Well it replaces a game client file that came with the game in a way WINE doesn't (and "scene" groups do) and although Goldberg has some valid uses for local multiplayer, I'm sure you know why most people use it on DRM'd / Steamworked Steam games for single player titles. The nearest analogy I can come up with it's like taking a physical disc game with a CD check, ripping it to ISO, then mounting the ISO as a fake CD-ROM drive containing the disc. The disc check is still present but simply "fooled" into always seeing a valid disc (something GOG actually does for some DOS CD-ROM games using the DOSBox IMGMOUNT command). Technically the DRM hasn't been cracked out / removed but it's definitely some unofficial workaround, and I've no idea of its legal status. The main reason I mentioned it is that in the event GOG isn't around, having Galaxified offline installers is potentially more fragile and certainly less desirable than having developers provide a "clean" client-less build as seen with Humble, itch.io, and of course pre-2014 GOG...

If it can be any consolation, you are not the one being frustrated by it. That's something that Gog could easily fix on their own either by improving their offline installer generation process or at the very least by monitoring the version difference from time to time (Heck if a fan script can do it why can't they do it on their side?). But no it seems that if MarkoH01 doesn't ping them from time to time you end up with more and more outdated installers...

My main point in this whole thread could be TL:DR;ed to :

I don't think that just saying "DRM-free" is enough anymore. Everybody has it's own definition of what it means, and of course everybody think that their own is the only correct one.

Also there are things that could "technically" be considered as qualifying as being "DRM-free" but that IMHO would be unacceptable to be sold on Gog.

For example "technically" MMO could be considered "DRM-free" (if you go back to the original definition of DRM and no special DRM is added to the client) but I guess we can both agree (at least on that) that it wouldn't be acceptable if tomorrow Gog decide to sell World of Warcraft and its extensions, and we would probably be both very pissed at them if they ever do it.

It's the same for Hitman, personally I can "understand" (And "understand" DOESN'T mean agreeing or excusing) how Gog might consider it to qualify as "DRM-free" but I still find this release totally unacceptable and I 100% agree that Gog MUST fix it ASAP.

That's why I think that it would be important to have a clear definition of what Gog utilities to determine what they consider as being DRM-free, probably you or even me will disagree with it but at least we will something to start from instead of everybody screaming on their side that their own definition of DRM is the right one and that everybody who disagree is stupid.

Heck if you read some of my other posts throughout the years you probably noticed that it's something I have asked for quite sometime now, for example I often say that Gog should have put clearly in the FAQ that multiplayer is not included in their DRM-free promises, even doing something as basic as that would have avoided plenty or discussions and confusions.

There are lots of different things and the term drm is not a good one:
Online gating
Online only
Activations
Security software like denuvo
Anti cheat modules
Streaming
In game pop ups
Multiplayer locked to proprietary servers
Proprietary launchers
In game web connection (e.g. for “news”)
Proprietary locked features (e.g. achievements only for galaxy)
Cloud saves (proprietary)
Media checks (used to be dvd checks)
Telemetry (eg unity)

There are likely others that I have missed. GOG currently cover almost all of these, streaming (although it promotes nvidia one) and denuvo (although fear apparently installs securom if you hit multiplayer) are the only two I think. So no difference to any of the other stores out there.

Another appropriate analogy, that sometimes includes DLL swapping, are renderer replacers/wrappers. Old Voodoo API games, or games where you have to remove their ancient hardware renderers with software ones.

Great question. My guess is "complete lack of desire", at best.

Streaming by its very nature is DRM. If the server goes down, then the product I paid for is unavailable to me, who paid for it. Just because DRM has other functions does not make it "not DRM". Also, the very idea that "It's just how it is designed" is a terrible one, because it doesn't need to be designed broken with a time-bomb waiting to take out your purchased product.

Netflix is a service. I don't pay for individual titles, so if they lose a title, I am not generally upset (even when I really loved it) because when they gain a title, I get "free" access to it (free as in it costs me no extra beyond my subscription fee). So I am able to enjoy everything they have as a sampler service as long as I have the account. If I'm paying for a specific thing, and I don't have access to it, that is DRM. If I buy a movie from Disney, and they don't turn over a copy of the video file, that is DRM. If something I bought is going to be no longer available to me through a digital means, then it is DRM.

The radio and TV are more akin to free Netflix. You get a service that is provided. You didn't pay for a song, or a specific show. It's there as part of a service (in many cases that you're not paying for, but if you are, you're generally not getting it on demand).

How much concern did GOG have for the community during the best of times? Not a whole lot as best I can see, and these aren't the best of times. GOG is struggling, so I think it would be an amazing feat to get them to cede some of their "wiggle room" and nail down a clearly defined definition. I think it's a fight worthy of being fought, how about you?

I'd say that it's irrelevant as long as a non-Streaming/DRM'ed copy is also available for sale. In that case, streaming(=renting) is nothing more than a personal choice.
If you said "Streaming-only by its very nature is DRM", then I'd agree. But maybe that's what you meant in the first place.

In the end it's about being able to purchase a DRM-free game, not about the existence of some other service that asks your firstborn in exchange.

And the Netflix thing... if they offer a movie/tv show only on their streaming service, with no possibility of buying/downloading a DRM free copy - I'd call that DRM, not a "side effect". Let's not be naïve, (a big part of) the film industry has always been as bad as "some Japanese game publishers".

I wasn't saying Netflix wasn't DRM, I was more stating that I accept it for what it is because I'm paying for a service, not for a specific thing. It's why I never bought digital movies on Amazon, because they flat out said if they lost the license, you'd lose access to the content. That may have changed, but a few years ago that was the case.

Just curious... do you say "accept" because you aren't interested in buying any of the "specific things" that are available on their service?

If there is an blackput, then the product I paid for is unavailable to me, who paid for it. ergo - electricity is by it's very nature DRM. QED.

Ok. A blackout and a company taking a server down are the same thing. Now you're just being silly, and you know it.

I paied for that product, god darn it, and I expect it to work!

Yes. That is not something they control, nor is the electricity supplied by the provider. The servers are owned (or rented) by the provider of a product. An outage of internet or electricity is obviously beyond their means of control. Binding their product to a proprietary server they control is a choice that means one day, they will deny you the ability to access your paid product, in part or in full BY DESIGN. But yeah, let's make silly statements and pass them off as legitimate arguments.