Very sad. And long live Abandonia(they still support GOG though).

Actually there is. Devs develop their games using the easiest and therefore most cost effective way ... unfortunately this means using the existing structures of the platform they expect the most revenue from. Unfortunately this usually means that they are developing based on Steam. The real question now is if it would be really a good alternative to not have such games (which are completely independent from a client otherwise and can be fine in SP) on GOG at all. The alternative in most cases is not to force devs to develop a special GOG release (since this would cost money and time most small indie devs simply don't have) the alternative is not having the game at all. Imo it would be interesting how many here on GOG would rather not have the game (since GOG would have to reject the game then if they would want to stay true to DRM-free MP) at all in this case? Sure it would probably depend on the type of game but if it has a good SP I am not sure that most would rather not have the game at all than withot MP. Principles are important, of course - but there's also the question if there is a line when the principle followed to 100% might actually harm more than help. Not a fact ... just a thought :)

That's not true, actually, at least not in some of the dev circles i've been looking around in lately. Indeed, people want the simplest method, which also means simple debugging, and if you don't have the steam setup, guess what you don't have. No, most devs are not getting greenlighted without having a bigger name to them. And the devs working with a bigger name behind them are aware of how to make things work without needing the steam API, and also know it's not all that hard, and are likely building that code for easier testing, anyway. It's way, way easier to test things like multiplayer in-house without linking against the steam API, since steam's stuff is largely the raw stuff, anyway. Steam's networking more or less only makes it easier to get around NATs, nothing more, from what I've seen. I think if there was sufficient interest, one could actually develop a somewhat cumbersome hook to steam's IP acquisition via something like a txt file or an external "connect client" or "address book" that can drop-in and replace the steam stuff, but I don't think there's actually enough genuine interest in this. It's certainly possible, and there are enough coders here to make such a thing, but i think we're all more interested in other projects. Actual sockets are not hard to use at all, so you'd think there'd be some work in this direction. The best part is, this could most likely be made to work with all games that use steam's API. DLL hijacking is a thing, and we've seen GOG games use it to make things DRM-free.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/for_the_king_delisting

Looks like we missed one, and it's being delisted for it.

To my knowledge, the DRM that people discussed in reviews was, seemingly, fixed in version 1.0.14.10109 which is an update that came out after the update that added the title screen freezing DRM.

However, I do see a review mentioning that in newer versions, you apparently can't cross-play with Scheme users, even though you could originally. That is multiplayer DRM for those that care.

According to the delisting thread the reason it is being delisted is because of developer decision, not because of DRM that evidently got fixed over a year ago.

It's a bummer because the game itself is really fun.

It's being delisted because the devs stopped updating it on GOG prior to releasing DLCs only on DRMed stores.

I think the original DRM mentioned was that you needed to log in with Galaxy to be able to unlock items in the lore store. However, that was fixed time ago, so no DRM was missed on this list, I believe (although the game was included in the list of games that treat GOG customers as 2nd class citizens). Cross-play is still possible although in most cases botched due to version incompatibility...

Thanks for the headsup. Even if in this case the DRM was removed prior to this thread. Keep me informed when more DRM appears on GOG, be it on new games or added by an update to games already present.

It's so sad that you can't sue them for such fishy business behavior. At least all thos sold games should get the possibility for a refund.

I am concerned about a new game that has been released: Warhammer 40,000 Battlesector. A user posted in the release thread quoting text from the options menu that refers to 'in-app purchases'. I posted there to ask for more details about these in-app purchases from those that have bought/played the game; however, no-one has replied to my question. It would be great if someone could clarify.

There are also several reviews on the store page mentioning that the game harvests user data, with an opt-out that is 'hidden' in the options menu. However, whilst nefarious, that is not DRM.

Does the multiplayer not require galaxy? I dont see it mentioned in the product page, unless gog forgot to put it.

That's a good point. I don't have the game myself and don't know if the MP requires Galaxy. It would be good to get some clarification on that as well.

That is worrying indeed. Another game with in-app purchases after Gwent. But don't in-app purchases require some form of DRM? They have to be locked to an account after all. So even if the data-mining is not DRM, they will need some form of DRM on the game for the in-app purchases.

As for the data mining, GOG themselves attempted opt-out data mining when they introduced the profiles. Only a major outcry stopped them and forced them to change it to opt-in.

I got the confirmation, that multiplayer is indeed DRM-ed. It requires either Galaxy or a Slitherine account:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/release_warhammer_40000_battlesector_f9554/post41

So yes, GOG "forgot" to mention that on the product page.

Well, the online MP is DRM-ed, but the game appears to have a hot-seat mode. So, it can apparently be played MP DRM-free locally via the hotseat. I'm not sure where that places it, in terms of multiplayer DRM ...

It seems there is no in-game store anywhere. It seems that reference was in some boilerplate text from Unity.

Not necessarily. The Sims 3 had DRM-free in-app purchases. The decorations you didn't own could (optionally) be allowed to show in the decoration menues and allow you to buy them in-app and install them immediately (if you were logged in to your EA account in the game and had 'obfuscated currency' Simbucks in your balance). And yet these are all also DRM-free. You can install the game completely afresh on an air-gapped computer, and also install all the little package files, and it works just fine.

Maybe [though I doubt it] they're watermarked to the "CD key" to make sure they're only reinstalling on the same base game CD-key they were originally downloaded with? But it's still not DRM, since there's no revocation mechanism.

This is, however, the ONLY example I can think of of DRM-free in-app purchases.