the same as DRM. If the online-whatever do not manage your rights to play the game, then it is a dependency - not DRM.

edit - in other words, it is not my defenition - it is the ones you posted....

"DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies" - Wikipedia

"With relation to PC gaming, Digital Rights Management (DRM) is commonly used to refer to copy protection and / or technical protection measures employed by companies in an attempt to limit the manipulation and copying of game data and content by end-users after the purchase, download, and/or install of the product" - PCGamingWiki

if this do not happen, then it is not DRM

Yes. I cannot play as this character unless I log into gog galaxy, thus verifying my ownership of this game on-line. It doesn't matter if this is the intent or not.

I don't need on-line achievements. However, I find challenges presented by achievements to be more useful than ship designs or profile names (although in many cases, not by much). Achievements aren't just about bragging rights..

Basically, you're saying that it's not important to you, so you don't care. Too many games affected, anyway, right? (all of which could be fixed at once if gog would fix Galaxy, but whatever) That's fine. Please make that clear in your OP. Sorry for sullying your thread.

Yeah, developers aren't stupid. I mean even the Steam DRM page suggests developers use account-restricted online-only features to "enhance the value of legitimate copies." They do, and it works exactly as they planned: a bunch of DRM apologists show up to defend these things, every single time.. it's not DRM it's a feature!!!! (I guess they are the same people who still believe that it is impossible to implement multiplayer without DRM).

That depends on why you need to be online. The post you were replying to said "Zachtronics games (except maybe Eliza), since they won't give you an evaluation of your solution without on-line access. They don't even cache the current "histograms": only when you're on-line are you able to see them" is clearly not remotely the same as your "Oh yeah, well it's no different to the fact Windows comes with DirectX" nonsense (that works offline and even for games that do require the DirectX (2009) redist, it gets bundled in offline installers that... you know... also work offline...)

Agree 100%. Not everything that people dislike about games is DRM, but some people on these forums seem to make a hobby out of be trying too hard to over-compensate the other way around to the point of absurdity...

Yeah. And then there are instances where the developer is trying to provide a service. Perhaps sometimes (who knows really?) even without any ulterior motive. No matter what the developer's intention, if that service becomes a gatekeeper between the player and their game (or their friend's game), it is.. at least de-facto DRM.

For example, it's not at all outlandish for a developer to offer to host multiplayer profiles online. But if that is implemented in such a way that I cannot play a game with you without first authenticating with the developer's proprietary service, then they've created something that is de-facto DRM on multiplayer, because they can ultimately pull the plug or ban our accounts or block our country or whatever. Someone might call it a dependency, but it's a mechanism that gives a third party the power to decide whether we can play or not -- functionally almost identical to purpose-built DRM license servers.

ummm.... i am confused.... so if they do not check your rightts to play the game.... then...umm.... and you want to compare your score with other people.... but not go online.... so you can....umm... check it against yourself?

edit - no, i know - they can send it by letter! You can print out your score, send it them by mail, they can then check your score and send it back in a letter! easy!

I chose the path of logic - i.e. a thread about DRM should be about DRM.... and this is, as you said, Lifthrasil 's thread, and if he do not want me to post here, and he agrees that anything you do not like is DRM, then it is his coice to kick me out, not yours

edit - yes, and i do like your counterargument - "go away". it made me giggle, thank you