I'm not certain you actually read that... other than to quote it and try claiming there is something in there that stands out because all of that is required to do basic business, and the "what games you're playing" can easily be disabled (which is the only Galaxy required feature.

Galaxy isn't DRM, it's an installer for the game that requires minimal effort on GoG's part to maintain. You do not need to launch the game via galaxy. You do not need Galaxy even installed to run the game. Your misinterpretation of GoG's privacy policy doesn't make Galaxy some evil spying software... the issue was that people wanted all the "steam stuff" like achievements and user pages and that junk... for those to operate GoG needs permissions (which you can disable in the client) outlined in their privacy policy.

As for selling data to marketers, they're talking about what types of games you like... which they get simply from you buying from them.

Of course, Galaxy is also cheaper for GoG on the bandwidth side, so it isn't surprising they'd be pushing it over a bloated offline installer that has all dependencies packaged and may require several patch downloads to get to the latest version. (Or in some cases, the latest version is packaged without in between patches, requiring a complete redownload of the game)

So, if I, without owning The Witcher, go onto the Galaxy page for The Witcher and hit "download" it'll work without any verification of my identity or checking if I purchased it, right?

Because no, Galaxy does what DRM does and makes sure the purchase is legitimate before allowing you to download. And in some instances, it also does what DRM does and makes sure you're signed into the account the game was downloaded through before it launches the game.

The offline installers are DRM-free, but when the offline installer version of a game isn't kept up to date with the Galaxy version, that is locking content behind DRM.

It's a technicality justifying the use of the term, and as DRM, Galaxy is much less restrictive than many other DRM options out there, but it IS still doing the job DRM does well enough to meet the requirements to earn that label. As long as there's a fully updated offline installer, GOG still have a valid claim to be providing the game DRM-free, but as soon as they lock updates behind the Galaxy client, that is a breach of one of the storefront's main selling points.

It is a DRM. Check out Dying Light, for example. There's no linux version, even though it's available on steam. The reason? They say it's due to "limitations linked to multiplayer".
How would multiplayer work differently on linux? It doesn't. The thing is that the multiplayer requires you to use gog galaxy, and since galaxy isn't on linux, they don't provide the game.
If this isn't a DRM, I don't know what it is. And they apparently do it on other games, for the same reason.

People quickly forget that Galaxy is optional, so there goes the DRM argument. I swear, I've heard people state that "Internet access required for Internet multiplayer games" is some sort of DRM...;) Incredible. Also, the reason the manual files take longer to get updated is simply because GOG assembles the manual files from the Galaxy updates the developers provide. It's always been that way. Before Galaxy left beta status, people were always complaining that GOG manual update files *always* appeared a couple of days after patches were published on Steam--it was because GOG has to do the backup file patches itself--developers just sent in the base patches.

So...yawn...no DRM...no conspiracy. It's amazing how many people don't understand how things work.

A DRM is about, as the name implies, "Digital Rights". The internet isn't a DRM because it doesn't serve the purpose of checking for ownership, and if you build your own anonymous internet, you could play on it. Servers can be a DRM if no dedicated servers are available. Galaxy *is* required for some multiplayer games, and it *does* check for ownership, and as such it *is* a DRM.

Moreover, the "it was always like this" argument is now meaningless, because GoG wasn't backed up by the trilliards or dollars that are now available to CDProjekt. You don't tolerate the same from a tiny team or a huge, rich company.

And there's no "conspiracy" here. GoG has been quite open about the fact that they intend to force people to use their launcher. As such, considering that things that are only useful in that direction could be made with purpose isn't far fetched, and I've yet to see a single member of the GoG staff explain the real reasons behind all this. Because you can go all smart, but you don't know how it works either. And if it does indeed work as you say, then it's just as unacceptable, because such a crappy service from such a big company is not tolerable.

Galaxy is optional, so the existence of FULLY UPDATED offline installers which run without Galaxy means that GOG still has a valid claim to providing fully DRM-free access to the games which run without Galaxy. There are a growing number of games available on GOG with limitations or missing elements when played outside of Galaxy, EVEN while playing with internet access, as well as some examples posted in this thread of games which are NOT keeping their non-Galaxy versions properly up to date.

Games which require online access to run AND require an account on that online service AND require either proof of purchase as part of the account or to be linked to a platform account with proof of purchase, have DRM inherent in that online functionality. Similarly, games for which Galaxy is required in order to access the game, or to access certain online features because of the game's online funcitonality being bound to the Galaxy client's connection to your GOG account (which is used to verify ownership of the game) are using Galaxy as DRM.

Games which require Galaxy in this manner, or require an online account sign in for access to the game, are using DRM regardless of anyone trying to pretend otherwise. That is what the phrase "DRM" actually means. This doesn't make any such forms of DRM a "conspiracy" or even a bad thing - there are a lot of benefits to managing access to games in such a way. It does make it a violation of a promise that the game is "DRM-free" though, regardless of any benefits which come with the DRM.

And in case it's not clear, it is ALSO possible to have an online game which only works while you're online, and even for a single player always-online game, without that requirement acting as DRM. If you can access the game servers without an account, or if you need a free account but that account doesn't need a record (or llink to an account with a record) of purchase to give access to the game, then that isn't DRM. It's possible to make a game which doesn't require any login to GOG or any link to your GOG account to have functional access to game servers.

For a single player game, this might track metrics about the community and allow users to view interesting statistics about how people progress through the game, popular story paths within it, the scale of various player worlds in a builder game or a procedurally-generating open world environment, and various other things which don't have any unique identifiers being provided to anyone at any step of the way (beyond your IP address and timestamp passing through the server and potentially even those details not being logged). This functionality could be required purely for the purpose of ensuring that the data tracking is a complete record of everyone playing (or at least everyone who didn't modify the game files to prevent it so they could have their offline version). I doubt anyone would actually do this, but it would be possible.

Similarly, and much more believably, it's possible to make a game where you can launch the game from a non-Galaxy installer or from Galaxy itself, and have a separate "log in or sign up" page as the game opens, enter or create your username and password (which may or may not match your credentials on GOG) and start playing with no checking of whether or not you purchased the game. It gives you a free account for online play, even if you're not a legitimate buyer of the game, just because you had access to a device with the game installed. Such a game would be an online game with no DRM from its online functionality, and could potentially even track persistent player records on the server using the username and password - but because it's not managing the company's rights to the digital product in its operation, it isn't DRM. This also isn't done very often in modern gaming, because when you already have the online connectivity, requiring the player to link to a service which verifies the legitimacy of the purchase is so easy it's hard NOT to justify doing so.

The "it's already an online game so might as well" kind of DRM, if not implemented in an aggressive or problematic way, can often be an entirely reasonable and sensible measure to reduce piracy without causing unnecessary problems for players. That isn't the motivating factor behind players wanting DRM-free games, but it DOES make any game which uses this kind of DRM sill a technical violation of any company's claims to being "DRM-free" if it's sold through a storefront which promises that.

I've been a GOG fan from before most people had heard of them, so I'm not trying to sell bogus conspiracy theories. I believe there is actually a problem here. I did read the full privacy agreement and I've read their privacy agreement in the early days. The differences are notable and support my conclusions. There was a time when GOG made it very clear that the only tracking they did was image-embedded emails to see if people were reading their ads.

There are posts here showing that Galaxy won't launch GOG games which it thinks aren't authorized. That is DRM, even if it can be bypassed with enough know how. But as I said. I don't really care if its DRM. What I care about is if GOG is dragging their feet with offline releases in order to coerce people into using Galaxy.

I happen to have good knowledge of how things progressed with the X3 update. The developer uploaded the patch to Steam and GOG the same day. It was available on Steam and Galaxy within a few hours. Nearly a week passed with no offline patch. and several people complained to GoG. GoG's reply was that it "was in the quality assurance department and there was no eta. for its release". GoG's own documentation for developers clearly states that there is no QA oversight and that production of offline installers is fully automated and takes only a few hours. After several people complained on the developer's site, the developer contacted GoG and the offline patch became available immediately. None of that would especially raise a red-flag, if it wasn't available on Galaxy from day1.

As for your speculation that they're only tracking "what games you like", it's just guesswork unless you're GoG's ceo . The phrasing of the contract gives them huge leeway to track play habits, friend lists and messages and sell the info to marketers who are not bound by GoG's user policy. Even if they don't do that now, there's nothing in the contract to prevent them from doing it in the future. Offline installers can be blocked in my firewall, making me in charge of what information I give out. By it's very nature, Galaxy must be allowed internet connection making it GoG's decision as to what information they collect.

I'm not anti-Galaxy. If that's your thing, go for it. But I decide where I spend my money and time. If GoG consistently drags their feet in providing offline installers, and offers no reasonable explanation, then I have to take my best guess as to their motives and decide if I still want to support them.