« After you went through the DRM validation, there is no extra DRM check. So it’s DRM-free, right? »

Sorry, but you do not seem to fully understand what DRM-free is about. The problem is not specifically with you, since the website given in the opening post makes the same mistake.

To be fair, I think this "DRM-free games on Steam" started when people who used to pretend being against DRM tried looking for an excuse for submitting to DRM checks instead of skipping games they wished to play. Same for the usual « It’s not DRM if it’s only for <multiplayer/cosmetics/optional content/etc.> ».

I fully understand what drm free is about and i know that steam itself is a drm machine but it’s very light drm.The far majority on gog only cares if games are playable without a launcher and are not whining around and make conspiracy theories all the time.Still ridicolous that adult men are downvoting here like little children even on ops post where he literally posted the facts.Most here just have opinions which is fine but facts matter and if a game is playable without a launcher it’s drm free….Fact

I think this has always been the case, DRM has never been a permanent solution, publishers/developers realize that most sales occur in the few weeks after release (at least for AAA games, indie games tend to have "longer tails"), so DRM is used just to protect the game from piracy just for those few weeks after release until it's cracked.

For me, I consider it unethical to support DRM, which includes stores that are heavy on DRM.

As for how I handle it:
* Does the store provide DRM? If so, than that's not acceptable, even if the game in question doesn't have it. (steam and console stores have this issue, as do things like google play)
* Does the store encourage developers to use DRM? If so, then, again, that's out. (This includes providing developers explicit instructions on how to add DRM to their games.)
* Does the store bundle DRM-encumbered games with DRM-free games? Then, again, that's an issue. (Humble Bundle is the best example I can think of.) I *might* be willing to buy DRM-free stuff from such a place, but it's not going to be a first or even second choice, and it has to be a game I really want that isn't available DRM-free elsewhere.
* On the other hand, a store that allows DRM isn't an automatic no, as long as the store doesn't support it in some manner, but I will not buy DRM-encumbered stores from that store. (itch.io fits into this category.)
* Stores that discourage DRM, or that disallow it, are ideal here. (Includes places like itch.io and gog)
* Worth noting that, given the choice (and everything else being equal) I would prefer a DRM-free copy that doesn't come with a key to a DRM-encumbered store than one that does. (In other words, adding the key decreases the value of the game to me, even if the DRM-free copy is still provided.)

It isn't automatically a "fact" though. SafeDisc, SecuROM, StarForce, Tages, Code wheels, serial keys, hardware 'dongles', "enter the 2nd word on the 5th line of page 8 from the manual", etc, are all different forms of DRM. That some games may not require clients or online connections doesn't automatically make them "DRM-Free".

Likewise, many titles on the Steam and Epic lists (that don't need a client) are obviously "accidentally" DRM-Free and very 'hacky'. Examples:-

- A Hat In Time on Steam the base game is DRM-Free but the DLC needs the client running

- Alien Isolation on Epic Games and several games like Adventures of Shuggy, Cognition: An Erica Reed Thriller, etc, on Steam, the games will start but you cant save your progress without the respective Epic Launcher / Steam client running.

- Several Steam games are only DRM-Free on Linux after patching the file libCSteamworks.so taken from another Unity Engine game that is DRM-Free.

- Afterparty on Steam is only DRM-Free if you download an older build.

- Many DRM-Free builds on Humble Store are outdated. The number of new DRM-Free Humble builds has also significantly shrunk vs where it was several years back.

- Many other games like Deponia Complete, Dex, Manual Samuel, Mount & Blade Warband, Oxenfree, Superhot, Wuppo, etc, were removed from the "Steam games that run without the Steam client" list after DRM was added to them in an update, so what's DRM-Free today may not be tomorrow. Sure you can back today's files up, but tomorrow's update that adds DRM may well also contain a highly desired fix for a pre-existing bug.

- Several titles that were on the Epic Games that run without the launcher list were moved from the green DRM-Free tab to the red DRM'd tab after integration of new Epic Games Services, which "hard-codes" the game to making Epic Client API calls (on the assumption it will always be running) causing the game to crash / not startup if it isn't, no different to DRM.

- Some games "DRM-Free-ness" depends on the platform, eg, Steam's Victor Vran is DRM-Free on Linux but not Windows, whilst Cook, Serve, Delicious! is the reverse.

If you want to research what's DRM-Free or not using above mentioned 3rd party lists (because Steam & Epic do not display such information), then buy them, download them using a client, temporarily rename the client folder, test the game to see if it works properly without the client (including the ability to save properly beyond just reaching the main menu, and ideally on a 2nd PC with different HWID), then double check there are no silent registry entries, then zip up the game folder, then rename the client folder back, then rinse & repeat for not just every game, but every update of every game (possibly multiple platforms if you dual-boot), you could technically call your zipped up file "DRM-Free" or even turn them into proper .exe installers using InnoSetup. I've done that for a few games too, but it's certainly not an experience I'd want to do for hundreds / thousands of regularly updated games, and is definitely no "hassle free" substitute for a proper DRM-Free store.

If you write things like « very light drm », sorry but you do not understand what DRM-free means.

A game is DRM-free if it can be downloaded, installed, played (fully, not only some basic singleplayer part of it) and backuped without any kind of DRM. If you’re only interested about the "played" part, you will keep failing to understand what DRM-free is about.

1. This is an admission that Scheme is DRM (albeit "very light" in your opinion).

2. It has been illustrated to you repeatedly in this topic why Scheme (or equivalent) DRM is in fact not "very light" and how it can become "not very light."

So what? This is a non sequitur and wouldn't change the real life fact of whether or not something is DRMed. The majority of people at one point believed the universe revolved around the earth. Do you believe they were accurate in such assessment?

This language seriously needs to go. It is not conducive to good discussion. I'm not downvoting you, I'm not reporting you, I'm just saying.

The downvotes are likely from bots given the frequency and consistency of them, as well as how specific users appear to be "targeted" for downvotes even on completely uncontroversial comments. By the way, the pattern seems to be that the posters critical of GOG or who engage in their topics are the ones getting downvoted.
I really like this write-up and agree with you on each point! The final point stands out as well, because I don't think many people think that deeply into it. Another example, even closer to "home" here so to speak, is how Thronebreaker comes bundled with "free" GWENT in your library. I put "free" in quotes since it seems to me that is the game they really want people to play; and, even if the person is not buying microtransactions, they are still able to be "counted" in padding the numbers of users for this DRMed game/users who don't care about DRM-free.

Well not really.Sure it’s better to have the offline installers but if you can play a game without a launcher it’s drm free as well.You don’t consider it that way but it’s a fact and the exactly explanation is on pcgaming wiki

It’s one of those grey areas which divides people. See the thing is with drm it’s not the one and whole the problem. The pie pls who want drm really mean that they want to have control over their product. Drm has become the key point n this, but is certainly not the only issue. Clients, online gating, online accounts, signup schemes are all examples of things which are not drm, but do restrict or remove your control over your product. This is why you will opposition to proprietary closed source clients for downloading, and offline installer from GOG which you purchase can be downloaded with any browser, open source or even command line. So both sides are right the method of aquiring the product can be a source of debate. End of the day best thing is to buy and acquire by whatever means and treat that as a one time and download immediately and store offline. Reliance on a client is the real issue, patches, achievements, cloud saves etc. because that is where you are hand off control to someone else.

I don’t think there is anything "grey" on this topic. There are people who are OK with DRM and vendor lock-in schemes, and people who are not. The division is really clear cut.

Of course it’s getting a bit messy because of people who partake happily in vendor lock-in and other forms of DRM but still pretend to be "against DRM" (spoiler: they’re not). These are the « it’s not DRM if it’s only for multiplayer » and « it’s OK if it’s only the Steam client » crowd, and they are the only ones who can speak about « DRM-free games on Steam » without seeing the obvious issues with this.

I get the fact a games not drm-free with multiplayer with drm.. yet single player is drm-free.. Do to varies factors.. But for me I don't care for multiplayer so as long as Single player has no drm to it I can give a pass.. I know I should care about the multiplayer having drm to it, but I have never been for multiplayer gaming so I have a heavy biased and I admit its obviously clouding my own choices and what I can let slide..

As I'm sure you remember from school, a wiki is incapable of being a citable primary source.

There's also edge cases, like whether someone would consider something like the NES Classic to be an ethical purchase from a DRM standpoint. I decided it was OK (and I have one), but other people could reasonably have said no to it. (Note that I justify it due to the *lack* of an official way to add games; if it allowed buying games through a (DRM-encumbered) online store, even if it still had all those games built-in, I would have considered this unacceptable.)

I could compare this sort of issue to the Free Software Foundation's stance on non-free firmware; it's acceptable to the FSF if it's burned into the device's ROM, but not if it has to be uploaded by the host computer on each boot. (Note that not everyone agrees with this.)

Actually, that isn't entirely true.

When discussing Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia pages (particularly pages outside the article namespace, like pages describing policy or "request for deletion" discussion pages) can work as a primary source.

In the case mentioned, I would consider the pcgaming wiki to be the primary source on what that site considers to count as DRM.

Okay, if we're going to be overly pedantic, I accept that in the so very, very limited circumstance of "what do the users of a specific website believe", you could quote it as a source. If you're looking for an opinion, you could quote it as a source in limited circumstances. You cannot quote it if you're looking for facts in a debate or academic argument.

Academically, a wiki cannot be used as a primary, citable source for factual information.