If you get an answer to this question, can you please inform me? ;)

Incidentally, I emailed Bethesda when they first announced Steamworks for Skyrim. I asked them to please keep my information and notify me if they ever offered the game DRM-free as I wanted to buy 2 copies of the most expensive and complete versions for full retail price when/if they did. I have not heard back from them :(


For me its:
Criteria number 1. No DRM.
Criteria number 2-100... to be determined based on a plethora of factors.

But to summarize my previous posts, I don't consider the offering in question to contain DRM as the components behind them are highly optional. (and in my case, options I would never use). Its likely claiming my car cost more than it did because it had an optional spoiler that I chose not to buy because I hate spoilers. Doesn't matter to me what the spoiler costs... I chose to not have it and I chose to not pay for it. This games "DRM" is the same. Doesn't matter what it is or how it works... its in a place that will never effect me... therefore its a nice way of providing choice.

Now, if they bring on single player DLC or other more viable options that have some DRM in them... then we have a problem, and I'll be lighting my pitchfork and sharpening my torch with the rest of the folks in this thread! ;)

Oh, and let me guess. You're of the group that believes throwing Super Bowl Parties should be criminal? Because your Cable TV is only licensed to one viewer?

That is just insane. I'm not talking about giving a copy of my game to everyone under the sun. I'm talking about installing MY game on MY two computers. Why should that be a crime?

As for it being not allowed in games, you're very wrong. I have plenty of games that allow for multiplayer with a single copy, without the need for multiple machines. Heroes of Might & Magic. Super Smash Bros. I should have the right to access the multiplayer in my games, so long as I'm not distributing it illegally and I'm using the computers that I own.

We call that fair use.

Actually, you should be able. Install the first copy with GOG's generic key, install the second copy with your personal key. Thus you could use the 2 keys you have to play head to head.

Personally, I've always been of the opinion that requiring some sort of unique identifier to play Internet games is quite reasonable. You pay money for a license to use the software, and that's fine: you get to keep it forever, and the cost to the developer of your use of the software is nil.

Servers require long-term commitment of capital to remain online, however, and every match you play costs some amount of money to those running the servers. I think it is therefore quite reasonable to go to modest lengths to ensure that only people with legitimate claim to the use of the servers get to use it. If you freeload you harm everyone.

Now, this is all predicated on these ephemeral servers not being the only means to a) play or b) play networked. GOG has many games for sale where networking is no longer possible because the required servers no longer exist, and that's an important part of history lost to us.

Therefore, I think if we keep to the metric of being able to play a network game without anything more than the basic hardware infrastructure (i.e. server software is distributed along with client software), then I think there's nothing wrong. The game is DRM-free; it's the server which requires very reasonable authentication.

That's a completely different thing, don't twist my arguments.

Completely different things. Super Smash Bros and HMM support local multiplayer, NWN doesn't. It would be like making a lan house and installing a copy of CS in every PC so that i can play multiplayer with friends and then claiming i "have the right to play multiplayer".

Yes, you have the right to play multiplayer with one copy: online. But the fact that you purchased one copy doesn't give you the right to make a fucking lan party out of it.

I call it piracy. People need to learn that the fact that you buy a game (or any IP, for that matter) doesn't mean you have the property over it and can do whatever you want with it. When you buy a game, you're purchasing a license for your OWN use.

You can't make copies of the game just because you bought it, just like i can't seed GOG games on torrents just because i purchased them.

Again, let me ask you, can you do it physical games? Can you play Halo over system-link on the Xbox with one copy? No, you can't. WHy would you want to do it with digital games? This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the reasons we have so much DRM. To prevent casual piracy. Would you be able to do this if it was a Steam game? You see why publishers prefer Steamworks now?

Not all singleplayer DLC is bad. Think of the old expansion packs, playing C&C Generals without Zero Hour or Dawn of War without Dark Crusade would be almost unthinkable. The stuff nowadays like $10 for a few epaulets is ridiculous, or $20 for a map which everyone has to get to play with those that did get it is absurd. The Aliens V Predator game that was out a while back did the map DLC and instantly split the multiplayer up into those that bought it and those that didn't and killed the game overnight. Some companies keep modding in (Bohemia Interactive and Arma) while still releasing polished in house content. Valve and Tripwire Interactive are releasing some pretty cool community mods as DLC.

Good DLC is always worth getting when it's done well, and part of that is keeping it optional. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is up on GOG with Alien Crossfire and I recall a fairly large petition to get that expansion up. :P There's no difference between DLC and expansion packs, it's just that modern DLC tends to be useless and annoyingly compulsory turning premium priced games into shareware. I'd like the Ghost Recon expansions up on GOG, I'd like games like Heroes of Might and Magic to continue arriving on GOG with all their DLC added and DRM removed. Keeping DRM and obnoxious DLC out on the other hand is a worthy cause indeed, one which I'd be happy to grab my always sharpened pitchfork for.

I initially said no in the survey and was asked why not. And I thought about it and realized no real reason, but my gut reaction was mostly the result of point 1): Multiplayer focused gameplay. the lack of singleplayer makes the non-connected features mostly moot. but I changed my mind because LAN was still DRM-free. but after changing my answer I wasn't asked for any comments so I'm posting here. Because I think that there should not be a lot of multiplayer heavy titles unless they are prominently advertised as such.

Actually, the argument is quite relevant. The NFL regularly prosecutes people who throw Super Bowl parties because they violate their copyrights. Where do you stand on that subject? Should they be allowed to? You obviously don't believe I should be allowed to use a game on my computers as I feel.
Why not? Why is there some arbitrary limit to how many computers I can install it on? Why? Why is it that I'm not allowed to use it on any computers I own? What about hard drives? Can I not install these games on a RAID cluster? On a virtual server? If I'm not allowed to manipulate the hardware that the game is running on, what about the software? Am I not allowed to modify my game to allow for multiplayer if it doesn't have it?

Your entire argument is arbitrary. Piracy is the illegal distribution of materials, not the installation of materials on things I own. If I own 4 iPods, I can put my music on 4 iPods. That's fair use, and completely legal.
So I cannot allow anyone to use my computer ever, because that's piracy? If I let my friend borrow my laptop, he cannot touch any of the games I own? Why is your definition of piracy so vastly different from that actual definition people actually use?

And the answer to your last question is "yes". You can do it with physical games. I have multiple computers with Starcraft installed as we speak, and I purchased a physical copy. The same is true with Diablo I and II. And Pirates Gold. And Pirates 2003. And pretty much every physical game I own. Because I should have the right to play my game on either my laptop or my desktop computer. There doesn't need to be an arbitrary restriction on where I play my games.

I chose to vote No. Wile the game itself did sound engaging, the thought that there are any restrictions or barriers to accessing all of its content is anathema to the principles that have made GOG a success. This does NOT sit well with me and i'm a bit concerned of where this site might be headed.

Once again you COMPLETELY missed my point. WHat i said is that you can't use the same copy at 2 different PCs at the sime time. That's piracy. Of course you can install it in as many PCs as you want. But 2 people playing with the same copy at the same time on different machines? Nope, i won't buy it. It's piracy, period.

You can argue and try to sugar coat it as much as you want, it won't change the fact that it is piracy. That's exactly the same as making copies of your game and distributing it your your friends or seeding it on a torrent, just at different scales.
i'm not talking about restrictions on where you play your games, i'm talking about illegaly distributing copies. There's nothing arbitrary with it at all, it's forbidden by both the ToS and the law. Only one person can use a copy at the same time. There's nothing arbitrary with it.

Do you see why publishers strap DRM all over the place? Yes, it's because of people like you. With DRM they can ensure that only one person is using the copy at a given time. There are basically 2 reasons why publishers choose DRM: to stop casual piracy (such as the case here) and to stop second-hand sales.

Dark Crusade is a standalone, not a expansion pack or a DLC

Dude, I have 3 DLC on Skyrim and I don't even know what they does or what they have added :D

But you still haven't really explained why there's an arbitrary line. You have no problem with multiple people playing one game if it's a built-in function, but somehow have a problem with it if it is not. Why is that? Do you have a problem with mods that add functionality to a game? Do those count as piracy?

Your attempt to redefine crimes is going to fail. Even with Steam's DRM, I can play the same game on multiple devices simultaneously. I can even use multiplayer without having to bypass Steam's DRM in a good number of cases (I play Terraria on both my computers simultaneously all the time). You entire argument runs in circles... if you acknowledge that multiplayer on a single copy is legal, then you have to explain why it magically becomes illegal in other scenarios. If it is always illegal, then explain to me how hotseat multiplayer is suppose to function. And if your arbitrary line is in multiple devices, then you'll have to explain why I can multiplayer a game on a virtual server with as many people as I want, but it magically becomes badwrongfun if I have to use multiple computers rather than a single powerful one.

There is a significant difference between using a product on devices I own, whether someone else is doing so as well, and distributing copyrighted works over the internet. If you honestly can't see a difference between the two, you're insane.
Actually, we're talking about legally installing and using copies on devices owned by the end-user of the product. You can try to paint that however you want, but no one is distributing anything, illegally or otherwise. One person, owning one piece of software and multiple devices, wanting to use those devices and software to do as they please without breaking the law.

And casual piracy isn't what I'm talking about. Casual piracy is "oh, you want a copy dude? Here you go", which has never been the point of discussion between you and I. The topic has always been about "yeah, I have this game. Want to try it? Use that computer." Now show me where the piracy is.

I didn't vote because this sort of game doesn't interest me.

To the question behind the question about if:

-Multi-player focus with single-player only Player-vs-AI
-Developer online specific features that require developer online account for those features only
-No additional activation/accounts are required for single-player or LAN play
-Unique key (assumed provided with GoG purchase) required for Internet multiplayer

are within the spirit that I expect from GoG. I would say yes as long as it's 100% clear for someone looking at the game that these restrictions are part of the purchase. I would say no if it's not clear.

To my mind, the strongest requirement for being a responsible electronic game distributor attempting to truly serve its customers is clarity. Trust is easy to lose and hard to gain. As long as it's clear what I'm getting and I can make an informed decision, trust will not be lost. I might choose not to buy that specific game, but if most of the games were what I expected and was interested in, I'd keep buying the games I was interested in and hold no grudge against GoG. After all, serving gamers as a whole means serving gamers who are interested in games I don't want as well as the ones I do.

As a business, I'd expect GoG to look at their sales data for games with some of those sorts of restrictions compared to games in the same genre/popularity without those restrictions and determine appropriate effort/price points for future games based on that. Honestly, having those sorts of numbers to present might even help GoG convince future publishers that fewer restrictions would make them more money (which is one reason I've re-bought some games I already owned on Steam via GoG).

I agree with PaladinWay.

Be up front and honest about what you get. Be open and honest about what you might have to do, or pay for, to use some features. Then all is okay - people get to make an informed decision.

I don't understand the angst about DLC's I sometimes see on here. If it not advertised with the original game, then it's not in it. If you want it, you pay and get it. Sounds fair. I'd rather than games be available to those that want it, than not and lay forgotten.

It probably has to do with the fact that people are used to the collector's editions and complete editions that often come on GoG. They don't like getting partial games because they are used to getting complete compilations.

To be honest, I'm fine with it myself. I DO wish that GoG would allow me to download the game and all DLC I own as a single install file (maybe store all extras together as well). Another interesting thing would be if a special edition comes out in the future, it can replace the normal one you already own. But otherwise, I'm fine with the way things are.