Dude. GOG has always posted up when a multiplayer component requires a key (theres a number of games on the exisiting catalogue that has this as well). The SP is DRM free.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any idea if the retail version has any DRM?

GOG made a little mistake this time. Anyone reading the gamecard sees this:

"Multiplayer notice: Wargame: European Escalation supports multiplayer. However, due to technical reasons beyond our control, this feature will be available tomorrow."

without any mention of a CD key. Not everyone reads (or even clicks on) the release announcement. For example, I used to always just click on "New & Coming" and then go straight to the gamecard for any new games. And such people may end up buying the game from a "DRM-free company" based on the information in the gamecard, which promises multiplayer and makes no mention of DRM.

FlyByU has fixed the gamecard page to some degree by putting in a review titled "Multiplayer Requires a CD Key"

I agree. See also for example ARMA 2. A lot of keys are already in use with pirated versions. Even my key I got with the GOG Version of ARMA 2 was already in use before I even tried the multiplayer. So I couldn't join some servers because someone else played on them with my key. They use a keygenerator and if you have bad luck it's your key they get. The only advice I got in the official forums was to download a keygenerator and try an other key. So multiplayer keys are crap.

Delete.

This is pretty much the point. I understand that they lost the battle to not have the key (and I *hope* they at least tried), but be more transparent about it. Regardless of the degree of impact (which can be argued about) that does not make it not DRM.

This is an odd comment for a primarily multiplayer game.

I will also point out that GOG does this for games such as NWN that do not require 'official' servers.

Delete.

Again... I am not saying don't do it. I am saying make it clear what you are doing and what the limitations are. That way if you don't think it's an issue no one loses.

Delete.

And GOG's policy is to provide free replacement keys? Where is that stated? And of course there's the chance that GOG ceases to exist (especially if publishers find out they are handing out free keys).


That is incorrect. It is, instead, only the nature of controlled/centralized servers. And what's one of the main reasons for having such servers? Oh yeah -- it's so they can ban keys. If they just let everyone run servers (and there are many multiplayer games that do allow that) then they lose the ability to effectively ban keys.


Why should a gamer accept additional artificially-introduced failure modes just because there are existing failure modes? (Especially when those existing failure modes are, as mentioned above, probably also due to the stupid DRM and the need for them to control every server in existence so they can enforce said DRM, and therefore also artificially-introduced?)


Wrong. Lots of multiplayer games let you play multiplayer "forever". They allow LAN and/or player servers (often integrated in such a fashion that the players may not even think of them as a "server"), and/or some others (e.g., I can still play WarCraft II multiplayer over a serial link if that's what I want to do).


The subject here is not "GOG good/better" or "GOG bad/worse". The subject is what is DRM and what isn't, and what may interfere with you playing your games and what won't.


But it doesn't do that. (Do you not know what a "key generator" is and how they completely subvert what you are saying, making illegal copies look legal, and making legal copies look illegal?)


And if I put a bullet in your head that doesn't limit what you can do with your games "legally", but it does limit what you can do with your games. Getting your key banned limits what you can do with a game (or they wouldn't do it in the first place).


Translation: It's only <<holds fingers apart>> /this/ evil (and pretty ineffective against pirates), which is why developers (publishers) use stuff that's even more evil (and still ineffective against pirates).

Wait... Was that supposed to be an argument of some sort?


That's not what I said.

First, I said black-listing is the only REASON for having a key. If the key does NOTHING (i.e., if a key can be posted to the internet and used by all with no technical consequences to those involved), then there is no REASON to have the key. (That's not to say a game couldn't have a key for no reason, maybe some do, there's nothing technically preventing it, but it would be pretty dumb.)

Second, I didn't say they only have keys for banning multiplayer accounts. I said they have keys so they can black-list the keys. Black-listing keys has many applications, many of which apply to single-player: Some games use keys to restrict access to patches (I'm looking at you Starckdock! No DRM my ass!). Some may use keys to control installation. Some games use keys to restrict running the game. Some games use keys to control access to online-only features. (And there are probably various other DRM/key strategies.)


That's not entirely true. As part of their negotiations, just as GOG negotiates the rights to sell games with DRM removed, GOG could also negotiate the rights to include the server application with those games so players could run their own servers. (I'm not making a statement here about whether or not this would be a good business decision for GOG, but I am saying that, at least conceptually, it should be possible in some instances from a technical perspective. In other cases it might be problematic, e.g., if the server requires 3rd party software such as an Oracle database and can't be easily modified to run against an open source alternative.)

You are just making shit up. Go look at Silverhawk's post to see how that worked out for him/her.

What is that, your expectation? (And I bet that isn't in most [if any] game EULAs.)
Oh, so your expectations are part of the discussion but mine are not?

Plus you apparently failed to notice the difference between "expect" and "accept". I asked why a gamer should "accept" a given situation. I said nothing about "expect". If I was talking about expectations, I would be expecting most big publishers to be assholes, because that's the precedent they have generally set in recent years.

You don't know jack about what most of my games come with. You're just making shit up again.

Bullshit. A server run by me for a few friends to play on is what I call "dedicated", has zero hackers, for local friends is going to have way less lag, and never goes dark when I want to play.

WTF? So in your view, for other instances, it's unnacceptable to not have a key? Are you some kind of DRM super-shill or something? (And later you say you hate DRM? You seem inconsistent.) As a gamer, I have always found it acceptable to not need a key.

And you are SO full of shit here. You don't get to define some game features as "game" and some as "not game". The game is the whole thing.

Which is just circular logic when the reason for the controlled/centralized server in the first place is to enforce DRM via black-listing keys.

Bullshit. They black-list the key if they believe ANYONE is using that key that should not be. They consider (or at least tend to act as if they consider) anyone who legally bought the game and therefore is supposed to be able to use that key as just "collateral damage" in their war against piracy.

Bogus distinction. May as well say that "taking up space on your hard drive" is the only primary feature, and everything else is a "secondary feature". Then you can claim that nothing limits what you can do with your game as long as the game continues to take up hard drive space.

(And no software these days "guarantees" anything. Just read the "No Warranty" section of GOG's standard EULA.)

More bullshit. If multiplayer is the most (or even only) fun part of the game, and you lose that feature due to DRM, you just got screwed over by the DRM. The only way to argue in that case it's not a "big deal" is to just argue the insignificance of the game completely, which then lets you be just as dismissive about pretty much every possible gaming issue as you are being here with the DRM.

What did you think I was suggesting? That the average person was going to break out the C++ compiler and write their own key generator? They're going to download it. And guess how they find out where to download it? They start googling for something like "GameX crack" or "download GameX" and get to some page that explains they need to download and use some key_gen.exe file. (Disclaimer: I have never gone through this process so I don't actually know the details -- but it seems like a reasonable assumption that most people download these things and don't write them themselves.)

Rrrrrright.... Always. You know, except when they consider them as proof of piracy, and black-list the key.

Well, I'm certainly not buying what you are spewing. Your "buy it or don't buy it" comment is just more bullshit. I never said anything about buying or not buying nor initiated any complaint about this particular game. I was only correcting some erroneous statements you were making in this thread (and one small one by nijuu), and you just kept making more and more of them. Had it not been for those erroneous statements, I would not have posted in this thread at all.

Good release, even CD-key requirement for multi-player.

Plot twist: Xanto and TheJadedOne are the same person.

Everyone wants my money lately. And they appear to be getting it, another sale to GOG. Quickly skimmed through a few online reviews and realised no reason not to buy.