Ruiner

I haven't seen this mentioned here. It's a single player game. You unlock cosmetic outfits by completing various challenges. The unlock status is stored online.

Some kind of official on the Steam forums lied by saying the data is stored in the save file. I discovered that's not the case as follows. I was using the built-in cheat mode as a trainer, and to my surprise an outfit was unlocked after I was done (cheat mode disables achievements, so this was unexpected). I quit the game to disable cheat mode, and the outfit was still unlocked. I completely deleted my save folder, and my level progress was gone, but the outfit was still unlocked. I then blocked the game in my firewall, and then no outfits whatsoever were unlocked anymore. So I'm positive I'm right.

OK. Thank you for the update. That is bad news.

I think it would be nice if you report this in the Ruiner forum too, if you like: https://www.gog.com/forum/ruiner

Not a bug. Single player without an internet connection simply doesn't have as many features as multiplayer skirmish. You can only play single player as free-for-all against random opponents.

Ah, too bad. Back on the list it goes. Last time the devs fixed the Galaxy-dependency of the solo-mode and said it was a a bug. Did you contact them about this online dependency? Perhaps they are willing to fix this too.

Found this very interesting so I decided to test it myself. In my saved playthrough of Ruiner I already unlocked some outfits so I did not even need the cheat to test it. I deleted the savefiles and yes, the unlocked clothes were still there. Then I completely disabled my internet and the clothes still were there. However after disabling the Galaxy services the clothes were gone and after turning them back on (with internet still completely being disabled) they were back. So the problem here is completely Galaxy related. There's no need to run the game through Galaxy - it is enough to have the services enabled for the clothes to unlock. Seems as if this feature is tied to Galaxy ... which does not make it any better of course.

Thank you for cross-checking!

No prob - like I said, I was curious. However. I guess in this case this game belongs on mrkgnao's list (the one that lists games that require Galaxy), right?

Oh, did not know that. Is there a reason why you dropped this list? (Hopefully it wasn't GOG again making you angry ;)).

I don't see how being online counts as DRM. I certainly understand the frustration when a game requires being online, but sometimes a game needs to connect to a server to get the full experience (such as multiplayer). It's sort of like requiring electricity to play. However, I do agree that limiting content for games that aren't online is horrible and should not be tolerated, but I don't see that as being DRM. That being said, I absolutely despise third party accounts (or registration) to play games. That's definitely DRM.

Well, try to imagine you want to visit your relatives somewhere for example highlands in the middle of nowhere with no internet connection. You have your game, you have your computer but you still can't play it - how is that not DRM?

I really don't see that scenario happening, but I do see your point. It can be an annoying problem to have, but I don't think it fits the definition of DRM. Technically speaking, DRM only means that when you buy that game you own it outright. It does not require third party verification and the company does not have the ability to take it away from you. Unfortunately requiring online to play certain parts of the game (such as multiplayer) does not technically qualify as DRM. It sucks, but it's not DRM.

I don't feel particularly incentivised to maintain lists on a website I am boycotting (well, except for the boycott list itself).

That's a thing I can understand - however - I always had the impression that such lists weren't meant to be helpful to GOG but more for their customers since such lists might prevent/warn them from buying games that have actual DRM in it on a store that supposedly is completely DRM-free.

The way I see it, when a third party has control over what you do in a game, that counts as DRM.

So, for example, if I want to play Genshin Impact but the devs lock me from accessing the servers, that counts as DRM.

Meanwhile, in Starbound for example, I could join anyone's server or even create my own, and neither Chucklefish, CD Projekt, Valve or anyone else would be able to take away the online multiplayer function from me.

And sure, Starbound's multiplayer servers have things like passwords, blacklists and adm privileges, but they're not mandatory (those who create each server need to decide what they want or not) and I could easily hop to another server if the previous one wasn't of my liking because of such limitations. And besides, at least these things help keeping griefers, trollers and toxic people overall out, and if there's abuse of these limitations, it's still pretty easy to find another server.