No. Because most AAA devs have known for a long time (specially because most of them probably pirated games in the past) that the average user (with just a minimum of internet searching) can easily download a "drm-free" (*cough cough*) installer for 95% of PC games on the market (inluding those previously protected by Denuvo).

Big publishers are more and more seeing DRM-free, offline gaming as anathema, because their new objective is micro-transactions, cosmetic purchases, loot boxes, etc etc etc.
Many people will argue that only sucker gamers may fall for such low practices. But as the old saying goes: "a fool and his gold are easily parted" and "there's a sucker born every minute".

So, are you saying that devs have zero concern about users setting up shop on GOG to copy (and even 'sell') their offline installers to other users? Come on, what's to stop anyone from doing this and I am quite certain it's already occuring. It would be safer for jerks to do this other than infesting their devices with viruses downloading 'pirated' games from sketchy sites.

At least with GOG offline installers, you can be assured that the games are 100% clean. Wouldn't that be a lot more attractive for thieves?

I think DRM-free is too crucial to GOG's position in the marketplace.

What I'd like to see is at least games that are a few years old show up here and ones that have already had their DRM on Steam cracked, but apparently we can't even get many of those.

Yep. Besides, "piracy" is and will always be a lame excuse by greedy publishers. There have already been several studies proving that piracy only have minimal effect on profit. The success of games extremely hyped like "Witcher 3" proves it.
If piracy really affected sales there's no way you'd have small indie publishers releasing their games on GOG on "day 1 launch".

And before GOG (when steam had an almost complete monopoly on new games) I used to download pirate versions of certain games I wanted to play (which I've since bought on GOG). I never caught any virus or malware. I'm far more afraid of Google than I am of "cracked" games, TBH.

That's actually a really interesting compromise. Of course, it would require the explicit admission that Galaxy acts as a DRM requirement in some cases. That has certainly not happened yet, and would expose that many "DRM-free games" are in fact only DRM-free for singleplayer but have DRM required to access multiplayer. I am all for calling a spade a spade but I think it would be confusing for customers who have been under the impression that Galaxy is DRM-free gaming only to then be told it is DRM for some games. As pointed out by multiple users, GOG's unique selling point is DRM-free, not Galaxy. So while they could potentially gain more games, it would really erode brand identity to do so.

If GOG allowed devs to delay the availability of offline installers to maximize revenue of a title's release (a year or two?), I believe it could be a reasonable compromise for all of GOG's users. Those who are okay with a temporary Galaxy requirement could purchase the game at release, and those who are adamantly opposed could wait for the offline installers to be made available.

This could potentially be a win/win for everyone, including GOG. Just trying to think outside of the box.

Edit:

Actually this would be a win/win/win for everyone (potentially). Users okay with a tempoary Galaxy requirement, users who are competely opposed but are willing to wait a while for offline installer availability, and of course GOG itself by attracting more titles to it's platform.

Call me crazy...or even a GOG heretic, I don't mind.

More likely it'll be a case where they won't bother to go back and do an offline installer release at all, they don't want to support multiple store-fronts (let alone two versions per store) and people who want the latest EA / Ubisoft / Square Enix over-sequels will just continue to buy them on Steam. We are after all talking about the very same devs who either populate this list out of laziness, or who have AAA games on Steam discounted all the way down to £2-£3 that still aren't on GOG after 7-8 years (virtually admitting it's not the 'value' of the games but rather the 'hassle' of multiple store-fronts). I agree it would be good to do a DRM-Free re-release after a year, but if publishers felt the same way then where's Dishonored, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, etc, on GOG after 7-8 years?

As karnak1 said, it's no longer the principle of DRM-Free that's the issue for post 2017 AAA's. The publishers really dislike offline gaming today in general because it clashes with the real "new direction" of AAA games (in-game purchases, loot-boxes, micro-transactions, pay2win, etc), which require you to be online to spend, spend, spend in-game. "Post purchase monetization" and the ongoing crapification / mobilization of AAA PC games has been the new priority since around 2016-2017.

After the pleasant surprise that was the Bioshock trilogy, personally I hope GOG does get more "traditional" single-player 2010-2015 era AAA games here like DX:HR, Dishonored, Talos Principle, etc, but for post-2016 AAA's designed almost completely around monetizing every aspect of the game with micro-transactions, you can virtually write them off for good for ever having any offline version on any store due to the nature of the games.

Exactly!

Speaking for myself, I don't think we need the kind of multiplayer, co-op trash, transaction-filled garbage that we're getting every month from AAA publishers.

I'd very much love to see Dishonored, the remaining Far-Cries and Assassin's C's and Skyrim (Fallout 4, Dark Souls, etc etc etc) here, but I see no need for GOG ever to sell trash like "Wolfenstein Youngblood", "Rage 2", "Fallout 76" or "Far Cry New Dawn".
If I want to play quality multiplayer or co-op games I'll invite some folks for a Poker night or a quality boardgame.

Again: just my opinion. The vast majority of games I play are single-player (while I recognize that some people prefer to play in co-op).

When I first started watching Jim Sterling's channel a couple of years ago he'd mostly play/review lousy "unity-asset" games from steam's Greenlight section, review new AAA launches and sometimes criticize and denounce some big publisher like EA, Activision or Ubisoft for bad marketing and greedy practices.
2 years later and - almost every week - Jim's denouncing new nefarious business practices from AAA publishers. Even the AAA games that he reviews manage to be almost as ridicule and broken as some "unity cashgrabs" from the time of steam's greenlight!

The question is: has Jim Sterling lately shifted the focus of his channel in an obsessive manner, or are the AAA publishers obsessively enforcing stronger DRM and anti-consumer practices?
I'd bet on the second option.

I would really like it explained to me in sufficient detail, how Galaxy, which is often accused of pushing DRM for multiplayer in some games, could be avoided for those games .... aside from just not using the multiplayer aspect for them?

The way I understand how it all works, means that the accusers don't really seem to have much of a clue ... but perhaps I am wrong, so I will reserve my judgment and count on a clear explanation.

Just for the record, I don't like an online requirement just to play a game. But if on the other hand, you are going to play a game online anyway, what is the biggie about having to have an account to login to do so, as that would seem fairly normal to me, and I am not sure GOG can be held accountable for enabling this for those who want to play that game online, if there is no other way to do it? In short, you need a web connection for Multiplayer anyway, unless LAN is available.

Well, Steam have any DRM available and biggest userbase than anyone. But:

1. No last two Call of Duty games or Diablo/Warcraft/Starcraft game series are available on Steam. At least, first Diablo and Warcraft are available on GOG - GOG wins.

2. No Battlefield games later than Bad Company 2 are available on Steam. Also, no Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2 or Inquisition or Dead Space 3. Steam in only in slightly better position than GOG in terms of EA games.

3. Ubisoft has recently released on GOG all three Brothers in Arms games, so GOG is getting AAA games from this company. On the other hand, newest Ubisoft games available only at their store or EGS - no Steam.

4. AAA games like Heavy Rain or Detroit are exclusives for EGS and no Steam version is available. Also, no Metro Exodus, Mechwarrior 5 and some other games for Steam because they only for EGS right now.

Conclusion:

1. Right now it is not DRM/userbase matters that much because right now almost every AAA-games publisher is interested in making their own store and obtaining exclusives for it.

2. GOG still gets AAA-games released. Latest ones (not counting Cyberpunk preorder :) ): Bioshock series (3 games with 2 remasters), Brothers in Arms (all 3 games), Hitman (Absolution and Blood Money).

Sorry, you are obviously the one with no clue. There are tons of multiplayer games that do not require accounts. Also, there are plenty of multiplayer games that have accounts but no DRM as such -- anyone can register an account and it's in no way tied to any sense of "ownership" of said game.

1) No, accounts are in general *not* required for multiplayer.

2) Some games would like to store persistent data about your player profile. The conventional way is to have an account for this purpose. That is not the only way. Also, even when accounts are used, they need not be ones tied to a game store that checks whether you've purchased said game before letting you play (that's very much DRM).

3) Web has nothing to do with multiplayer.

Web connection for multiplayer != Account for multiplayer. On its face we can see this is true, as there used to be games in which accounts were NOT needed to access online multiplayer. To say nothing of options like direct connect. In short, the way to have DRM-free multiplayer is to not require a client or third-party accounts (like the Paradox games). Ideally, there would be OFFLINE options, LAN, splitscreen, hotseat...since even private servers aren't guaranteed to exist.

Allow me to point out that there seems to be a fundamental difference in views on this topic:
You talk about "GOG enabling this" as if it is some magnanimous gesture on their part, and that we'd be left in the sad, multiplayer-less darkness if not for Galaxy to shed its enlightenment.
My view is that requiring accounts for multiplayer is a means of control. If we didn't care about control over the things we buy, we might as well just go to Steam or "better" yet, Stadia.

Needing to use the client or the account is an extra, unnecessary step that DIRECTLY affects game preservation. I have posted numerous times about how when you read the "checklist" quotes from FCKDRM.com, Galaxy's multiplayer ironically fails multiple, if not all, of the points. You wrote "I am not sure GOG can be held accountable for enabling this". Considering who runs FCKDRM.com, I'd say you can indeed be more sure.

Multiplayer games without any DRM-free options don't belong on a DRM-free store, imo. I understand why they're here. I understand that without them, there may be a smaller amount of titles to choose from here. I believe I understand why GOG made the Galaxy client and seems to push it on customers as hard as they do. Really, I get it.
I just think it erodes brand identity and confuses users. There are multiple times when people have pointed out a game is DRM-free for singleplayer but needs Galaxy for multiplayer. Wouldn't it be more coherent if a game was just "DRM-free"?

There are plenty of old AAA titles not being released as well. This isn't just a new vs old argument. Apparently, anything outside of indie titles are outside of GOG's wheelhouse now.

I agree and I would like to see this "lost generation" of games that aren't available DRM-free. That said, it was cool to see Venetica come here (I realize it was already DRM-free though). I have to assume its a bad combination of publishers holding titles hostage and GOG focusing more on a different audience in the last couple years.