All true, though I do think it is also the stores who want control, particularly with the example of Steam's own DRM. Generally speaking, I'd say both the publisher and the store have a vested interest in control (the same argument may be able to be made for some devs, on a smaller scale).

And to clarify, I don't think Epic would throw money towards DRM-free. But, that would be what would win me as a consumer. Until then, I am not going to feel awe and wonder towards their place in the market. To me it is just another DRM store, albeit one which can hopefully continue to erode the monopoly one.

I think both the negativity some have expressed against them for doing so, and the positivity others have expressed towards them for doing so, are both misplaced at this point in time.

Well it turns out I was completely wrong in my assessment about EGS being a DRM. They aren't DRM. So them being another Steam is out the window for this very reason.

Therefore, here we have Steam - a DRM with a storefront launcher (albeit devs can opt out of the DRM feature). GOG is a store that only allows completely DRM-free games. And they are fully browser based with completely optional launcher.

Turns out, EGS is no more than just a storefront launcher. No DRM. While not taking any stand like GOG for DRM-free, EGS is basically a DRM neutral store. As is every normal store on the planet - sell video games whether they have their own sort of DRM method or not. Which is essntially how things have always been historically. If you as a developer selling on EGS want DRM on your game, that is on you. Nothing to do with EGS. What does this mean? Borderlands 3 and Outer Worlds possibility of DRM-free. I would consider this a strong posibility if not for all the threats from steaming bigots about piracy.

Steam: OK I had to download this bloatware to install my game. Now I can uninstall it, and play my game right? Wrong! Steam has to stay installed for as you want to be playing the game. And run while you play.

EGS: Albeit still has to be installed to be an installer for a game. But once that game it installed, you can completely uninstall EGS.

I don't give a crap about having to install a small installer to install a large game. Then, uninstall the installer. It's not a DRM. I'm happy. If EGS isn't even a DRM store, and they hae an actual fair system for retailing, I can't think of a single notworthy problem with them without being overly petty even if I wanted to.

I bought Outer Wilds from EGS. Unbelievable game. Beat it. Never had to have EGS running. As far as I could tell, it doesn't even use DRM. This may be the case for Ooblets, and still that possibility for even larger games. Like Borderlands has never been DRM-free. Always been leeched to Steam.

I mean snatching up games that are specifically seeking exclusivity on a blood sucking DRM, and selling them DRM free. I'm definitely not seeing any sort of so-called "anti-consumer" now.

As for the thing about DARQ. It was just a small example to iterate the point about the industry as a whole. Not that we're at any point of some ideal pre-Steam/pre-DRM situation. The point was a step forward and overall improvement ever since EGS showed up. DARQ DRM free on Steam and GOG. Games being snatched from going DRM on Steam, and yes only on EGS, but still DRM-free.

It is a valid way but I feel such things are done more by younger people and have less place in a more civil discourse such as here on gog.....of course I am not content arbiter so I do not think I have any power over anyone to do as I wish/want them to....I just see it as not fitting a person trying to promote a mature and serious viewpoint as you seem to do from time to time.



============
============

To me that last bit implies those who buy from such sites have no principles at all. They do, they are just different is all.

This is false. Epic store is exactly as DRMed as Steam is, no more and no less. There are DRM-free games on Steam where you can download them, then delete Steam entirely and still play the games. (Since you apparently missed it the first time: https://steam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games) Meanwhile, there are games on Epic's store where if you delete the Epic launcher, you cannot play. How is that any different?

eric5h5 is right - There isn't, functionally, any difference between EGS and Steam in terms of DRM; In both, the phone-home copy protection is technically 'optional', and both require the launcher and login authentication to install the game. (This last part is still DRM as *every time* you want to install the game you have to authenticate again to a third-party server that may or may not exist in the future.)

This is why EGS is using exclusives to attract new users; If they didn't then they wouldn't have any Unique Selling Point over Steam and would just be another failed launcher/storefront like all the other mostly-forgotten attempts that have tried to compete with Steam.

The singluar reason GOG is still around is that they have a USP that nobody else has had the guts to try, and that is their hard No DRM stance.

It turns out there are enough of us that care more about owning our games with no-backsies than anything else, and that there are enough developers that realize DRM doesn't work and is a waste of money and resources, that it is enough to keep GOG in business.

Steam can't/won't enter that field so GOG currently has that as its untouchable niche - GOG's main struggle is getting enough new zero-DRM games in to keep a steady income stream.


EGS OTOH is trying to compete in the same turf and for the same users that Steam already has, so for them it will be a horrific uphill struggle from scratch against an entrenched practical-monopoly. Their tactic of buying exclusives is really the only effective tool they have, as it targets Steam's core userbase (i.e. fickle people that don't want to wait and don't care what they have to do to get the shiny game that they want as long as they get it.) - They are gambling on the fact that most Steam users don't care about what platform/launcher they're using, and as long as they can get the games those people want, that group will happily install their platform.
I reckon if EGS could get exclusivity on things like FIFA and CoD or whatever the big AAA titles are nowadays, even for just a year, their userbase would grow very quickly as most people that play such games don't give a rat's buttock what hoops they need to jump through to get the latest version of the game.

Remember, Steam was literally built on the back of Half-Life 2 being exclusive to that platform; Even if you bought HL2 from a brick-and-mortar store, you still needed to install Steam and create a Steam account (and in some cases spend hours downloading HL2 again because the encrypted datafiles on the DVD were out of date).
Once Steam got on your system, they started doing everything they could to convince you to buy games through them instead of on physical media, with flashy adverts, promos, freebies and deep discounts to get market share, and it worked!

EGS is really just following in their footsteps.

i think devs are missing the point of GOG its not just the DRM thing, its also the fact GOG is a great platform for these companys to sell there older games which would probably not get any light on with steam cos of its huge library

Turns out, this post basically confirms you are here to shill for EFS as others have accused. With all due respect, you say you were "completely wrong" in your assessment of EGS being DRM, and that they aren't DRM. If you're going to stick around this forum, please show how you arrived at that conclusion :)

Perhaps we simply disagree on what is/isn't a step forward. In this case I think more information would be needed to show it is a step forward. For instance, did DARQ's devs solemnly vow to never make their game DRM-free, but all of a sudden they were swayed by the Epicness of EFS and had a change of heart that they would not have had, but for EFS? My thought is that EFS may have expedited the process of DARQ going DRM-free on Scheme and GOG. But we have regularly seen games come to GOG a few months or sometimes a few years later; it seems DRM-free gamers at this point are considered a different market to devs/pubs than the regular day-1 buyers (I do not think this has to be the case, but it is what I observe happening currently). Making a big game go DRM-free would be a more accurate indicator of positive change.

EDIT:
My understanding now is that EFS tried to somehow give money to the DARQ dev, who refused? I think I read this in a release topic where people where praising the dev for not "selling out," as it were. If I got that incorrect, sorry for unintentional error. But if that was the case, EFS did "expedite" DARQ becoming DRM-free, just not in the original sense I thought. In any case, my point above stands as a generalized observation and was never meant to be exclusive to DARQ itself.

And Origin and UPlay (BattleNet, Rockstar Social...) paved the way for that. Without all the previously established non-Steam launchers (with lots of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and finally giving in from the Steam users) it would have been even harder for Epic. Now it's only "just another launcher"...

Sit and spin lol (just kidding)

Oh, that wasn't really my intention. My point was more that the stores have an option to satisfy customers who insist on 100% DRM-free. As we both know, most stores do not exercise this option. Including Scheme, and including Epic Fail Store (EFS).

You say this as if it's a bad thing to not care about such things so much. Sometimes being "blissfully ignorant" is a good thing for some from time to time.

I myself have the client and mainly buy games that are drm free(classic older games with portable files/etc) or cheap games I have copies of on other platforms.....to me it is nice to get a good deal as well as drm free and I see it as a plus to have more choice in where I can buy. Just my two cents.



1. Lel?

2. That's good to know.....also I noticed you do not use your silly names for those stores every time you bring them up. Gotta say the inconsistency is a bit jarring. ;) :D

It's a shame I didn't get to that online dating topic in time or you would've loved my comments about "E-Harm-many," "Plenty of Whales," etc. But point taken, I can try to use the alternate names more consistently if you'd like :p

Nope...i'm good.

With that logic Epic Games is currently a way better platform than GOG for them to release older games because they really only have a handful of games right now.

Hard to disagree here - good point :)
Then again I still think that EGS is not consumer friendly and only tried to be dev friendly to be able to even get some feet on the ground. Promising devs that they will pay if the game does not sell as expected has nothing to do with free market - it's corruption of market mechanics imo. Also revoking refund rights that were granted by law for european customers and making european customers agree to this before buying any game there does not sound very good for me as well. I don't even want to start with all the data protection issues involvong EGS or the fact that Sweeney praised devs that chose exclusivity and insulted their customers ...