Is it time to officially recognise that online requirements for anything game related outside of multiplayer are DRM?

Integrating progression, features, elements (outside of Multiplayer) into online requirements do nothing for customers and gamers - and it's really time to call out developers and publishers bullshit on this.

Judging by the reaction from a lot of gaming websites to this debacle - it doesn't look like it would be a hard push to finally get everyone on the same page.

Multiplayer content or games (etc) in itself does not constitute DRM. It being outside of the grasp of players, playability solely controlled by a central instance is what makes it DRMed.
Whether some alternative solution is feasible or not doesnt change whether something is DRMed.

I see no fair reason for making the centralized server a requirement in your example. And whether people want a DRMed centralized server or not doesnt change what is or isnt DRM.

They did erase entire threads. And if you are unaware of that it is evidence of that having been done quietly.

No one said multiplayer content is DRM. But a number of people seem to think even the concept of having that multiplayer not be operable exclusively through private virtual lans, third party file sharing, or outright direct IP connection like Terraria, is the exact same thing as what Hitman did and what Denuvo does. I'm not de-railing the conversation to repeat that argument, but I will say so long as the argument exists, the idea of unifying everyone to the same page is off the table, since there is a decidable schism. It is not some black and white penguin argument where I'm wrong and you're right and I just have no idea what I'm saying. This is a difference in base standard that will make this two entirely at-odds sides whenever the subject of third party additions and offline lockouts are concerned.

You're inability to understand the different needs between Stellaris, Gwent, Warcraft 3, Battlefield(pick one, they all fit here,) Terraria, World of Warcraft, is not my problem. If you cannot grasp why the kind of IP joining of Terria would not fit for Warcraft 3, and would have completely destroyed any hope of it ever gaining the popularity and ease of play we obtained back in the day, then I don't know what to tell you. I find it foolish and insulting to compare the, at absolute worst, laziness of not wanting to put recourses into a network framework barely anyone will use and that might even hurt the game itself(see MMOs) as anything comparable to what Hitman did and what Denuvo and Steamworks continue to do.

And yes some people refuse to anything but black and white on this. They see my desire for even linguistic distinction, even asking it to be called a different name than being put all under the same package as DRM, as ignorant and stupid. so long as that exists, a total unity on these forums remains a pipe dream. THAT is the point of the post I made. I appreciate Icinix desires for peace and unity on this issue, but there are concerns that need to be pulled together before that can happen.

And that's why the boycotters will always be seen as clowns.

They've only managed to get this game delisted because they were able to illicit enough justifiable outrage so that news channels picked up on it and damaged the goodwill of the company enough for them to change direction.

But everything else? They've failed and failed hard. No gaming news channel or site will take these clowns seriously because what they're whining and complaining about are delusional.

"Wah wah, I can't get the last remaining 0.3% of missing content because it's hidden behind a newsletter!"

Literally the reason why I keep coming back here so I can get a hoot out of seeing how disconnected they are from reality.

Case in point, the other camp, also rather willing to combat over this.

If I can't access content that is in the game b/c it's required multiplayer component for some reason - yep, that's DRM. If I cannot say battle bots and run around maps all by lonesome myself while offline; that's right, the skirmish mode is DRM'd. In the old days - skirmish modes like Quake 3 Arena and Battlefield 1942 could be played offline.

These days - see COD games' skirmish mode w/ progression (that's its usual multiplayer component) and Battlefield games since BF3's MP - yep, I literally CANNOT play this content and frag around these maps and bots (if there are bots) b/c....THEY want me to play online w/ other players; and likely, these days, it's on THEIR central servers.

Matters are even worse when...well, there's no players online to play with b/c they're likely playing something else. What a waste of the talented art team, map making team, development team, team that made the engine or re-worked it (if it's in-house) - just b/c nobody's even playing online.

There's also the central server part. Will I be able to play this content, if they pull their server? Well, if there's no TCP/IP support, no LAN, and/or no local multiplayer offline - that's right, can't play it.

DRM manage how the game's played. It's Digital Rights Management - hence its name. It might not be in the normal perceived sense of DRM like that in Anti-Tamper junk like Denuvo; classic disc-based DRM like SafeDisc or Securom; limited installs and online activation for first-boot ever like say Internet-based versions of Securom, Tages, SolidShield, etc; and/or these online client-apps like Steam that require that program running to install, activate, and maybe even go as far as play while likely online - but yeah, it's there. If I buy a game and can't access it - yup, it's DRM'd, as it's managing what I can do (or not do) with certain content.

If progression is Hitman 1: GOTY style (and any of the newer Hitman games since 2016) that lock progression to IO's servers just to play those parts of the game - yep, that's DRM. I literally just cannot use specific content, while in offline mode - such as certain disguises, outfits, exits, weapons, etc...to do some stuff in this game and its cool sandbox. It's literally limiting what I can do while offline; I can only do story mode and not progress while offline, severely limiting a lot of the game's actual appeal of replaying the game & experimenting w/ each sandbox-y level.

Okay, so let me go play my wonderful copy of say Tabula Rasa, which is on disc. I really want to do some missions and explore this game-world. Oh, right - let me just put my soda on the CD/DVD here, as this game's a coaster b/c its central server got pulled. Nobody ever re-worked the game to work offline w/ bots or anything - so, looks like this'll make a nice coaster. Defiance, there's another MMO - can't play that one.

Let me go tackle The Secret World offline - oh right, not happening. I played a lot of the game and its first content area by myself...except for the fact that other players would often run around, help out for a sec b/c I was on the map battling an enemy, and then just move on. They could say create bots to "monster closet" their way behind me Doom 3 style and then instead say join the fight, if they wanted to...and then when the enemy say dies, the bot could just run off on their merry way. What's crazy - this game has a lot of good writing, dialogue, and voice-acting - which is often seen a single-player friendly.

Let me go play Diablo 3 PC version and its single-player content offline. Oh, right - PC version in full still requires online, so that ain't happening. I solo'd D3 & RoS PC version purposely and just fine without other players - PERIOD.

Same could probably be said about Back 4 Blood too, as even it's limited solo mode cannot be played offline...and that's not even getting into the fact that progression is locked similar to Hitman 2016 (and newer Hitman games), but now it's worse as that game's only-online in full and progression (for unlocks for weapons, other characters, heroes, etc) just only happens in multiplayer w/ other players. Will this game even work, when the server's pulled? I'd....doubt it; pressing X already to Doubt.

According to your own post https://www.gog.com/forum/general/release_hitman_game_of_the_year_edition_11093/post2238 "People like Tea and a few others have made very clear they consider outright multiplayer content or games, like MMO, to be DRM even if the game isn't playable solo." I do believe that is sufficiently close to be add odds with your "No one said..." statement.
Can you provide evidence for that "number of people" claiming these to be the "exact same thing"?
Not sure what exactly you mean but I do believe clarification of
a) who consider what to be DRM and
b) what (if any) DRM is acceptable to whom
does matter significantly for this thread at least in the case of the game ever making it back to GOG.
Instead of "telling me" something you may want to actually read and try to understand what I wrote. My argument has nothing to do with what kind of connection (etc) is best. I am not even arguing against the existence of centralized servers. I am saying that having only centralized servers (outside of the players control) is DRM and in cases like Warcraft 3 unnecessary in the sense that players do not benefit from it.
I dont think its helpful to make the definition of DRM depend on intent. This only leads to intent-guessing and I see no way to ever provide proper evidence for intent. So from my POV the definition of DRM from customer/gamer perspective should optimally be independent of intent.
I also dont think its helpful to intermix the question "what is or isnt DRM" with the question "how bad something is or isnt". Separating these makes communication IMO much easier. Unfortunately some people here (like you) seem to go out of their way to intermix these two things which IMO inevitably complicates discussions and leads to misunderstandings.

I dont want to just start arguments again but this one I will touch on. What I'm describing is not intent. What I'm describing is design goal. That isn't intent, it's examining the design of a system. As an example, Minecraft has a login attached, I can safely ask, "what does this login do, what does it accomplish" Since it's a peer to peer connection and it has literally zero centralization AND it's singleplayer is locked, it's safe to say the only thing it could be working for is purchase validation, for "authentication." Now, authentication isn't a bad thing....when applied to market items. Warframe, and Gwent come to mind. Those do to authenticate items or the economy can crash the second anyone so much as hacks a sufficient number of items. An extra 100 frost prime sets would destroy the value of Frost Prime. It can also be used for anti-bot behavior when logging into a centralized server. But, that's where intend comes to mind. But since Minecraft isnt doing any of those things, it begs the question what purpose making us normal customer suffer accomplishes. If the only thing it's doing in a game's design is purchase validation, I call it DRM.

That's why I hate Denuvo but don't compare it to easy anti-cheat. I don't like either due to performance but the former is only doing it as some constant validation check, and the other is network security code purchased third party. They are the same technical item, but what denuvo is -doing- within the design of the same is a far cry from what easy anti-cheat does. Saying "wlel they are the same system on a technical level" or "they are doing the same thing," means nothing they are accomplishing entirely different ends. Going back to Warcraft 3, players do benefit from it. Having validation stop bots and hacking as an initial player check before letting them into a centralized game list servers a purpose. And the nature of the pick and play of Warcraft 3 is best served when you dont have to look for IPs of other players just to play multiplayer.

So is Easy anti-cheat DRM. Is Easy anti-cheat DRM, because it does the same thing as Denuvo point for point. Both are third party licensed software added to the game on launch that damages it's performances considerable in name of validating the technical specifications of the game. some software engineering aside, they're functionally the exact same thing. Are you willing to call that DRM. This is what I'm trying to get at, just because you found is does the same technical thing does not mean it's doing the same thing. You can't take a login system for an MMO and claim it's no different when you apply it to Minecraft. They may be the same technical system but they are -not- doing the same thing, they are clearly operating in a different system to a different ends.

To bring it back to hitman because I want to stay on topic, THIS is the thing that is going to keep the general community isolated into two camps. You have one side who refuses to accept anything other than their own definition and won't even hear an attempt of so much as distinction. I'm a free speech absolutist; in good faith, I can't take any issue with taking an extreme and simple position and refusing to let it go. It's what I do when discussing freedom of speech. So I can't hate these people, it's why I'm not mad, but there can never be a peace between us, at least not on this issue.

If my game can't boot b/c of EasyCheat software - yep, that's DRM. Even more so true, if I can't boot a single-player part of the game b/c Easy Cheat's getting in the way....b/c say the game has both single-player and multiplayer built-into it under one gaming house.

DRM completely manages my rights digitally. Key phrase: Digital Rights Management. I'm not managing it, the DRM is. When it's getting in the way and it shouldn't - then yes, it's a problem.

In case you are curious - yes, I do own plenty of DRM'd games. I do own some games that were/are MMO's (Definace, Tabula Rasa, Guild Wars, TSW, etc etc) - and yes, I'm using that term "own" loosely here. I do "own" Hitman titles on Steam. I own like over 2900+ titles on Steam; and even more when you start counting other stores. Why would I buy these same games again on GOG, which is a DRM-FREE store, if they're going to lace it w/ DRM here? The whole of GOG - is to get games here that do NOT have DRM tied to it period.

If GOG is going to become another Steam, Origin, or insert other DRM-laced service - I might as well skip the GOG Release and just often stick w/ my Steam-version on many titles.

EDIT:
Also, Valve is looking into stuff like EasyCheat for Steam Deck, since it (EasyCheat) does NOT work on Linux. Granted, I don't use Linux yet and haven't since college days (i.e. late 90's and early 2000's), but if EasyCheat is getting in the way of it working on Linux - yeah, that's certainly DRM. A lot of times, there are DXVK, WINE, and other ways to get DX-based game and stuff can get going on Linux - but when software like EasyCheat or Denuvo gets in the way, it's DRM.
(Side note - Denuvo isn't even built for Linux, so a lot of games in their Linux versions just don't ship w/ Denuvo on Linux, even if the Windows version has it).

Sure, these are all different forms of DRM - but they are all falling under the DRM category, none-the-less. We can break this down into sub-categories - and probably keep doing so, as new ones seem to crop up.

Disc-check based DRM = StarForce, Securom, SafeDisc, etc.

Internet-activation style DRM = Later versions of Tages, Securom, SolidShield, etc.
(Some even come w/ install limits to a certain X amount of PC's and say

Client-Apps that also can be used as DRM (when their DRM suites are used) = Origin, Steam, UPlay, Stardock Impulse (RIP to that service), etc.

Anti-Tamper DRM = Denuvo.

Anti-Cheat DRM = BattlEye, PunkBuster, EasyCheat.

Games with Account-based DRM & always-online requirement as DRM = Diablo 3; ESO; TSW; WoW; Guild Wars; Defiance; SW: TOR; Tabula Rasa; The Division series; etc etc.
(i.e. a lot of MMO's do this; and some games w/ Client-App requirements use stuff like this).

Fair enough. I suspected this answer honestly and hold nothing against you for it. This, when it comes down to it, is the reason I dont think there will be able real "peace" behind the two camps. Neither is wrong, or right, but neither has reason to back down. good luck making peace of the two camps. I'm certainly not up to the task.

Sorry if I cut out a lot of the post the rest is interesting to read but not respond to. I wanted ot keep the post visually short

No need to be sorry - you're cutting out what's important to write your direct reply to a certain section in my post.

Plus, if people want to read my full post - they can go up and read my post or click the part on your post that links back to my entire long-winded monstrosity.

My posts tend to run essay-like and very long - so, I have no problem in my stuff being cut-down, to make your replies to a certain & specific section, just to make it easier for yourself and others to read.

Also, more thoughts - now say a game has a single-player portion and multiplayer portion, but say they're separate EXE files, essentially (in a sense) making them separate games. Say the SP portion is not protected, but the MP has say EasyCheat. Then the SP is not DRM'd, but the MP is DRM'd.

In a sense, I do appreciate when this is done, as it makes the SP not be blocked by something like say EasyCheat. At least say the SP can be accessed freely...without EasyCheat or any central server and/or always-online DRM getting in my way of playing the single-player portion.

I often do care mostly about single-player content, as...well, MP can be a pain to deal w/ these days. In old days of UT and Quake 2 - felt like games you needed skill and to just learn the map and controls; there was no progression systems like say COD4: MW really popularized yet. SDK's were a big deal - and popular games like HL1, Quake 2, RTCW, etc - they felt like the MP's longevity could go a long way, as new maps and new modes were churned out by the Mod Community.

With rampant cheating later; and me buying games way later (since I'm cheap and want to try to play almost everything, even though I'll never get remotely even close to that) and likely not going to grind to catch up to other COD players (or other players) on maxed-out Level 50 - yeah, I'm already behind the curve....and likely not going to do all this grind, once it's not enjoyable for me. Often...after seeing all the maps, doing some rounds, and checking out most game modes - eventually, on the MP, I'm done and had my fill.

You used the phrase "not wanting" before - it implies knowledge or assumption about intent to me.
I dont agree. This (the "goal" part) is inherently intent related - if there is a "goal" then there is an intent to achieve it.
You are speculating as to what the intent could be?
Now you are talking about what is good or bad. This is exactly where IME usually there is the most strife in discussions. So clearly separating that from other stuff is IMO beneficial.

"it begs the question what purpose" - you are speculating on intent?
So if
a) you perceive yourself (or your imagination of "normal customer") as suffering
b) you dont see a benefit to such suffering
you call it DRM?

If yes - then CP2077 goodies are DRM to you?

If yes - what is the benefit of not being able to play Warcraft 3 without that centralized server? Isnt that totally pointless suffering too? Or rephrasing: IMO there is too much subjective in your definition to be useful for your implied goal of uniting the people here: What is "suffering" and what is "beneficial" - people are IMO prone to disagree on these much more than on technical things.
Also: Look at any random MMO with its server/s shut down. Is this DRM or not to you? What is the benefit of requiring that server if it doesnt exist? So would you then distinct between this being DRM whether there still is a server or not? (I dont see this as useful/sensible obviously.)

I do not believe players benefit from there being no alternative to a centralized publisher controlled server. No amount of listing all the good stuff which such a server may or may not do will change that.
(Also: If for example someone only ever plays with a friend they trust - there isnt even any benefit to that centralized server. It just complicates and slows things.)

That's a shame because "Denuvo Anti-Cheat" is actually a thing now....

https://irdeto.com/denuvo/anti-cheat/

...which just goes to show how utterly futile it is to try and separate "real DRM" vs other stuff that's actively Digitally Managing the Right to something about a game, and they've been gradually turning into the same thing and completely left everyone arguing with "DRM is solely about copy protection" 1991-era definitions 30 years in the past...