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.

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.

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?

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

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.)

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

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!

Exactly right, from my understanding.


"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.

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.
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.

Agreed and well said

I find it unfortunate that some users who were backing the boycott bought madmax.

Ask for a refund !!!

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

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.