And yet you're arguing that your definition is the correct one ipso facto it's "argumentative" by which I think you mean "debatable". In addition nearly everyone has their own definition of "DRM" specifically because the proper definition of "DRM" is far too broad to be useful; regardless as to whether you declare it to be an objective matter, in practice, it's very much subjective.

I was going to disagree with you, but having reread the OP, I do see a point. This does sound an awful lot like DRM. And while it might not technically cross the line, it certainly is something that should be disclosed at bare minimum.

Multiplayer CD keys just come with the territory for many games as the servers are outside of GOG's sphere of influence and it would break compatibility for any copies that predate the license key removal.

I believe that there's a few games here that nominally require a key, but will accept basically any string of digits.

Correct. Similarly, there is also no reason for Battle Worlds not to allow direct-connect or private server multiplayer, which would exist entirely separate from the official servers. So I take that to mean you agree with me that Battle Worlds has DRM.

I would absolutely kill to have an offline single-player version of WoW that I could play without ever having to log into my Battle.net account. And I am quite certain that I am not the only one who would appreciate that.

More to the point however, I understand there are plenty of unofficial community-operated WoW servers out there right now which do not require a Battle.net account to play on. If I were to play WoW on one of those servers, I would in fact be playing a DRM-free MMO. Just because a game is classified as an MMO does not mean that it is DRM-free. DRM does not mean "internet connection required." It means "third-party permission required."

There are also other MMO's that have always been DRM-free from the beginning, including many of the games on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_massively_multiplayer_online_games#Free_play

I'm not arguing for my definition as the correct one. There is only one definition (but yes, I am arguing).

I certainly don't think the "proper definition" of DRM is broad at all - "Any game that requires permission from a third-party to install or play has DRM." That seems to me to be simple, unambiguous, and easy to understand by everyone.

That's an interesting definition, and one I never considered before. Certainly bears thinking about. especially as some DRM operators like TopWare utilise DRM systems that also provide a telephone option (you call a telephone number, punch in the serial and the code on-screen, and an automated voice gives you the activation code over the phone).

And as I've often stated, the problem with DRM is not whether you are capable or authorised to ask permission to play your game, but rather whether the provider is willing or able to do so, which they inevitably won't when DRM servers get shut off.

Right. That's been the primary concern for most people with regards to DRM - "Will I be able to play this game 10, 20, or even 50 years from now?"

Lately though, as most companies have moved away from SecuRom/Tages types of "authentication" DRM towards account-based DRM like Origin and such, there are now many more potential problems to worry about:

"What will this company do with my personal information?"
"What information do they gather?"
"Will they hand over that information to another publisher if/when they sell the company?"
"Under what circumstances will the publisher revoke my ability to play the game (or all of my games)?"

I'll say this for SecuRom, all that software ever did was check to make sure my copy of the game was legitimate. They never tried to learn anything else about me in the process. Those were the good old days of DRM as far as I'm concerned.

Except that's not the proper definition that's your definition further proving the matter is as subjective as anything else language related.

"DRM-free MMO"? Don't you think you are stretching it a bit too far? MMOs are always online by definition and they always have an account system. I don't even knew how to consider MMOs to have DRM since being online and having an account system are technically necessary for an online-only game that relies on character progression.

No, there isn't. The definition of DRM is subjective, as has been discussed countless times on this forum.

A "proper" definition doesn't currently exist because it's mostly subjective. Some people consider cd-keys for multiplayer to be DRM, others don't, for example.
You mean the one with limited activations?

Yes, DRM-free MMOs. Most of the MMOs on that list allow players to set up and use their own private servers - creating and logging into an account is not required. Individual server admins can set up their own passwords if they want, but the players are free to join any server you want, or create their own. There is no permission needed from anyone in order to play.

Yes I am aware that people believe DRM is based on one's personal opinion. I guess I could consider games like SimCity and Diablo III to be DRM-free then, since the developers of those games consider the online account integration to be essential for both of those games.

Of course, one day both of those games will become unplayable when the servers are shut down, just as will every other game that requires an account to play, and then we'll all have DRM-free games that are completely useless.

I'm not aware of any multiplayer game that uses a CD-key authentication that does not also require users to create an account, but if a game were to use that system and the keys had to be verified by the publisher before the users could play, then yes that is DRM.

Just as with any other DRM, one day those authentication servers will no longer be available, and then no one will be able to play multiplayer anymore, even though there is no technical reason why the publisher shouldn't allow players to set up their own private servers instead.

Not all SecuRom games came with limited activations, though most did. But yeah, even though we now have the "benefit" of unlimited installations, we've trade a whole host of privacy and legal rights in the process. SecuRom and similar services were at least better in that way.

It depends on what features are provided in the multiplayer mode.

Matchmaking, content-sharing, persistence, leaderboards and other more centralized "social" features require a centralized server.

That being said, they should state whether multiplayer is accessible DRM-free (peer-to-peer and such) or not.

Could you get a list of which games allow it? I'm pretty sure most of them do not, especially since MMOs rely heavily on either microtransactions (if it's F2P) or a paid subscription (like WOW). I mean, why the fuck would someone develop a F2P game and allow private servers at the same time? They need to monetize the game somehow and the notion of allowing private servers completely breaks it.

I know Lineage II has many private servers, but as far as i'm aware for MOST games running private servers is illegal.

I've been playing some MMOs since Ultima Online and to be honest i have never seen a MMO that completely allows private servers. Yes, there are private servers for many MMOs out there, but most of them are illegal as far as i'm aware.

You missed the point completely. You're stretching things too far to make your point. Of course there are some methods that are obviously considered to be DRM by every sane person in the world (like always-online, SecuROM, Tages, or any other online activation system). What i'm trying to say is that it isn't always black and white. There's certainly a gray area when it comes to DRM. Some people consider multiplayer games with cd-key checks to be DRM, others don't. For me a game that requires an account for multiplayer only is not an example of DRM, for you it is. Can you see it? It's not a black and white issue.

Oh, yes, there are many games released in the early 2000s that had a CD-key authetication without an account system. The ones that i remember are BF1942 and it's sequels (until BF Bad Company 2, which had an account system if i recall correctly), the Delta Force games, Star Wars games (like Republic Commando and Battlefront 1 and 2), the Unreal Tournament series (and i think Unreal 2 as well, but i'm pretty sure that the first UT did not have a cd-key online check), Project IGI 2, Swat 4, Rainbow Six Raven Shield, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, the early COD games (before it went Steamworks), Doom 3 and the list goes on and on.

Nah, i'd much rather have Steam's DRM than SecuROM or Tages. I upgrade my PC very often and i would HATE to have to rely on SecuROM to revoke my activation tokens to let me play the fucking game i bought. I prefer Steam's approach which allows me to install and play my games in every PC i want without any restrictions. And i trust Steam's servers much more than the servers for SecuROM ad Tages. I know that Valve isn't going out of business anytime soon, but i certainly don't know what will happen to SecuROM and Tages now that no publisher uses them.

I personally disagree with this, it stands for Digital Rights Management. Any system put in place to check the rights to digital software (in any way) is DRM - multiplayer games with key checks are unquestionably DRM. I would agree they are a more justified form, but are drm still..

Right, and I was just saying that there's a clear distinction and that GOG should therefore disclose if an account is required for the multiplayer. I wasn't saying all multiplayer should be P2P, just that if an account is required that should be specified because it's not the same thing as a CD-key.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about but maybe I'm misunderstanding your post or mine wasn't clear enough.

Alright, so regarding my support ticket, GOG sent a reply:

As for your question, I believe that your argument is valid. We have just added the notice to the game's description. For purchases made before this note was added, a replacement game, or even a refund, would be warranted, if this was a real problem to the customer. However, the refund would not be issued directly as per our new policy. It's just the correct thing to do, and we would have done so even before adding the 30-day Money Back Guarantee. :)

So everything's good here. I would personally prefer that GOG resist selling these types of games where only the single-player portion of the game is unrestricted, but as long as they provide a clear notice on the store page we can at least make an informed decision.

I know that at least Crossfire, PlaneShift, and Xonotic are completely free and unrestricted, both for clients and servers. Players can create and run their own servers without ever seeking permission from anyone. So just as with other DRM-free games, they will run forever - no one can ever prevent you from playing the game for any reason.

I'm not sure of the rest because I haven't played them. Regarding Lineage II - even if it allows private servers I don't think you allowed to run those servers without permission from NC Soft. And they can withdraw that permission at any time they like. So there's a big difference.

But games that require an account for multiplayer means that part of the game will become unplayable once the publisher ends support for the game, just as it would for the single-player content. I understand if you don't care about multiplayer, so it doesn't matter to you whether multiplayer is available or not. But it obviously does matter to me and many others and I don't see why our desires shouldn't be taken into account.

This is especially important because now many games are being released in which the single-player and multiplayer are not distinct "modes" within the game (e.g. Titanfall). So it doesn't do anyone any good to say that a game has DRM only if applies to one part of the game or the other. Why not just have one consistent standard and be done with it? That way there is no confusion or debate necessary.

Alright I didn't remember how those games worked; a CD-key/no account check for multiplayer is definitely less restrictive than an account requirement, since having an account carries many more privacy implications that a simple key check does not. It's all DRM, but there are different levels of severity of course. Regardless, even those games that did require only a key check are still going to be unplayable once the servers are shut down.

So you have different concerns when it comes to different types of DRM, just as with me and everyone else. I personally would care more about having to maintain an account because of the aforementioned privacy concerns that do not apply to SecuRom or Tages.

Keep in mind though, that it's not only a matter of whether a company like Valve "goes out of business" or not. As we have seen Valve, EA, and virtually every other publisher do, the EULA and Privacy Policy associated with these companies are updated regularly. If at any time you do not agree to those terms, you still lose all of your games whether the company is still in business or not. That is a much more insidious and damaging form of DRM than a simple authentication check.