All right, looks fun. I'll give it a shot.

What? Why would they release it here? It's a free game with its own client. They're not even on Steam or any other similar platforms and that game has been out for more than a decade. IMO, it's a good thing they released Hextech Mayhem here since I'm hoping their other single-player game would also be available here. Sounds like you're worried about nothing and just grasping at straws. By your logic, more than half of the games here should not be available since their developers also developed DRM'd or online only games.

I am a LoL fan, but for me that will forever be Lands of Lore. so GOG shouln't sell any game from a major or any indie dev that's ever been drm-ed on Steam? It's a bit radical. The game itself is DRM-free.
Actually the whole point with old titles here is that they are freed of the DRM for the GOG edition. Think of Spore. That's a DRM legend! It should not be on GOG by principle then.

I second this, unless they pay me, and I'm too old to have a career playing games!

So is GWENT, basically, lol. I also thought I read the proposed Cyberpunk multiplayer mode was supposed to be its own game (likely free) where "naturally, there will be microtransactions". In other words, I don't see that as a barrier to release here given what GOG already has or has reportedly planned to have.

No, that example does not follow the logic I used.

I am speaking as it relates to the brands themselves. In this case, we are looking at a specific "series", as it were. My view is that if something is known for being online-only, a spinoff title doesn't really belong on a store that I thought was branded as DRM-free, as it is ultimately a promotion of the series, which itself is online-only.

Additionally, it is obvious that the goal in spinoff titles is to generate interest in a series that otherwise might not have been there. What I'm saying is that I don't think GOG needs to be doing [whoever develops League of Legends]'s job for them in marketing the series/brand, or having people get attracted to an online-only brand.
Also examples of what I am not saying :)

GOG shouldn't sell titles that are spinoffs of a specific DRMed brand. This does not preclude selling games that were previously DRMed, or known at one time for their DRM (and not to get off track but I seem to remember users had some sort of issue with Spore keys here, so perhaps that's not the best example to use, i.e. maybe it should be removed depending on what the issue is).

Examples of my view:
GOG sells Epic Pinball. But wait, Epic is most known for their online-only Fortnite and DRM client. Epic Pinball, however, has nothing to do with Fortnite or DRM clients.. = no issue

GOG sells Thronebreaker which is an offline version of GWENT, an online-only game that runs completely contrary to what should be the principles of a DRM-free store.. GOG packages numerous GWENT "goodies" in with Thronebreaker that the customer must accept, including putting GWENT itself in their library (iirc). = this is an issue because imo it is meant to funnel users into GWENT, the "real game that they want them to be on" instead of the spinoff. The additional manipulative tactics hopefully help illustrate this point.

GOG sells Diablo 1 DRM-free. Blizzard somehow decides to make Diablo III (which on PC is notorious for always-online connection) DRM-free and GOG were to sell it. = no issue



Hi downvoters... enjoy playing Hextech Mayhem :)

The goal of the spin-off titles is to branch out to other game genres which the fans have been asking for for years. Not only in games but in music and animation. Again, it's a decade-old game that's still popular. I don't think marketing is a problem for them. Even if it's about marketing, still does not change the fact that Hextech is DRM-free and should be here in GoG. Why would you want it removed when it's DRM-free and only using characters from the main game? It's not even the same game genre and not developed by Riot games.

Fun fact: remember Telltale? After the first zombie game, Minecraft Story Mode was the only thing they made that was profitable, and it and Minecraft proper weren't even remotely the same genre or activity.

I wonder how long it take until a salty toxic LOL player going to comment. Well look at that, the second comment. That's fast, just like how fast they disconnect when losing. How's your job in salt factory?
Your reasoning is weird and stupid. With that excuse and thinking then no one allowed to own a house because some of the houses are used as crackden and serial killer hide their victims in their house. Gasp, no more house ownership for everybody!

This is yet another faulty analogy attempting to be reductio ad absurdum. I was clear in my reasoning of what I am talking about and that my reasoning is applied to specific branded examples. The basic idea is that when an existing brand gets a spinoff, having the spinoff is in essence an endorsement of the existing brand. I think this is pretty obvious on an intuitive level...if the devs/pub didn't want the game to have a relation to League of Legends, it would just simply be called "Something Mayhem" without any of the character likenesses, worldbuilding, etc. Do you deny that?

It's still a stupid reasoning. With that excuse then Minecraft is not allowed to put the word "Minecraft" in their spin off game.

Also just because you're using latin words doesn't mean you're smart.