It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
jjsimp: Before I put my pitchfork down, does this require you to login as a guest every time you run the game? Or is it a onetime login request?
avatar
OldFatGuy: It's not even a one time login request.

You can download the game, disconnect from the internet, and play single player on that and any other machine you own just by installing it on the others, the same as we do with our other gog games.

While it has the "look" of "logging in as guest" I completely disconnected from the internet before I even installed. I was able to install, play, save, replay, resave, etc. without ever, not once, needing an internet connection.

This one is a no brainer IMO regarding single player. It's DRM Free.
I can confirm this as I was the one disconnecting one of our test PCs from the net when we were doing our usual check whether a game will run without the internet :)

The game did this (work without an actual internet connection) even before the patch came around. The only problem was the "cannot save settings on a guest account" bug made it appear that it had some weird DRM.

In short, there never was any DRM in our version of AoW III at all :)
avatar
JudasIscariot: The game did this (work without an actual internet connection) even before the patch came around. The only problem was the "cannot save settings on a guest account" bug made it appear that it had some weird DRM.

In short, there never was any DRM in our version of AoW III at all :)
avatar
OldFatGuy: Okay, but from our end, we weren't sure it was a "bug" and not something intentional. Because having to go in every single time and redo your graphics, sound, etc. settings every time "looks" like an intentional attempt to make one sign in because those signing in didn't have that problem.

If you say it wasn't intentional, and it was a bug, then that's good enough. It was a bug.
" Okay, but from our end, we weren't sure it was a "bug" and not something intentional."

Yes, and I definitely sympathize with you guys on that one. And, yes, it was completely unintentional but don't take my word for it, the fact that the first patch fixed this very issue proves that this was completely unintentional, at least in my humble opinion :)