Take these examples, in hopes to clarify my "bleating" :)

-Game A comes with a serial key.

-Game B requires Galaxy for multiplayer.

In a terrible hypothetical future where GOG goes out of business, which of Game A and Game B is more likely to be able to be played online? This is what I am getting at when I say Galaxy (/insert any required client here) is an extra, unnecessary step. I am sure you can conjure up hypotheticals about Galaxy surviving and being made open-source on their last day of business or something, but the plain reading of the question is that the game without needing to persistently connect has a better chance of working in the future, all else equal.

Edit: To clarify, I think serial keys are also an extra, unnecessary step, but one less step than Galaxy. Wanted to use your example.

Also, I love the idea of N64-style splitscreen. Wonder why developers aren't allowing that type of offline multiplayer for PC or even modern consoles. Ah, right, because everyone accepts online-only multiplayer as "the standard" and many greedy developers and publishers could care less about preserving the fun of a game when they could sell you new games. That really bums me out.

FCKDRM.com, as accessed just now, describes itself as "an initiative by GOG.COM to promote DRM-free art and media". It also seeks to feature "100% DRM-free source[s]" on its site. All the post hoc rationalization about how the game is barely impacted, how maybe multiplayer is affected but singleplayer shouldn't be, etc, is dancing around the simple question of is the game 100% DRM-free or is it not.

See also,
The standard (at least applied to other sources of DRM-free media), given by FCKDRM.com, is "100% DRM-free". Not "most elements DRM-free". I came here for "100% DRM-free".

That is a rather generous reading. The consistency issue is in being branded a DRM-free store, then selling some products that do not fit that criteria (at least per my reading of FCKDRM.com). The fact that it has become COMMON for various products on here to be that way, does not mean it is suddenly consistent. Rather, it means that things are getting even more inconsistent. A brand can be diluted or eroded to various degrees. The more "common" it becomes to contradict the brand, the more dilution and erosion of the brand takes place.

One also needs to differentiate between what is logically consistent and what is post hoc rationalization. The law of identity is that A cannot equal Not A. "Not A" doesn't become "A" just because people want it to/because it sounds better. Btw, I didn't say I don't "tolerate DRM for multiplayer to get DRM-free singleplayer". I do frequent this place, after all! However, I will not be shy about discussing cases I don't think pass the smell test.

I will also say locking multiplayer to Galaxy has DIRECTLY affected my choice on whether or not a game is worth purchasing here at all, let alone at full price. And given that it has become "common" to lock game modes behind Galaxy, this phenomenon has occurred numerous times. DRM-free gamers are basically backed into a corner by the gaming market, so yes I join you in "tolerating" multiplayer DRM as long as I can have DRM-free singleplayer.

I would prefer more transparency though. "All games are sold DRM-free for offline and singleplayer gaming" would be a start.

No, there is no such requirement. Why do you want DRM????

To be honest, considering the complexities of multiplayer gaming (and that devs prefer game clients to manage the multiplayer aspect of their games) and that one needs to be always online for multiplayer (and fact is: one is never 100% safe when online) I'd also accept DRM (like Galaxy) for multiplayer use.
I'd still reject the need for Galaxy for offline single-player gaming, though.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/lack_of_microsoft_games_on_gog

Is Microsoft not here because they love DRM / won't accept GOG's DRM-free stance? I was told their games don't use Denuvo though, which I find odd if they love DRM.

Which is holding back a shark enthusiast more from getting close up picture of sharks: lack of blood and guts he smear on himself before jumping into a shark pond or the megapix of his camera?

To consider game to be DRM-FREE, i think, there should always be classic LAN multiplayer functionality. If there is as bonus some global multiplayer through proprietary servers, i dont mind, as far as there is LAN as well.
But sadly, many new games resigned on LAN and offering only DRM plagued multiplayer... for example Age of Wonders 3.

It is sad, that GOG allowed these DRM / free hybrids on their store.

It's the lack of a "No GOG, no buy"-crowd. There's enough people who will buy a game on GOG instead of Steam if they have the choice. But if a game doesn't get a GOG release, most people will just buy it on Steam. In oher words: GOG isn't that bad compared to Steam, but GOG doesn't bring you a lot of additional sales. So you (as a dev/publisher) put additional work in a GOG release, only to shift sales from Steam to GOG. Combined with Steam's new rev split model (the more copies you sell, the smaller the percentage that Steam takes), a GOG release will actually lower your income (AAA games only - most indies won't profit from Steam's new model). So we switched from "A GOG release is nice, but not worth the effort" to "Are you nuts? Do you know how much money this'll cost us?" This problem only gets worse with all the publisher stores, where 100% of the price go into your own pocket.

I don't see DRM free as a huge problem. Publishers aren't stupid, they know that most DRM systems get cracked on day 1. And the times where kids copy their games for their friends are long gone. You want a free game? You download it from some pirate site. Publishers know that. GOG should be "DRM enough" for them... Games are bound to your account, so there's no possibility for any resale market (not saying that GOG is DRM!).

I note you made exceptions for people with addictions, but in general it's also bad reasoning to equate one/others anecdotal evidence of being able to do something/do such easily and everyone being able to do so/do so easily......it's flawed logic itself, basically.

It's similar to people thinking that because something bad has never happened to or will happen to them that it isn't such a big deal or a problem.

=======================

Which ones specifically?

These are all good points here.

To be "rape" they would have to be stealing your money by force....if they take what you give them that's just poor spending habits.

1. Why unnecessary? How else is a dev supposed to make sure pirates aren't using copies in MP?

2. Also as for splitscreen/internet MP: They do it to sell two or more game copies instead of one like what is needed with local co-op gaming.

3. Many consider if the SP portion is DRM free then the game is DRM free, and some also consider a MP account to not be DRM.....as such, to many GOG is fulfilling it's promises.

(Also MP gaming popularity comes and goes as servers spring up and fall, and players come and go[barring bot play].....while sp portions can be played at any time. As such, more care about it than MP)

4. One should be happy they have something to eat rather than that the thing is slightly less quality than they like(bruised vs non bruised apples of similar freshness). All gaming could be streaming only or steam only by now.....we should all be happy for what we have and not what we do not have....just my two cents.

5. Eh, that doesn't roll off the tongue or make a good slogan as DRM free does....maybe put an astrerisk next to it?




1. There is a requirements via a serial key for older games and MP, which makes each "copy" "unique" in a sense.

2. They don't claim to want DRM by that....they are making a suggestion that that could replace needing an account for galaxy multiplayer....i.e. GOG could just see if those using a game in MP in galaxy OWN the game on GOG and if they do it allows them to launch said game in MP.

That's not that invasive and is very reasonable.

Yes it is, Some games require you to buy the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th chapter and so on and DLC's that should have been in the game already DLC quest actually makes fun of that aspect!

No, again it would have to be forced to be equated to "rape". In that case/with that in mind: who is forcing anyone to buy said games if they are sold in chapters/parts or forcing anyone to buy dlc?

Simply don't buy or wait for a fair priced "complete" edition as others do, but please don't say it's forced unless someone is forcing you at gunpoint/etc to buy it(or similar) as that isn't the correct term for what is going on. A more fair description would be taking advantage of people's poor impulse control and desires.

(To be clear: I neither see dlc practices currently[for the most part...there are some exceptions] as fully good or bad....they are usually just capitalists taking advantage of the easily duped or those who cannot be patient and wait for full versions of games for a fair price)

If GoG allowed DRM, they would lose the vast majority of their customers. It is and always has been their thing. The reason they don't get as many AAA games is that many of them use their own DRM (EA, Ubisoft...), they don't want multiple platforms that require their own updating and net code for multi, and probably the main reason is that GoG accounts for around 5 - 15% of sales to Steam's 85 - 95%.

I would love to see GoG get the same support that Steam gets, which is why it is my primary platform and I will repurchase games they release that I already had (like Stellaris) to get the game DRM free and to support the platform. The best way for us to make it happen is to suck it up and avoid buying games from DRM platforms and to purchase from and spread the word about GoG.

ubisoft has games here such as splinter cell, EA has theme park and sim city and a few others here, bethesda has fallout here fallout 1 to new vegas, so GOG does have triple A game titles

the reason alot of devs dnt release triple A games now to GOG and sometimes even steam, is cos they have there own launchers fallout 76 is a good example of a game that fits this, although the game sucked it is getting better

Because it is possible for the game to work without a step of online verification. Therefore, literally unnecessary. "Pirates using copies in MP" is not my problem, nor do I agree with your suggestion that it even IS a problem. So that's a non-starter.

So your advice to the consumer is effectively "shut up and like it"?

I am well aware that they get more money that way. They must not care about getting mine.

Many consider the Earth flat, and some also consider that the sun revolves around it rather than it around the sun. As I have said in another topic, reality is what determines the truth of the matter. In this case, it is obvious people are just making excuses. If you look on an identity level, both of those things you mentioned fail the FCKDRM.com standard of "100% DRM-free". Why are you accepting less?

As such, my desire for modes like LAN, splitscreen, hotseat, etc...which preserve multiplayer.

Nope, nope, nopeity nope!

Again, this is called "fallacy of relative privation" but here is probably the most plain language write-up I found:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems

Please stop settling for less and demand more.

Lol...what I was trying to get at was that there really should not be a need for asterisks and qualifiers. The only reason there is a need, is because people are making excuses that allow the problem to fester until it can become totally malignant. "Oh, it's DRM-free for singleplayer at least". "Oh, microtransactions are in mobile games, but they'd never dare put them in real games".

I basically alluded to this idea when I said a one-time serial key is better (in a sense) than persistently having to connect (using, say, a client). The thing is, both function as unnecessary online verification, i.e., DRM. Both are anticonsumer, just that one is more anticonsumer than the other. It is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.

+1

It'd be nice if more people understood that the only way for GOG to survive and strive is for people to support it. I'm getting more and more tired of reading comments of people complaining about the lack of new AAA games on GOG and how "unprofessional" GOG is, while at the same time so many people have no problem in filling valve's pockets and buying all the crap they sell there, while they haven't almost even bothered to touch on their website since it launched in 2003 and just keep selling every trash anyone will put there as long as they pay 100 bucks.

GOG is a very small company. And the videogame market has turned into a "dog eats dog" world. GOG must really think carefully before taking any steps these days. Specially as (and I've seen this more and more as GOG been growing) whenever GOG makes a new step it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" concerning its feedback.

GOG is not perfect; everyone has the right to buy wherever they want (steam, Epic, etc) but you want your games DRM-free? Then keep supporting GOG!!
The videogame market is definitely turning into agressive DRM stance. And it's trying to force it into customers by micro-transactions, loot, in-game purchases and online multiplayer. That's BAIT!! Like old Ackbar wold say: "It's a trap!!" Don't support that. Vote with your wallets.

Keep buying games on GOG and supporting the site. I'm trying to do my part. Whenever I see a promotion, selling some games I'll try to buy some 2$ games, even if I do not intend to play them.
Maybe some will see this as pathetic. But I see it as a way of supporting GOG and to show publishers that there's money to be found on DRM-free sales.

But that's just my 2 cents. To each his/her own.