They ought to be, as that is the way it currently works for games like Multiwinia, Far Cry 2, etc.

As long as a SP component (skirmishes only; campaign only; or both skirmshes & campaign allowed) has NO DRM period and can be played offline, I'm fine w/ you guys selling it.

Not targeting anyone with this quote, but I do love to see the principles each person holds as unbreakable (for him/her).

So your definition of DRM-Free is not having any DRM...
May I then ask for your definition of DRM? Or is that anything that isn't DRM-Free?

OMG it needs the internet for its online multiplayer part! *raise pitchfork*

Actually I would not even have a problem if gog.com starts selling MMORPGs here because constant online connection is the nature of these type of games.

As long as never a singleplayer game (old or new) here gets harebrained I'm ok with that.

i specifically stated that i was giving my opinion, which is what the survey asked of me. and i did say i welcome new additions to the GOG catalogue even if i don't intend to buy them (here).

GOG, i'll give you a piece of advice: if you want to become truly competitive in the digital market (competitive as in 'beyond serving a niche'), don't let yourself be held back by sticks in the mud perpetually stuck in the stone age of PC gaming. this has been your problem from the get-go. gaming would never have evolved at all if everybody had refused to go with the times, adapt and adopt. if you're willing to abandon the Old part of Good Old Games, then go all the way. you know what that means.

I think this particular scenario is alright as long as it is properly labeled and documented on the game's card/store page. Right now things like serials/keys aren't really listed anywhere but if we're going in this direction they ought to be.

Stuff in general that deviates from the original 'GOG' formula should get a visible warning on it. "Uses serial numbers" and "multiplayer only" and so on. Not that I think a lot of people are super bothered by it, but it's nice so that the people who are can avoid purchasing those particular items.

tl;dr - Allow it but label it so people can make informed decisions.

The first post nails it.
The single player portion of the game is completely DRM-free, which is all that matters.
There's nothing wrong with a game making it mandatory to type in a key in order to gain access to its online/multiplayer features (how else would that work?...) as long as no third party clients are involved.

I think it sounds more akin to "it needs to verify a unique key with a central server (that may be shut down at any given time) for online multiplayer *raise pitchfork*"

Personally, I'm fine with that as long as it has the option for direct connections or LAN discovery/zeroconf/upnp/... (which from the game's point of view is no different from a VPN like Hamachi, other similar services, or even manually set up ones) without said verification.

And for your MMO's, I'd only accept those if any necessary server components were included (to me, GOG is a place for archival, and any game where a necessary component cannot be archived and dug up decades later, when keys have long since stopped being given out and servers are shut down, is a no-go).

I feel as if I still want more information about this game before giving my consent. Specifically about what is being defined as a satisfying single player experience, and what percentage of content is under that "persistent online content" umbrella you need a developer account for.

I hate to be kinda a stickler, but at this time I'm not wild about games being on GOG that have significant external dependencies. Part of that is my anti-DRM thing where I want games to not need other things in order to be enjoyed.

I fully realizes some kinds of content, and some kinds of gameplay are inherently dependent on connectivity and social interaction, and I don't want to outright dismiss such experiences as being valid, or blow the window opportunity a game has to be enjoyed while it is socially relevant. But I feel that there are hundreds( if not thousands) of games we all would like to see on GOG that wouldn't have us all sorting out our feelings, or challenge our personal convictions.

I'm left wondering then as to why GOG is feeling the need to push the boundaries of its own policies at this point. Even with gained momentum are we running out of games publishers are willing to go into the DRM-free world, or is GOG trying to find out how close it can morph into a standard retailer without its client base freaking out? They seem to need us to be OK with something for some reason.

We aren't running out of games, but if rights holders don't want to let more games be DRM-free then having one of the world's strongest anti-DRM forces widen their gate of what is acceptable isn't going to help things. It really only means DRM-free risks backsliding. On the other hand if GOG is trying to become more mainstream then goodbye niche market, and good luck . I don't think I would be very interested in that GOG.

This is exactly how I see GOG. It's like a big PC gaming museum.

This is a very reasonable game to be added to the gog catalog while maintaining the DRM-free philosophy that drives gog.

Let me just say that I disgree with the "slippery slope" and "foot in the door" arguments that some people have made. I think that as long as you have some clear guidelines: like "MP focused games must have a way to play it independently from the developer's servers". Then it's fine. I know a few people have mentioned the idea that they are weary of SP being tacked on, but I think that if a game provides a way to play without "phoning home" and is free of codes except when a player CHOOSES to play MP through them, then I think customers are adult enough to make their own choices, and we should not limit their ability to make that choice through this distribution channel. If we want to see an ever expanding catalog on gog and a gradual winning over of the industry into a drm-free future, I think gog needs some sensible guidelines that provides the widest array of gaming experiences.

Oh, and for the record, I voted yes on he survey, and also voted yes for DLC on their previous survey, as long as it was DRM-free and things that add something to a game, not stuff cut out from a game (CAPCOM, I'm looking at you). As I said before, we have to trust that customers are adult enough to make their own choices. Now there is an argument to be made that there are no assurances that a developer will follow those guidelines, but gog can have them and holod them to it if they want to use gog.

Just my two cents.

Meanwhile, as awesome as their catalog is, their DRM-free policy is the number 1 reason I began purchasing from them, and have continued to purchase from them since. I know I''m not alone in this.

I think the game is good to be on GOG. So, yes. As long the core of DRM-free is still there (no activation, no persistent internet connection required).

I think it is also fine if there is unique codes or third party for doing multiplayer game. I don't know for third party application, but unique codes for multiplayer is old practice in video games.. so it is fine.

So, when is this Planetary Annihilation game going to be on GOG ?

DRM is any component of software which inhibits the consumer's ability to use or modify said software in whatever way they feel is best.

Anything that prohibits mods is DRM.

Anything that limits my ability to install and use copies of my software on any computers I own... is DRM.

A CD-key that is required to even run the game for the first time (as with Torchlight II) is DRM. A CD-key that is only necessary when playing using the official servers of the company (which is something the consumer does not own) is not.

In summation, anything that infringes on the legal use of software is DRM.

Is that a better definition?

I believe everything other than achievements, "social features" (friend's lists and messaging and that stuff), and scoreboards (I'm guessing a ranking system) is offline. GOG was mistaken when they said that Galactic War is online only (unless the devs changed that and just haven't informed backers, as they originally said it is going to be offline for singleplayer and coop).

Two of those features you couldn't really get without internet anyway (social and ranking). So the only thing being lost is achievements.