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
Hexchild: Seems like I ought to butt in and remind this thread of another definition, which I maintain is the one generally used by the media & games industry at large.

In over 90% of cases (by my admittedly flawed estimate) this definition can be simplified as "anti-piracy technology".

Meaning any technology whose purpose is to fight piracy, or more generally, to protect copyrights and other rights arising from deals between those who sell the product. "Purpose" here being an operative word.

Meaning that by this definition, you can't determine if something is DRM without considering why it's there.

Something like Securom, which has come up in recent discussion, is a textbook example of DRM by this definition, because it's main, and really only, purpose is to fight piracy. So there could be no question that a game that contains remnants of that system, by this definition, is not 100% DRM free.

While a game that requires an online server to play is not inherently DRM'd by this definition, even if taking down the server would lock you out of the game. It can be, if there is also a system in place to check that you're a legitimate user.

I'll grant that like any human I'm not perfect and my life experience is limited, so I could have a skewed view of how the industry at large uses the term. Assuming I'm not too far off, I'd argue that this is the closest we have to an objective definition. But at the same time, I'm not all that convinced that GOG has been adhering to it.
I think this is a very bad (unhelpful) definition because its not realistically possible to determine (or even define) intention or purpose.

Also I dont think using the perspective of 'the industry' is good. This thread is for the benefit of customers. Consequently a customer based perspective should be used.
avatar
Hexchild: Seems like I ought to butt in and remind this thread of another definition, which I maintain is the one generally used by the media & games industry at large.

In over 90% of cases (by my admittedly flawed estimate) this definition can be simplified as "anti-piracy technology".

Meaning any technology whose purpose is to fight piracy, or more generally, to protect copyrights and other rights arising from deals between those who sell the product. "Purpose" here being an operative word.
I agree, that is another alternative definition that could be used. Imo, that definition would cover anything that includes purchase authentication to prevent copying. In that case, a required connection to a remote server would not be DRM if it allowed anyone to join freely without checking their identity. But, if it requires a user account or purchase authentication, then I think it would be DRM.

Also, if GOG were to adopt that definition, then I think locked cosmetics would still count as DRM, because they are locked behind a purchase authentication system, the main purpose of which is to prevent copying (or unauthorized use) of that content.

Another possible definition could be anything that prevents a game (or parts of it) from being preservable. Another one, which I mentioned in another recent thread is something built into the game that is:

1) An unnecessary dependency that adds no value for the user.

2) Is under the sole control of one entity.

I quite like that one, because it seems like, fundamentally, that is really what DRM is. I think it would cover the lot: anti-piracy systems, purchase authentication, locked cosmetics, reliance on a remote server for MP and also the situation if Galaxy were to become mandatory for launching games.
Post edited March 22, 2021 by Time4Tea
avatar
Breja: I don't think you understood me. There isn't anything valid to debate about the cosmetics. They are DRM-ed. People get confused about the issue, because it's such negligible content that the fact it's DRM-ed is hardly even an inconvenience, but there is no rational way to argue that it's not DRM-ed content. And as long as GOG maintains that it's "100% DRM-free" there should be no games with any DRM-ed content here at all. So, again - there is no valid debate to be had here. It's just a matter a clearly laying things out.

-game "proper" - not DRM-ed
-optional, unimportant content - DRM-ed
- the "whole package" - tests postive for DRM, should not be on GOG.

People can still buy and play the game and consider it "functionally" DRM-free as far as they are concerned if they don't care about the cosmetics, but it still violates GOG's suppsed policy. There is no rational way of putting things in such a way that it wouldn't.
avatar
Time4Tea: I think the problem is that there is no universally-agreed definition of what 'DRM' is, which is where the ambiguity arises. If you use the definition that DRM is "any content that is locked behind a remote connection" (which I personally agree with), then your interpretation above is consistent with that and a game with locked cosmetics is DRMed.

However, some others seem to be using a different definition that DRM is "something that means you can't play the game". So, they would disagree with your interpretation based on that: that locked cosmetic content is not DRM, because it doesn't stop you 'playing the game; therefore, a game that has only locked cosmetic content is not DRMed.

So, this is why I am saying the cosmetic stuff is a bit more contentious, because it depends on each person's working definition of DRM. I think someone that uses that second definition I gave above does have an arguable case that it is not DRM, based on that alternative definition. I don't agree with them, but I think their argument is at least logically consistent with that definition.
I think the issue pointed out by 'Breja' here is that (many) people dont distinct between what DRM is and whether something should be considered to be a part of 'the game'. So IMO there is not much 'ambiguity' about whether CP2077 cosmetics are DRMed or not but rather:
1) there is ambiguity about whether they are part of the game
2) people dont distinct between the two issues a) is it DRMed? b) is it part of the game?
Post edited March 22, 2021 by Zrevnur
high rated
avatar
pippin15: I am a bit confused when people think needing an internet collection is equals to having drm. I mean, if you don't have one, how did you get the games in the first place?
Always online drm https://www.pcgamer.com/maxis-explains-the-use-of-simcity-always-online-drm/

basically if your internet drops anytime then you can't play your game

SimCity always-online DRM is basiccly used to advertise in the game for a single player game with no online play

``“GlassBox is the engine that drives the entire game—the buildings, the economics, trading, and also the overall simulation that can track data for up to 100,000 individual Sims inside each city. There is a massive amount of computing that goes into all of this, and GlassBox works by attributing portions of the computing to EA servers (the cloud) and some on the player's local computer,” Bradshaw writes.

If I'm understanding that correctly, Bradshaw's saying that offloading certain aspects of the simulation to SimCity servers is not only the way the game is designed, but a technical requirement``

But in truth the only reason the online was ``but it was later confirmed that cloud computing was only necessary to support the inter-city and social media mechanisms``

so the whole online requirement part was made just for social media like twitter, facebook...
you where forced to play online to the only point the requirement was for posting to social media

meaning if they got rid of the social media part then simcity wouldn't need a always online DRM
~~~~
but when the server gets shutdown it's a possibility you won't be able to play your game, this happened with spore.

Spore requires a always online approach to contact the servers and when the servers got shut down then the game was unplayable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Always-on_DRM
avatar
Time4Tea: 2) Is under the sole control of one entity.
Once somebody comes up with a decentralized blockchain based DRM system this fails. (And I remember reading about some blockchain copyright things existing or being developed already. This is an obvious possibility. It would also do away with the need for a central authorization server.)
avatar
Time4Tea: I think the problem is that there is no universally-agreed definition of what 'DRM' is, which is where the ambiguity arises. If you use the definition that DRM is "any content that is locked behind a remote connection" (which I personally agree with), then your interpretation above is consistent with that and a game with locked cosmetics is DRMed.

However, some others seem to be using a different definition that DRM is "something that means you can't play the game". So, they would disagree with your interpretation based on that: that locked cosmetic content is not DRM, because it doesn't stop you 'playing the game; therefore, a game that has only locked cosmetic content is not DRMed.

So, this is why I am saying the cosmetic stuff is a bit more contentious, because it depends on each person's working definition of DRM. I think someone that uses that second definition I gave above does have an arguable case that it is not DRM, based on that alternative definition. I don't agree with them, but I think their argument is at least logically consistent with that definition.
avatar
Zrevnur: I think the issue pointed out by 'Breja' here is that (many) people dont distinct between what DRM is and whether something should be considered to be a part of 'the game'. So IMO there is not much 'ambiguity' about whether CP2077 cosmetics are DRMed or not but rather:
1) there is ambiguity about whether they are part of the game
2) people dont distinct between the two issues a) is it DRMed? b) is it part of the game?
so many people don't even care if there is DRM, all the low post comments can tell you they don't care they are here just to buy super cheap games and my only guess reupload them on the internet there is no other real reason why since all games are on steam but for a few anyways

actions and words have meaning and only people who boycott gog are really gog fans since thats what gog stands for, hungry companies always likes to go for the path to make most money even if it's not good for the consumers
Post edited March 22, 2021 by KnightW0lf
avatar
Time4Tea: 2) Is under the sole control of one entity.
avatar
Zrevnur: Once somebody comes up with a decentralized blockchain based DRM system this fails. (And I remember reading about some blockchain copyright things existing or being developed already. This is an obvious possibility. It would also do away with the need for a central authorization server.)
That is a really interesting point and I hadn't considered that possibility. That actually might be a more consumer-friendly alternative to server-authentication DRM, because if games required bitcoin-like tokens to play, that actually might enhance the concept of ownership, in a better way than what we have now even with 'DRM-free' games. I.e. it might actually allow you to sell your games and transfer your token to someone else. We can't do that right now with any GOG games.

If the system were fully distributed, then it would allow for backups and it would be preservable. Backups would be possible, because tokens would be transferable between different personal copies (in the same way that bitcoins can be backed up). The system would also automatically be preservable, by virtue of it being de-centralized.

Of course, that assumes that such tokens would be transferable and fully-distributed. If developers were to try to retain control of it to prevent token transfer, then that would probably fall foul of that point 2) that you quoted.

Really interesting concept that probably deserves its own discussion thread!
Post edited March 22, 2021 by Time4Tea
avatar
Time4Tea: Imo, that definition would cover anything that includes purchase authentication to prevent copying. In that case, a required connection to a remote server would not be DRM if it allowed anyone to join freely without checking their identity. But, if it requires a user account or purchase authentication, then I think it would be DRM.

Also, if GOG were to adopt that definition, then I think locked cosmetics would still count as DRM, because they are locked behind a purchase authentication system, the main purpose of which is to prevent copying (or unauthorized use) of that content.
Exactly right, from my understanding.


avatar
Time4Tea: Another possible definition could be anything that prevents a game (or parts of it) from being preservable. Another one, which I mentioned in another recent thread is something built into the game that is:

1) An unnecessary dependency that adds no value for the user.

2) Is under the sole control of one entity.

I quite like that one, because it seems like, fundamentally, that is really what DRM is. I think it would cover the lot: anti-piracy systems, purchase authentication, locked cosmetics, reliance on a remote server for MP and also the situation if Galaxy were to become mandatory for launching games.
"Unnecessary" can be quite subjective. I'm sure many producers, developers and publishers consider DRM systems necessary, or we wouldn't have such an abundance of them.
avatar
Hexchild: "Unnecessary" can be quite subjective. I'm sure many producers, developers and publishers consider DRM systems necessary, or we wouldn't have such an abundance of them.
I don't think it is that subjective if it clearly defined. By 'unnecessary', I mean: not intrinsically necessary for the game to function. There is no form of anti-piracy software I am aware of that would meet that criteria.
Post edited March 22, 2021 by Time4Tea
avatar
Breja: And it's true. We all made that compromise. I admit that I am myself guilty of letting that slide because it didn't concern me personally (as I don't care about multiplayer). We thought we were drawing a line at single-player content, but as it turns it was like that Bugs Bunny cartoon.
avatar
Gersen: Well you kind of let the single player part slide too, we had also long before galaxy games where single player content (if you consider cosmetics to be such) was removed or only available on some platform. There was also for example Neverwinter Nights that had some SP content, as in story DLCs, that was only available if you created a Bioware account and purchased said content directly from them (this content was only added as paid DLC on Gog in 2018 after the Bioware store closed). I seems to also remember a Stardock or Paradox game that required you to create a third party account to unlock some goodies usable in SP, but I don't remember which one and I don't have time to look for it so don't quote me on that.
Hmm

Your argument reads like "Sorry, you have no right to be indignant about DRM anymore because you had a small window of opportunity where everyone in this thread that cares about DRM-freedom should be aware and complain.
The fact that you all did not realize back then that there even was a new directive inside Gog working towards eroding their customer-oriented principles, much less that the customers had to take action and organize themselves to fight it, is entirely your fault."

Never mind the fact that any organization of a boycott back when Gog deserved the benefit of the doubt wouldn't ever take off, you're implying that we should have acted on the theories that those slips of DRM-Freedom weren't mere accidents. No one outside of Gog could have been sure of that, and if anyone claimed otherwise back then they would be ridiculed as "end-of-the-world prophets" so often are.

TL,DR: Yeah, no.
avatar
mrkgnao: I thought I'd keep a record of games I would definitely have bought, were it not for the boycott.
avatar
pearnon: Good idea. Here's my "better late than never" list:

Operencia: The Stolen Sun - 10,00€
Outward - 11,99€
Pathfinder: Kingmaker - 12,99€
Thea 2 - 11,00€
Trine 4: Melody of Mystery - 07,49€
Warhammer: Chaosbane - 11,99€

TOTAL - 65,46€
This sale was bound to make quite the dent in my finances if I wasn't boycotting. I'll probably make a new list later as well.

The raw value wouldn't be as high as yours and most europeans but it would have a decent impact for me and I was okay with that.
Post edited March 23, 2021 by joppo
low rated
avatar
Lodium: Perhaps finding some common ground
of what constutites as drm withouth barring out those that differ a bit in values migth be a good idea.
Agreed and well said
Post edited March 22, 2021 by GamezRanker
avatar
Hexchild: "Unnecessary" can be quite subjective. I'm sure many producers, developers and publishers consider DRM systems necessary, or we wouldn't have such an abundance of them.
avatar
Time4Tea: I don't think it is that subjective if it clearly defined. By 'unnecessary', I mean: not intrinsically necessary for the game to function. There is no form of anti-piracy software I am aware of that would meet that criteria.
Much better.

Though I have to admit I'm amused and intrigued by the idea of a game that incorporates anti-piracy mechanics.
low rated
I find it unfortunate that some users who were backing the boycott bought madmax.

Ask for a refund !!!
avatar
Time4Tea: I don't think it is that subjective if it clearly defined. By 'unnecessary', I mean: not intrinsically necessary for the game to function. There is no form of anti-piracy software I am aware of that would meet that criteria.
avatar
Hexchild: Much better.

Though I have to admit I'm amused and intrigued by the idea of a game that incorporates anti-piracy mechanics.
there is a site that give details how long it takes for a game to be cracked https://crackwatch.com it's a legal site because there are no links, just information with reporting

it really does depend on the games some take few years while some take a day, then there was 1 game that got cracked before the game came out
high rated
avatar
Time4Tea: I think the problem is that there is no universally-agreed definition of what 'DRM' is, which is where the ambiguity arises. If you use the definition that DRM is "any content that is locked behind a remote connection" (which I personally agree with), then your interpretation above is consistent with that and a game with locked cosmetics is DRMed.

However, some others seem to be using a different definition that DRM is "something that means you can't play the game". So, they would disagree with your interpretation based on that: that locked cosmetic content is not DRM, because it doesn't stop you 'playing the game; therefore, a game that has only locked cosmetic content is not DRMed.
avatar
Hexchild: Seems like I ought to butt in and remind this thread of another definition, which I maintain is the one generally used by the media & games industry at large.

In over 90% of cases (by my admittedly flawed estimate) this definition can be simplified as "anti-piracy technology".

Meaning any technology whose purpose is to fight piracy, or more generally, to protect copyrights and other rights arising from deals between those who sell the product. "Purpose" here being an operative word.

Meaning that by this definition, you can't determine if something is DRM without considering why it's there.

Something like Securom, which has come up in recent discussion, is a textbook example of DRM by this definition, because it's main, and really only, purpose is to fight piracy. So there could be no question that a game that contains remnants of that system, by this definition, is not 100% DRM free.

While a game that requires an online server to play is not inherently DRM'd by this definition, even if taking down the server would lock you out of the game. It can be, if there is also a system in place to check that you're a legitimate user.

I'll grant that like any human I'm not perfect and my life experience is limited, so I could have a skewed view of how the industry at large uses the term. Assuming I'm not too far off, I'd argue that this is the closest we have to an objective definition. But at the same time, I'm not all that convinced that GOG has been adhering to it.
Unhelpful.

DRM has not been primarily about anti-piracy for about two decades now, ever since Newell and Steam.

DRM's true strength has been shown to be telemetry and data harvesting achieved by locking a consumers ability to use and access a product behind registration.