So "make an account to get achievements"? I see that as "do something you don't want to do to get a feature you don't want to get". I've no problem with that :p

Awesome. I'm actually interested in this game and considered skipping it if it were only released on Steam. It's awesome that GOG would rather release this with a serial key than skip on it just to keep some wusses from bitching about serials being DRM (well, at least I hope that's the conclusion that GOG will come to after this survey).

On a different note: is that the same narrator as in Total Annihilation or just someone trying really hard to sound like him? ^^

If you can find people interested in this thing (or recruit more loyal GOG-ers with this game) and make some more money - sure, why not, I don't mind and I won't feel insulted or not welcome on GOG anymore.
I'm certainly not going to buy a game that lacks single-player storyline, but if there are people who want it - who am I to say 'no'? Get it, play it, let me go back to my (old or new) DRM-free, single-player, story-oriented gems. And bring more of those here.

As long as the features are optional, go for it. Just as long as the developers aren't forcing players to use the online features and we can still play offline or on a LAN I don't see the problem. This is what I like to see, choice :)

For me it depends on the game. I mean, UT, UT2k4 and Defcon also don't have any kind of story and the singleplayer is basically just multiplayer with bots (especially in case of Defcon which doesn't even have some sort of campaign) and yet the singleplayer experience is awesome and worth the price.

I don't like a system of activation codes period. Activation codes are DRM. Not an intrusive form of DRM, but still DRM.
I have some Microsoft discs with software (legally bought) lying around here that are absolutely useless now, because I was so stupid to loose a sheet of toilet paper quality with the bazillion numbers that make up the activation code on it.
It is not such an intrusive kind of DRM as the abominable Starforce/ UPlay or Always-on-line schemes., but yes, it is still DRM.
Still, I do agree that GOG should still go and get the game if at least(!) 80% of the total gameplay experience in terms of level design and such is offline, single player requiring no unlocking or activation whatsoever.
That is if the game is indeed good. Some games released on GOG lately get two-starred for a reason. The games are not Good, so they should stay away from GOG.

I meant to vote no, because of the no story-based single-player campaign. I'm fine with the other points though.

For me it is a no as good as it looks i prefer games with single player story or single player elements.

I think "persistent online features" needs to be greatly elaborated upon to be fair to survey takers. Otherwise, it's just adding to the shroud of mystery that developers and publishers like to wrap their intentions up in as it pertains to their use of DRM. Now I'm wondering if it wasn't GOG who actually wrote those bullet points. It's certainly not forthright.

My initial impression was that an "account with the developer's service" was only required for the purpose of keeping stats, but that online multiplayer could be played without such an account, by foregoing stat collection. Now I'm not so sure what the heck it means. This should also be made clear.

Essentially it is less about the DRM in the game, and more about how the key is handled at the server level.

My tolerance level of DRM allows me to accept the use of a unique key to play my game (assuming no activation is required), but requiring the key to be tied to an online account definitely dances on the line, if it doesn't outright cross it. Stat collection is fine, but I personally have zero use for it. Keys can be banned to stop cheaters or if they are stolen/leaked, but game devs have been doing that for many years, and many have done so without the account requirement.

I think someone else said "slippery slope." Well that's definitely what this is.

I think the slippery slope argument is not necessarily applied to you. My concern is that allowing things like this will make it harder for you to make true DRM free deals with publishers in the future. The argument being along the lines of "You let that game with activation and online accounts get into your catalog, so if you want our game, you'll have to accept activation and online accounts for that too".

I'm new to GOG and to be fair I joined so I could play some old gems and not because of its DRM- free aspect. Personally I don't mind Steam DRM and have a relatively big library there, however I refuse to buy anything with Uplay or GFWL since to me they are a hassle when all I want is to click on my game and play it.
I hope this makes sense.
Regarding the question I can see how it can set a precedent and people who use GOG for its DRM-free policy might feel uncomfortable. But when you get to my age you also understand that companies need to sometimes make concessions especially in the current economic situation.
It's not an easy decison to make but I salute GOG for actually caring about what their custommers think.

Wasn't there (in Unreals, haven't played Defcon) some basic plot about galactic tournament?
Anyways, those were fun to play but I wouldn't get them without trying friend's copy first.

I'm sorry but on this one I got to go no. I'm fine with gog having it, though I'd like to see this be separated from other games perhaps catagory wise, if this is the way gog wants to go since multiplayer itself can be considered a kind of drm depending on how it is done. The lack of a single player story ruins this for me. For a 2.2 million kickstarter I'd at least expect some kind of story in single player. This is why I did not back this on kickstarter. It's like..... playing starcraft and there's no single player story. Feel free to disagree.

I believe in choice for everyone, even if I personally may not buy the game. Although I am a bit meh on the DRM, I'm all for the game being sold on GoG. Some will like it. Some won't.

One thing to consider: once you start introducing games that has modern mandatory DRM in it, then it starts going down hill from there.

I can recognize that old games such as the Xeen series even have their own "What is the 9th letter of the 22nd word on page 5 of the so and so manual?" sort of DRM, but we can excuse those ones for nostalgic reasons. However in modern games, there is really no good reason for mandatory DRM besides punishing the wrong people for the things pirates do, unless the game is primarily an online game.

Since there was no comments box on this additional survey question I'll post here =) The bold above is mine and highlights the key aspects in my perception.

I'd be hesitant about the inclusion of a multiplayer focused game like this if assessed based only on the first few points from the OP. Making play of the game defined by or derived from connection to external servers is one of the key flaws that makes DRM such a problem (far from the only one but it's a key aspect).

So generally speaking I'd lean toward "no". However, a multiplayer focused game which offers those aspects as an option while ensuring at a fundamental level that they're not a requirement by including LAN, hotseat, direct connect et al as options, and which does so while requiring no account or 3rd party application/registration and also not applying other forms of DRM. Now that's an option that I can support because it maintains the status of DRM free and allows player choice rather than trying to constrain player choice like most of the recent multiplayer focused releases from other major outlets such as Blizz, Origin, or steam.

0.02 FRN
Legion