I consider a game bought on GOG as DRM-free because the games have no DRM implemented into the program code. The process of buying and downloading a game on GOG is not DRM-free, but the game you get after downloading it is. If the game uses GOG Galaxy, its features has to be implemented into the game and if GOG Galaxy uses ownership check (DRM) this also has to be implemented into the game, so it's not DRM-free. If you think I'm misconstructing the acronym DRM please tell me which mistake I made.

Saying its possible, doesnt disregard the extreme part of it. Anything is possible, and what you stated is considered the extreme version of it, hence the outrage. If it was just a possibility, it would be more modest and varied, and not focused entirely on galaxy turning GoG into steam, which it obviously does not do in any way with what was stated, even remotely. If they held things back from telling us, or outright lied, then that would be part of a possibility, but has nothing to do with the concern at hand. Thats why its considered extreme, and not just a possibility.

A fiery car crash is considered an extreme possibility for driving, but its not something people jump to the conclusion of normally when someone talks about going to the grocery store in a car. The idea that galaxy will become the next steam is paranoia, like someone who has been in a car accident before starts to become overly aware of everyone else around them, and about possibilities of sudden death. Its a natural reflex, but unfounded.

Galaxy is not going to give anyone anymore of a reason to not use lan than Steam, Amazon, Origin, Uplay, Desura, Retail, Net neutrality, etc. have given them already. Lan has been out of the loop for a long time, its a fact. Just because some games still offer Lan doesnt mean its "still going strong" , it just means some companies have offered Lan for their game. The vast majority of releases do not support Lan, and at best offer some form of local co-op feature, typically split screen or similar. Again, having some outlaying cases does not mean its the norm. Lan has been on its way out for years, no matter how much people want to hold onto it (like myself). Better options are constantly coming out, and some bad ones too. Lan is definitely an inferior platform for multiplayer, but still valid, and thats not the argument. Its not "Lan vs DRM" its "Lan vs Every other multiplayer platform/option out there". Its the difference between 4:3 CRT monitors vs every other version out there. While still usable, its outdated and disguarded.

There are no "restrictions" , inherently or not. Its completely optional, and I dont think anyone with your similar stance wants to accept it or understand its meaning. An option cannot take away your game, it cannot change how you play your game; its an option in its entirety.

If games are designed to take galaxy into consideration, thats their choice, not yours; and varies no different than if they had designed it to use steamworks, solely or alongside any other multiplayer option it offers. Its not personal, and its not greedy, its a valid choice. Just because it doesnt support your preference does not make it bad or "out to get you".

Again, you're ignoring the point, and the explanation. Its not about the specifics of the functionality or how its implemented, its about the process and its intention. All you see is "arbitrary name for client" vs everything else, when its all the same in the long run. You're trying to differentiate between a client / browser being considered "intrusive" or "DRM" , and any other software doing the same thing. The only reason why galaxy is stirring the pot, is because of stigma..as I explained twice already. The first thing that comes to mind, because of the bandwagon, when someone says "client" is that its online DRM. Not just that, but its the only/biggest DRM one can have. Thats just being ignorant of every other form of DRM out there, and for that matter, parasitic / necessary software that we install all the time without blinking. Now you can say "well i sure dont" , and thats a lie. Any time you install drivers, updates, 3rd party "patches / updates / etc." , anti-cheats , and so on, youve just used a form of "DRM" or "intrusive software" .

If you didnt design/make it yourself, its a form of control from an outside source; you just happen to ignore/accept most of it on a whim / without a thought; because your white whale...is that client popup.

So in actuality, theres DRM / Control everywhere, it just so happens that most of it is regarded and in fact harmless. It only becomes an issue when someone gets a fire started for some reason. Thats not an excuse to say, or endorsement for DRM, but a cognitive understanding of what it is , where it is, and what it means.

And as mentioned before... "DRM" is improperly used constantly.

Typically speaking, if something is going to happen, voicing a concern before hand, even well ahead of time will do you nothing. Is it important to do so? Sure. Does it mean you need to go "Scorched earth" on the subject matter to make sure it and anything relate-able cannot happen? Absolutely not. You can easily go "too far" on something, or go blindly against it without even understanding what its going on, out of shear fear. Creating mountains out of mole hills as its said.

"Im just voicing my concern" , sure, just like everyone says before they go hard into arguing with everything you say. There are those that are concerned, those that are panicking. and those that are pushing their agenda.

If you can be objective about it, then youve got the right foot forward.

When it comes to singleplayer games I don't see any excuse for any kind of DRM. I want to be able to install and play those games even on a computer that never has and never will be connected to internet.

With multiplayer games it's very different situation because the availability of internet connection is not an issue and there are other things to consider like cheaters and server browsing. If there is no actively updated anti-cheating system there will be cheaters and if there is no external server browsing you are back to the direct ip calls.

My own way of defining what's acceptable or unacceptable DRM on GOG is a post-nuclear-war scenario where I'm in my basement (with external hard drive that has my GOG installers on it) spending the aftermath playing classic games. If I ran into problem installing or trying to play a game I'd ask myself "is this problem directly caused by a DRM or the nuclear war?" If the answer is latter, all is well.

Nope, what you said was correct, to an extend. DRM doesnt necessarily mean just the games code though, it could be bundled / associated with DRM and still be considered "DRM" itself by most. Galaxy itself will not affect GoG games, so it cannot be considered "DRM" for GoG games. no more than the site login or downloader login is; both of which you have to use no questions asked. In reality, theres still DRM associated with GoG games, its just as inconsistent as a one time cd key authorization online that a lot of games use to have.

Galaxy functions exactly as the gog downloader would, or facebook, or instant messenger, or the site, etc. The functions of its checks works alongside the same ways CD keys do and account logins, because its features require such activities. This isnt any more different or weird than what we had 20 years ago.

Games can be programed to include functionality of Galaxy, but do not necessarily require its usage, no more than having a multiplayer option for a game requires you to play multiplayer to do single player campaigns. The promising aspect of galaxy, is that it will function outside of a games programing, so that theres no direct influence either way (since gog stated it will not affect single player games at all).

Theres an assumption that just having galaxy out there means that all games will now require it to function or that pieces of games will be tied to it and/or not function without it used.. These are unfounded assumptions and fears by many, profound and justified or not.

Games will continue to function "DRM free" as they have been for years, and its only the Galaxy features that will require as much DRM as what is expected of you already to use the site and download games. This broadly means that what we are use to now will stay the same, including our single player / knitted up multiplayer; and that the new Galaxy / social / extensive multiplayer features will need a log in.

Its hardly as broad a stroke as going from peaceful civilization to corporate dominance.

Until GOG gives all of the details and clarifications, I'm going to assume whether because of it being stated already or otherwise, that multiplayer games will continue to function as they have been to this point, and that single player games will remain unaffected.

That for those not interested in the client capabilities can use it as a GOG downloader replacement only. That future games with multiplayer that are designed by the developers to take advantage of the Galaxy client may be limited to the client only concerning multiplayer, but not necessarily.

If anyone here is aware of something already indicated by GOG that contradicts what I said above, then please let me know.

I love the idea, but what is GOG doing to bring in major publishers who think DRM is a top-priority? Most developers/publishers who don't mind a lack of DRM are already with GOG, or have similar ways to obtain their game DRM-free.

While Steam is imperfect, it provides a relatively unobtrusive method that feels safe for both publisher and consumer.

It would be nice to have a proper platform for GOG games, but other than having a client to streamline purchases and organize a library, with social features, what else sets it apart from just purchasing from GOG.com?

Also, the way technology and companies have shifted, I'm wary of promoting a new client that may potentially just offer a new kind of DRM. If online-play requires log-in, isn't it just doing the same when other clients allow for offline play anyway?

Can I play multiplayer without using this funky new client?

Does the coming of galaxy mean that existing multiplayer games that work over lan, vpn, or independently (fan) run online servers will be modified to require the galaxy client or that newly released titles will be modified in such a way? Do I need to be wary of updates to installers of such games? Though this seems unlikely, statements to the effect that "games will function drm-free as always for single players, but multiplayer functionality will use our optional client" concern me. Except in cases where official servers have been taken offline or developers with rotten attitudes insist on stripping multiplayer from drm-free versions of their games, many of the best games on GOG already have perfectly good multiplayer functionality. In light of this, this galaxy client seems extraneaus, a gimmick and GameRanger clone at best, an apeasement of DRM-loving publishers at worst. Publishers that insist on DRM, be it online or offline, do not deserve GOG's marketplace. I'll not miss their games in the least.

GOG does not typically add code to classic games or do any more than tweak them a bit to run on contemporary hardware. Does this mean galaxy will likely only apply to new indie releases?

No, it doesn't.

Since is meant to be used online or offline, I hope you can also choose between online multiplayer or local/LAN multiplayer (for games that support it, of course). I'm thinking in games like Serious Sam series.

Why not? As long as it is optional.

I don't really care about achievements, don't need competitive multiplayer, but maybe there will be NWN1, NWN2 heros at some stage. I am always confused talking to a young lady with the voice of an ogre over the headphones :)

The success is questionable. I have seen these community tools since AOL Online coming and going. Many Ego-Shooter provided their own community portals at some stage. I think the only game with success from that time was/is Diablo2/Starcraft battle.net (even I joined there to play online).

If you could play multiplayer before the release of the client, you should be able to do so after the release of the client as well. If you couldn't play multiplayer before, then you can't without Galaxy, though you may be able to do so with Galaxy.
My understanding is that Galaxy will work in conjunction with the older methods. So any game functionality pre-Galaxy will still be there without the need for Galaxy, though if you do use Galaxy you may have more (think Hamachi adding internet play to LAN only games).

No. GOG said that they hope they'll be able to add Galaxy functionality to all GOG games, which makes me assume they'll use a wrapper of sorts for the older ones. An extra DOSBox config for example, or a wrapper to intercept network calls for Windows games. But if you choose to not use Galaxy, that shouldn't prevent you from using the game as you were using it before.

They said they wanted ALL mp to be handled through Galaxy. That can only be interpreted one way until they come out and clarify.

If you buy a game and choose not to use Galaxy you are choosing to buy a game with half funtionality because you will not be able to play multiplayer.

To the one that compared with Direct X etc. No it isn't the same.

The point is that I can make a LOCAL backup of my OS. If Microsoft goes up in a fireball tomorrow I will still be able to use my Windows machine and transfer the OS as long as I can scrounge up hardware that can run it. If a game is DRM free I can likewise have a copy and install it on said OS over and over again. until there are no more x86 machines on earth.

If a software depends on other software to have full funtionality or even launch at all and that other software is beyond your control in the sense that it can be taken offine at any moment then that is DRM.

They should buy up Xfire and start developing it again, it already works in so many games (including older games) and has great voice chat features, but the new owners are really dumb and shut down all the user forums etc. I'd love to see this come back under the GOG banner.

If the game developers build in features for those community protocols it should not be an issue to have a unified client. All GOG Galaxy needs to know, is how to talk to the game client and pass on the connection information.

There is no need to implement extra code into the games.