wormholewizards: Single player only? Good, at least people won't complaints about DRM & Galaxy.
Ancient-Red-Dragon: Sure they will, and rightly so. I and others already have lodged such complaints earlier in this thread.
This game should be having Galaxy Achievements just like it also has Steam Achievements.
And at the very least, it should also have Galaxy-only multiplayer, rather than to have its multiplayer functionality be entirely removed, and then GOG customers get sold a gimpy version of the game, spin-doctored
as if it being gimped for GOG is a "good thing," by misleadingly attempting to frame the gimping in a positive light by calling it "Single-Player Edition," rather than "Gimped Edition" or "Castrated Edition" or "Feature Removed Edition" or something along those lines which would accurately reflect the fact that it is an incomplete, inferior, parity-lacking version.
The problem is from a design standpoint & part. Developers don't build Achievements/Trophies directly into an offline manner in the actual game engine, offline profiles, and/or offline game portion's itself.
I remember when Achievements weren't a common thing on PC - yet Divinity 2 has it right built into the game itself.
If it was done in that way - then when a player isn't on Steamworks or Galaxy, at least I could still Achieve something, no matter if I bought the game on GOG, Steam or any other proprietary system.
Instead, they use proprietary services like Steamworks for Steam Achievements and GOG Galaxy for Galaxy Achievements out-the-gate, instead of within the game/engine for offline profiles first.
I think they should do it differently and build it into the game and engine first; at least it's there, no matter where you buy the game. Then if they do want to support Steam Achievements and/or GOG Achievements - let the game maybe upload your in-game Achievements when you've got the game menu paused; you initialize for the game to share your Offline Achievements to the online GOG or Steam Achievements system; and/or something of that sort.
About the MP - I think from the get-go, this is why dev's should have Real LAN Support out-the-box. So if say Galaxy goes away, Steam goes away, or whatever - yep, LAN's still there as an option.
MysterD: About the PvP - this is why games with skirmish-style competitive modes over maps should have offline support for maps and bots/AI.
The PvP stuff and content just wouldn't go entirely to waste, if this stuff was actually made to work also offline and also had real LAN/TP-ICP support.
Just let the player decide if they want to play online w/ others or offline with bots - you know, like Q3A does. It's a shame when games like say the COD's that come out every year later go to the graveyard b/c the new game's out and nobody's playing the old stuff. It's why we need more TP-ICP support added later for skirmish modes and also offline skirmish mode support, for when a game's MP goes dead - as players can still enjoy that content even w/ bots if nobody else is playing it online.
I'd love to have seen say BioShock 2 get that competitive MP mode made to work offline with bots.
The_Gypsy: Publishers like Activision surely see any sort of offline or self-hosted MP options as a threat to their business model. Most developers don't seem to care about the longevity of their games anymore either. I'm content with older games but it's a shame to see things going this way when there's the occasional new title of interest.
Of course they do fear that - as they want to monetize everything...such as MTX's (MicroTransactions) for XP boosts; players buying MTX's for skins/outfits/etc; sell players skins; sell players DLC's and/or Expansions/Battle Passes; and/or whatever else.
Same goes for SDK's too - they don't put them out b/c they want to monetize the game w/ MP map packs; MP modes; and things of that sort. They don't want the Mod Community to over-shadow what they might or might not do for Extra Content to monetize.
