GameRager: Show me the workaround/tell me what system you are trying to run it on & some basic info and maybe I can help.

==============
==============
GameRager: That is my stance as well....it's good to see similar stances here. :)

mystikmind2000: This is the workaround; (frankly i think it is easier just to play something else)

eric5h5: The initial release was DRM-free, apparently accidentally. (After all, if they were interested in DRM-free, I expect they'd have it on GOG.) If you buy it now, it has DRM.

GameRager: I admire you but could never be that hardline/staunch on my stance......I guess it's a combination of being a bit more lenient and a bit more weak. Either way I am glad I am or i'd likely go mad from lack of new gaming goodness.

eric5h5: The initial release was DRM-free, apparently accidentally. (After all, if they were interested in DRM-free, I expect they'd have it on GOG.) If you buy it now, it has DRM.

mystikmind2000: This is the workaround; (frankly i think it is easier just to play something else)

rjbuffchix: The argument has been made (by you and others) that DRM-free-only gamers miss out on gaming culture by avoiding glorified rental services like Scheme and EFS.

But I see two counters to that.

1. There is a view of games "filling jobs" or "filling needs" that takes a broader view of a game's place in the market instead of looking at the specific game itself. For example, GOG does not have the GTA games. But, GOG does have the Saints Row games. GOG also has some games similar to the old top-down GTAs, like Metrocide and Retro City Rampage. Under the view of "games filling jobs," GOG is able to fill the need of "open world crime game" (by having Saints Row series). If you (not you personally, anyone) looks at it this way, suddenly GOG looks like it "covers" a LOT more of gaming culture. While there are genres I wish GOG had more games from, GOG does an impressive job with multiple types of RPG, action, horror. Not everyone holds this macro-level view of games "filling jobs" but it is an interesting way to look at things.

2. Hardliners like me don't want to give money to places like Scheme and EFS. In some cases, we wouldn't even want to give non-monetary support (such as signing up for an account, which is a direct and also an indirect endorsement of their business). However, that doesn't mean we are necessarily "blocked off" from checking out these games through things like watching a Youtube playthrough or seeing them at a friend's house. In other words, even if a hardliner decides they will not own the game for principled reasons, they could still possibly experience the game if they wanted. Additionally, some stuff is so ubiquitous in general that people will be aware of it even if they don't play it. For instance, despite never playing it, I could give a decent description of what it would be like to play Fartnite (no I haven't stopped with the names :)).

GameRager: 1st bit: That's because you and others are missing out, and voluntarily I might add, just to uphold a moral point that in the end wins and achieves next to nothing beyond a good feeling inside.

(Also as I said: Steam isn't a rental if you buy legit and then have cracks on hand for when/if you need them...same with epic I expect. When you are more flexible those sites become much more advantageous to a consumer)

2nd bit(first counter) - You said gog "looks like"...not is...this is key and proves my point somewhat(i.e. those like myself have more access to individual games and media than people like yourself).

3rd bit(second counter) - And what does all that achieve beyond self satisfaction? In the end steam and epic will chug on and you and others will have accomplished next to nothing to affect them. Heck, social media mobs can and do accomplish more...think about that a bit.

Also let's plays are good and all but playing will always be more engrossing for many than watching.

=================================
In the end I wonder who you are trying to convince more that your stance is a reasonable one...me/others, or yourself. :\

rjbuffchix: You are better than that last pithy line of your post, but I will answer it. I engage in the forum to talk to others about a shared hobby and voice myself as a consumer in said hobby. Is it the most efficient way to do so? I don't know. For me it is. I advocate things like DRM-free gaming not just for myself but for others like me who long for what we see as a better era/set of practices for PC gaming. In my view, GOG staying around long-term and remaining DRM-free is the best hope of maintaining something like that.
=======================
Why does someone sticking up for what they believe, when it differs from your view, seem to evoke such anxiety (for lack of a better word)? If we wanted to go into the random "you're trying to convince yourself" rabbithole, I would point out that your action here is similar to all the Scheme fanboys when they realize they don't actually own their library of 6000+ games so they lash out in response. Let me point out too that "self satisfaction" is a perfectly reasonable end unto itself. If that makes you feel better to just dismiss me as some rigid wacko, go ahead.
=======================
But surely you are not telling me what would satisfy me? Because it reads as suggesting I (/someone like me) would be more satisfied by doing something they find not satisfying first. I see how you also glossed over the point that some of us don't want to give ANY kind of support to DRMed stores; hence your "solution" of buying a DRMed game and then fiddling with workarounds is not viable in that sense, since it would require giving money to the DRMed store and also adding to their numbers.
=========================
Please consider stopping support of anti-consumer practices. Every game bought on Scheme, or EFS for that matter despite OP's claims, is supporting DRM infestation of gaming. YES, this even includes the games that are "DRM-free" on both, because the buyer is still effectively telling the store "I don't care about your general business practices, I just want this shiny thing so here's my money." In turn this allows the bad general business practices to keep occurring and with enough money, get even more prevalent.

rjbuffchix: Well (and you might not like this answer), I don't want to pad social media's numbers any more than I want to pad DRMed stores numbers :)

The silly alternate names can hopefully plant a seed for people in a way that me just calling them by the "real" names would not. They also help keep things in perspective for me. Think of it as a way of dealing with a sad reality.
===================================

No offense taken, and I was only using wacko as like a figure of speech. Anyway, I call back to an earlier discussion of ours and maintain that on many topics, an extreme position IS the reasonable one to have and moreover to assume extreme positions are unreasonable by default, is itself unreasonable (logical fallacy).
==================================

Even if a person is more satisfied by standing to their principles, than "loosening" up and being more dissatisfied as a result? What good does that experience of "culture" or "broader experience" do for them then? (Answer: None, or really more accurate, it does Negative good).
==================================

I do not really wish to get into political discussion but that desert island sounds wonderful to me :) Seems a flawed analogy regardless, since the desert island would provide WAY more than a good feeling in your hypothetical; it would prevent others from infringing on your liberty.

Either the authority is oppressing the person or it isn't. Either the DRM is present or it isn't. Either the DRM can be justified to consumers or it cannot be.

(note that DRM supporters could also try to ground arguments for their own position in reality. For example, all the corporate apologists who say it HAS to exist to prevent piracy. Though in that case I don't think their view is all that grounded in reality but at least they are trying lol).
===================================

Still would be signing up for an account and padding their numbers (I regret doing this for EFS..you may recall I tried to get Axiom Verge DRM-free and gave up after 5 minutes of trying to fight off the client nagging). Still would be downloading it, also padding the store's numbers. Ditto for buying at deep discount..still buying, still showing support albeit in a possibly reduced way.
===================================

It doesn't sound callous, but it does sound like the "self satisfaction" you are accusing me and others of.
====================================

You are participating in the market!! Your actions in the market will be read by companies whether you like it or not, even if you explicitly told them not to do so! To the big companies, we are just the equivalent of statistics. In reading your actions in the market, of course the companies will try to spin your actions to represent whatever benefits THEM, not necessarily benefiting you. Companies, like governments (to call back to your earlier analogy), rely on participation in the process and then spin it to draw the conclusions they want.
====================================

First, I wouldn't necessarily say that's a bad thing, but one would think the sane companies would adjust to the new expectations of consumers instead of trying to keep the greedy practices despite the market roundly rejecting it.

GameRager: 1st bit- Oh c'mon.....using a site to make real change would actually be likely to have a good chance at affecting some change....so what if it gives them a few clicks/cents?

(Basically you are making excuses as to why you cannot do this or that, even when it would benefit your side)

GameRager: 3rd bit- One doesn't know they will be more or less dissatisfied until they try something a bit. Also yes, imo those with such stances would be more happy with more media to enjoy than constantly not playing various games to uphold an ideal. Heck, they;d also be more happy(imo) affecting change with social media/etc movements that got stuff done, as they'd feel they'd made holding their stance worth something other than good feelings. :\

GameRager: And it does more for them to experience more, imho....we all live short lives....why limit ourselves due to self signaling morals to such a degree?

GameRager: A better analogy: A person dislike anything suffering and says all plants and animals cannot suffer so they starve to hold their stance. Unreasonable or no?

GameRager: 5th bit- As I said before: Compromise is key to being successful and most happy in life(imo), and often it is required to get through life in some ways.

GameRager: 7th bit- I may be participating, but I make my displeasure known. I buy in deep sales and buy used if a game maker does something bad, and voice such using the proper channels. I do more than just sit around like many do and hope the problem will go away or similar(I mean all and not just you who do so or seem to do so).

GameRager: 8th bit- Lastly, you cannot stop or even mostly cut out greed....it's built into humanity along with all the good and bad aspects and nothing short of controlling people's minds somehow would change that.

rjbuffchix: You yourself said earlier that "In the end steam and epic will chug on and you and others will have accomplished next to nothing to affect them" (post 96). You then went on to suggest social media as the tool that would accomplish change. I don't mean for this to come off as condescending but do you honestly believe that social media on its own can stop the "chugging on" of bad stores? I sure don't. We may be talking past each other actually because in my view it isn't even about affecting change from these big stores, per se. They are set in their ways and so is most of the market.

==========================
I am looking to preserve a niche market which by definition is a minority in the bigger marketplace. Barring some wild hypothetical scandal like Scheme going out of business overnight with no way for people to download their games or business owner getting #metoo'd, social media without that sort of fuel behind it isn't doing jack to get other customers to wake up and demand better out of these companies (the companies obviously won't change on their own unless in response to customer demand, so you have to work the change out via the other customers).

To me it is more about advocating for DRM-free gaming than demanding the big stores themselves change their ways. I do "demand" as a consumer that they change their ways or I won't purchase from them (but since I am in the minority on this point, they couldn't care less). Right now and for the foreseeable future, GOG is where it's at for DRM-free gaming getting a wide audience.
==========================
I have played many DRMed games/experienced DRM, so that first sentence here is a nonstarter: I do know. But since you are very insistent about this social media point, maybe you'd be willing to try an experiment. Go organize the "Raise awareness of DRM" facebook page or youtube channel or instagram. Let me know how much change it gets done regarding the big stores' practices. You will find what I posted above, that without some type of out-of-your-control, random, bigger impetus for mainstream market people to be outraged, the DRM juggernauts will keep chugging along. There is nothing else that will get mainstream people to your side in great numbers.

So even if you got a lot of passionate folks like me on board, without some bigger cause/bigger random mainstream impetus, the majority of people, gaming market at large, would not care. They sure haven't yet. What's the term they always brand us as? Ah yes, "vocal minority" (with the implication we don't deserve to be listened to). And it gets worse! Many games are designed around "whales," so even if a majority of the market at large were swayed by your social media, and would openly "revolt" and stop buying the games, the companies could still be trotting out the bad practices!
It is an uncontrollable situation bordering on "no-win" for any consumer that gives a hoot about DRM.
==============================
You keep focusing on the self (which again, is perfectly fine as an end unto itself, i.e. not needing more justification). But it goes beyond that. I want people to be able to have the option of DRM-free experiences if they so choose. And ironically, supporting anticonsumer practices that continue to erode this option, takes away potential choice and experience of people going forward.

Something people don't want to believe is that there is not going to be this wonderful utopian marketplace where the consumer has all these choices of streaming or non-streaming, DRM or non-DRM, and you can choose how much or how little DRM you want. The reality of it, based upon already observable reality, is that the companies are going to give you the following "choice": accept DRM, or don't get to play the game at all.

The more support that someone gives to an anticonsumer practice, the more the opposite pro-consumer practice is harmed. The more the anticonsumer practice is hailed, the more the pro-consumer practice is minimized or brushed aside as not relevant. People don't like this patently obvious truth, but it is what shaped the gaming market (particularly the PC gaming market).
===========================
Just pointing out this is incoherent... as your hypothetical person would also be suffering in that example.
=========================
Required to get through life in some ways, yes. Key to being most happy, no! Oh man, so many examples of how that's not the case, but perhaps you and I just have very different outlooks on life. Try asking a married couple who "settled" for one another how happy they are. Make sure to grab some popcorn :)
==========================
I don't do nothing. That said, I have very limited power as a consumer who hopes a niche market survives let alone could ever become mainstream.

Moreover, here's the sad truth. Someone "doing nothing" is still doing MORE for DRM-free gaming than someone who buys from a DRMed store, even at deep discount. Yes that means you ;)

These big companies don't care about your displeasure. They already got your support. They already can tell their shareholders that X number of people were "pleased enough" to support them, with you adding +1 to the number.
============================
Of course a company is going to be "greedy," that's part of how it survives as a business. But surely you see how the market of consumers can naturally limit the greed depending on what practices they do/don't accept, to say nothing of there being competition in a market from other companies. Do you see why McDonald's can't realistically make their hamburger cost $20? The answer isn't "someone is mind-controlling their CEO," lol.