I've already explained why this is way more complicated than you're presenting it as, I don't feel further debating it will do any good.

It was somewhat a joke comment because you are completely missing the point, and as others have stated it contributes nothing to the discussion but to muddy the waters of the pertinent discussion.

Well I really don't know how you come to that conclusion. Dumbfounded really. In my eyes the game is DRM-free as promised. Maybe my judgement is a bit clouded having come from the original release version (which I already liked) and seen what has come off it and what it is now. I clearly lack the perspective of someone trying to assess if they should buy the game now.

Also I posted a lot of questions in my posts, none of which anyone bothered to answer. But I'm arguing "in bad faith"?

Again:
Would it be fine if they removed the Living Ship for everyone, restoring parity to offline and online play?
Would it have been fine if they had added the Living Ship as DLC (paid or free) with a remark "online only"?
What about my racing game example? Ok or delist?
What about Dying Light? They have events, like easter where you can earn stuff like special hand grenades. You can play them single player, but afaik only get the rewards being online (it being a community event about gathering as many easter eggs as possible), probably also only start the event online. It's basically the same, earning stuff that is usable in offline play too. Delist Dying Light?

Instead of insulting and accusing me, answering the questions would be nice. Covering your ears and crying "They are guilty!", that is witch hunting. And I'm seriously disappointed that you don't see that, because I really cherish you as a member here otherwise, even if we sometimes disagree. Right now I feel a civil discussion is less and less possible, reminding me of Twitter lynch mobs in a not very comfortable way.

Okay i am sorry for offtopicing but my internet is down and i can't download MGS 2 so i am sad

Please don't ban me i am shutting up

I am with the OP and Breja on this.

The practice should not be happening but I myself believe it is definitely creeping into gog.

Take for example X4, see attached screenshot. At least this information is on the storepage see attached.

If a game is sold on gog, it should be the full version without psuedo multi-player nonsense or mission creep.

I don't see this whole situation in black and white to be honest, but a worrying gray.

Just my 2 cents here: let's strip the outer layers and look at the core for a bit.

Does anyone want developers to keep adding online only content to what should essentially be offline single-player parts of games on GOG? I believe the general consensus is that nobody's too excited about the prospect, to say the least.

If we don't "witch hunt" it now, then what kind of message does that send? I'm usually not one for excessive measures, and to be honest would not feel too happy if NMS is delisted, but I can see the reasoning behind people wanting it to be.

Man, am I disappointed with Egosoft for pulling this stunt. At least the game is highly moddable, as the rest of the series, and I believe someone's already done an offline replacement for the needlessly online parts.

This isn't really my fight (I stand by my downvoted post that StingingVelvet's post was reasonable in saying it is complicated), but I do think making a ruckus on the forum actually works. but what would work even moreso is posting/sharing elsewhere - the GOG subreddit, r/games, send messages to Support (ask for refunds if need be), contact gaming journos, whatever else. You can also respectfully contact bluetexts but remember they don't have control over this, just ask them to send the feedback to whoever.

It is really still a discussion? People seem more like they're slugging it out in text form or essentially covering ones ears and being intolerant of other opinions suggesting this is "complicated".

Let's all get guns and discuss this in-person :P

Don't worry, all posts are being downvoted now. Most of the first page was green a few hours ago.

Since using the term DRM is as usual problematic, as different people have different definitions, let's call the child by its name: single-player elements locked behind online-only walls. I think we can all agree that both NMS and Absolver have these. Whether these elements are minor or major is besides the point; they're still there.

The question is what should be done about these. GOG's approach is obviously to ignore it, but people here have been making other suggestions.

1) Some people think they should not be here, full stop, which means remove the elements, or remove the walls, or remove the game.
2) Some people think they should ideally not be here, but since they are already here and since more are coming, GOG should clearly indicate their presence (like they indicate the presence of achievements or leaderboards or controller support) to allow people to choose wisely whether to buy the game or not.
3) Some people are fine with the current situation as long as the bulk of the single-player gameplay is offline.
4) Most people don't care.

I don't think it's a witch hunt.

I'm certain our differences of opinion can be resolved in a more civilized manner.

As someone who bought the game here and stopped playing because of the living ship update I would vote on 1) Some people think they should not be here, full stop, which means remove the elements, or remove the walls, or remove the game.
If I knew it had locked gameplay behind online DRM I wouldn't had bought it in the first place. I understand the dev will probably stop updating it here but it should stop others from getting scammed.

Interesting to see things even out :P At least nobody's in the red again yet, on the first two pages (afaik)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B0qBsMJ8pk&t=262

To participate into the discussion in any meaningful way, you should first understand why people are against a mandatory online client for playing a single-player game.

A hint: it has nothing to do with the extra hard drive space that such a client takes, as you foolishly suggest.

You have a baby dick, that's how.

Of course not, but the situation is indeed gray, esp. with NMS.
NMS is basically a single player game with some tacked on MP functions right in the game, which you can switch on and off on the fly, if you choose to. There is are no separate MP or SP modes. There is no "SP part", because that's basically the game, whether you are online, or not.
To encourage people to actually join the "community" stuff they hand out rewards in a special store. Mostly decorations for your base, people seem to be fine with that. Except for the Living Ship. This is pure evil.

In my eyes, the Living Ship, by locking it in the online-play store, essentially becomes an element of online play, which is not part of normal single player - and yes, I do think this sucks, because this affects me as well. And I also think anyone who was lead to believe this Living Ship was part of SP and bought the game on this premise has a right to feel cheated and demand a refund.
Maybe like a dev showcasing some spectacular level of a game, and when you buy it you realize it's an MP level only.

What I don't understand is the insisting on "single player parts locked behind online-only walls". If they're locked behind online play, they're not "single player parts" any more. And that is the shitty decision Hello Games made.

In essence, every stupid flag you decorate your base with that you bought in the quicksilver store is a ""single player part locked behind online-only walls", because the flag is still there when you go offline, but you can only get it by playing online. That's just how NMS works.
But people were fine with that, apparently. Probably because the Living Ship has a mission attached, which is - like everything in NMS - essentially single player. People can and do solo the "community" missions (which you need to do to earn quicksilver, which in turn allows you to buy the stuff leading to the living ship). I've even heard people coming online to take the mission, then pulling the plug to do the mission without the interference of other players (some people seem to love to drop bases on top of the mission target). Are those missions DRM'd then? When they work offline for the essential part?
So I do get why people are angry that HG turned the Living Ship essentially into a reward for doing "community". I find it frustrating myself. I hope that people keep pestering HG about this, and I hope they change this someday and someday soon. But calling this "DRM" is really a stretch. There are no "digital rights" "managed" here.