hedwards: Right, but either way the games can be bought other places than GOG. And even when they do add support for the older games, there will still be other sources of those games.
Or am I missing something here?
Regardless of any of that, they can't really stop people from doing it other than by taking the game back as that would require DRM. I suppose they could withhold updates and require a current version in order to connect, but I'm not sure the community would accept that.
Pheace: Adding support for older games would most likely require a redevelopment of their multiplayer which requires dev involvement, it's not likely to happen except in maybe rare cases.
Steam is the only other place where you'd have a GOG Galaxy matchmaking game, and I do wonder whether those can instead be run through GOG Galaxy or have to run through Steam (which then restricts them so that makes those not relevant).
Also as said above, it's quite possible that GOG Galaxy matchmaking would use your profile as a unique identifier to log into multiplayer. You do have to be logged into the client and your account after all. Then it would be a basic check. Does he own the game, then he can connect to Multiplayer. Does he not? Then he can not.
That doesn't require any DRM inside the game whatsoever, but can still be used to disallow multiplayer access.
Ok, ignoring the above for a second , how do you see multiplayer working where every pirate/cheater can simply freely participate? Because that's what multiplayer without restrictions is going to be. Not only will it stress/strain any servers (assuming there's dedicated ones) but it is very likely to seriously lower the quality of online gameplay, and a lot of that from people who never paid for the game.
That's all definitely reasonable speculation and I've got a feeling there's a lot of truth to the latter part in particular. Some people are single-player only gamers, others multiplayer-only, and then there are those that are an even split down the middle, and those who do both but favour one more than the other overall. I fit into the category of liking both single and multiplayer games but if I had to choose one over the other I'd choose single-player because that's where I spend most of my time.
Why? Primarily because I can game anytime I want and play anything I want without the Internet and some game's servers to be online and functioning properly, and without relying on other people to be present for me to be entertained. I see it as the lowest common denominator that guarantees on any given night that I can be adequately entertained. I look then at multiplayer as being more of the icing on the cake, with some games that have a potentially fun multiplayer anyway. But that's when it starts to break down a bit for me too. I've been multiplayer gaming ever since the first networked multiplayer games appeared - using the term "networked" loosely to mean multiple computers playing a game through some form of interconnection, so that includes Internet, dialup modem, null modem and PLIP.
In the early days there were no online communities, they didn't exist yet and there was no central multiplayer motherbrain. If you wanted to play multiplayer you called a friend on the phone and arranged a 8 hour long LAN party, then spent 6 or 7 of those hours getting everyone to install Windows updates, remove viruses, update their video drivers, reconfigure the OS for hours trying to get the computers to see each other on Network Neighbourhood, and all the other fun stuff. Then you got to play your 1-2 hours of game until the next weekend when you did it all again. Ah, the good old days! But we gamed between friends and friends of friends via invite-only. There were vocalized rules as well as unwritten rules that everyone just understood implicitly like "don't spit on people in public while walking down the street". If someone had a friend they thought could be a part of it and grasp the unwritten rules and be a team player and contribute to the greater enjoyment of the game for everyone then they might get an invite. There were zero random outsiders doing whatever they pleased with complete abandon for any kind of etiquette or rules, such people were just never invited to our closed private sessions in LAN party form, nor online when we started doing everything over the Internet more and more.
Then, we opened up our game servers for public use with Half-life and some other games. When we were in "clan gaming" mode so to speak we would boot everyone out and it was just for trusted members. When we weren't actively gaming like that we would open the servers to whoever, but ban anyone who was noticeably being anti-social or otherwise causing problems or hostility. Overall it worked out ok but the problematic people would sure get under your skin sometimes.
Then a transition occurred where more and more games got rid of direct-IP TCP/IP gaming and more and more got rid of broadcast LAN play options as well, moving more and more towards centralized gaming hub centers. There were pros and cons to this approach, but it was sad that many games made this the only option available when there were no technical reasons why LAN play could not exist. Now multiplayer gaming became more of a free-for-all in the unwashed masses with any random jerk to wreak havoc on other people's games unless they were password protected. Then came the multi-player cheaters which seem to permeate every single game ever made with impunity, and also seem to be able to easily defeat any and all online anti-cheat mechanisms with a click of the mouse.
That is not fun. Not to me.
So I generally avoid the disorganized chaos of online multiplayer gaming with random people I don't know all around the world because the majority of the time when I try it out it is clear someone is using an aim-bot or other cheating mechanisms and that is just totally not enjoyable in any way to me - I'd rather play single-player. I do not cheat in games nor ever want to cheat. Even if I played and lost every game every night with players who were just plain good with no hacks or cheats, I'd rather do that than play with cheaters.
Some cheaters get banned and just make a new Steam account or whatever and come right back. It might cost them $5 or whatever to do it but they don't care, they do it anyway. But - the fact they have to jump through a few hoops and it will cost them a bit of money to have to buy the game again or whatever else means there is a natural throttle on how many of them there are out there - and there are a lot already.
Ideologically, I want open multiplayer game servers/technology that does not require unique keys/licenses to play because all of that shit is a hassle, but the truth is that if anyone can join a central public multiplayer game server from any computer anytime with no restrictions whatsoever, no proof of purchase needed, no license etc. then there is effectively no way to ban cheaters and the problem as it is becomes 100-fold.
So I don't particularly have a big problem with game companies making official multiplayer game servers that require a license key to be a part of, and will ban cheaters or rule breakers - I support that. What I have a problem with, is game companies making that the ONLY multiplayer option and disallowing LAN play modes or direct-IP modes. This is particularly problematic when the game company stops supporting the game and their servers go offline permanently and multiplayer is effectively dead, or if the 3rd party service (ie: Gamespy) goes defunct and the same thing happens. Gamers are left with no other options except for using VPNs with cracks that contain malware (likely) and similar. That is not very consumer friendly.
I'd like to see every game have a direct-IP/hostname way of connecting to peers as well as LAN play modes just like games always used to have, which guarantees you can play the game forever with your friends etc. Also nice if they provide the option to run a dedicated server which acts like your own hub in the game universe, that's great for clan matches. I miss these aspects of multiplayer, that's when multiplayer was always fun.
The problem is that mandatory authentication is considered DRM and DRM considered restrictive and evil, but it helps to cut down on the chaff, and if everything is a wide open free-for-all, there are no restrictions at all on abuse which makes a game's multiplayer non-existent for any serious gamers that want to play a fun game devoid of idiots.
So I'm a fan of providing multiple solutions and letting the customer decide.
