Pheace: I think that line gets muddled somewhat when you take into account that GOG themselves are actively promoting developers to use their multiplayer matchmaking solution (rather than another solution) which will end up locking part of those games behind GOG's legitimacy check. Other than that I agree.
JMich: Do you remember the poll a few years back, about games requiring a third party account for multiplayer? The specific question about Planetary Annihilation? The majority of those that answered said that they wouldn't mind, and it was a third party account, not the GOG account. So I'd say that people wouldn't mind if multiplayer was locked behind Galaxy, though that's just a personal opinion.
I remember that poll. I also remember the poll right before that where they asked roughly the same question about whether it would be ok if they added some sort of key access to multiplayer and it got a resounding 'No' from the people answering it.
Then in that next poll they rephrased it quite more 'benevolently' towards the players with the Planetary Annihilation example, and then it 'passed' positively.
It's all about how you word it, how you spin it.Basically, all they have to do is say it is for the benefit of us, the customers.
"Yes, we are 'forced' to because the 'market has changed' but as a result of that we will be able to offer you more games than we otherwise could have gotten for you ". Or "We will always continue doing our best to deliver you DRM-Free games now and in the future
*, however, for the benefit of our customers who enjoy the GOG Galaxy multiplayer features (and coincidentally publishers) it is necessary for us to maintain a certain level of quality to the multiplayer service we offer through Galaxy. But don't worry, your games will remain 100% DRM-Free, using Galaxy is entirely optional! (But yes you will have to use it for multiplayer and you will need to own the game)"
*despite promising the same for fair pricing yet according to some devs their standard offer includes regional pricing now)