My 2 cents: I don't mind such games being available -- it's not my cup of tea, but it will certainly make some people happy.

What I *would* mind is if the time and energy GOG spends on such games are taken from a limited pool, and in the end detract from other kinds of games, which *are* my cup of tea (let's say, for instance, Sierra's Emperor city-builder, wink wink nudge nudge).

Of course it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; if multi-player focused games bring in the big bucks, and some of those bucks go towards bringing good old city builders to GOG and such, then it's a net win for everybody.

So I voted "yes", under the assumption that the latter case holds.

I guess for the Multiplayer campaign? It's not that there is no campaign, just not a single player one:

"and the online multiplayer campaign - a persistent galaxy-wide war"

As long as there is nothing blocking the single-player, go for it.

Keys are already offered and as long as the accounts are just that, optional, I don't see the issue.

"Optional" is the keyword here. I shouldn't need to register, use a key, connect to their servers or be online to install the game or play by myself if I don't want to.

God yes I want this game! Looks frigging awesome. And people who don't want it can just skip it, it doesn't affect their gog using at all, just another game in the midst others. I don't like all of the gog games but I don't think they shouldn't be here, there is a crowd for every game.

I think if this game is going to join the GOG catalof it should be on the bottom of the list for a couple of reason.

1. No single player campaign, meaning theres no single player potential at all or effort to this game. Yes there are skirmishes with the AI but I don't feel like the developers are going to put any effort to AI. Also like Jamyskis said:

"If this is approved, what's to stop devs coming along with a multiplayer-focused game that requires account registration, claiming that there is a single-player mode, only to turn out to be some superficial training mode that is interesting for about five minutes. Games like this are like a mass plague on Steam, and seem to have these training modes just so that they can have the "single-player" tag as a honey trap for unwitting buyers to lure them into a fundamentally multiplayer game with an inactive online world."

2. If the single player is only a tutorial thing this game is going to be multiplayer only, meaning you have to get the key wich is a DRM (Ithought GOG was against DRM) and secondly the multiplayer community might end up been dead and this game fail. Another dead game in the shelves.

3. By checking the game wishlist on this website we all know there are more and better games that deserve the GOG catalog spot over this one.

I personally wouldn't play it, but I know for a fact some people would. It looks like a well polished, reasonable game that will appeal to the RTS crowd.

I think that it doesn't matter if it has "newer" features, just aslong as it's DRM doesn't get in the way, and it's a good product.

Where is the question? Followed link in the article, It still just says, "Here is our question..." (edit: NVM, have to allow surveymonkey scripts on the page... boo! :p )

At any rate, your write up is EXACTLY what I like.

"OPTIONAL" is the key word.

The fact that I could buy this and play it offline just like any other traditional GOG single player game is all I look for anymore in games. Its win/win as all camps should be happy. Those wanting to connect and play online can, and those wanting single player only can have that too.

However, with this particular title... its simply a genre mismatch for me. I have absolutely no problems (zero) with GOG selling it, but its not my cup of tea.

It appears to me the game does not offer much without the "online account" - only skirmishes with an AI or another player with different key. I don't know how big the other features will be, but having the main menu with just one 1 button enabled ("skirmish") and 4 buttons disabled ("multiplayer campaign", "achievements", "social" and "scoreboards") seems like a demo mode.

The main reason for me to buy games on GOG is to be sure the game will work independently on any third party decisions (disabling DRM servers). What happens when this game servers shut down? Will we lose 80% of the game?

One solution would be to provide the server component as well, which will enable all the features when we connect to our own server. (This server component can still check the key uniqueness for all the connected players)

As a follow-up to the classic Total Annihilation, I wouldn't mind seeing it here, but I don't feel entirely comfortable voting "Yes".

Regardless of how much I am looking forward to this particular game, I am very wary of any features relying on account activation.

I think this particular instance is fine provided that not too much of the game is taken up in its account-bound crap, but I very much want GoG to stay on top of this stuff and not sell legions of multiplayer crap like steam does.

I voted YES but I don't really care about the game. I hope at the release date GOG will throw a bone for oldtimers as well :-P

I'm okay with online only games avalible on GOG.com. Although, I don't want them to be full of microtransactions and "hidden fees" in the form of, like, let's say you buy a game for 9.99 and it only includes 2 multiplayer maps, and you have to pony up another 9.99 to get access to the full suite.

Stuff like that turns me off and it's nice if the advertised price is the price for the full game, no hidden stuff in the game. That's what I like about GOG. DRM free and you get the full game for a single price, nothing to worry about. :)