Be no reason to grab most of the Indie ones from Steam, when you can get them far simpler and easier at Itch.io.

By easier, I mean you have files to download and no need for a client, that does a mandatory install to get each game at Steam. And if you buy them at Itch.io you often get a free Steam Key thrown in. So you can do all that and still keep using GOG for many of the other games.

In fact, if a game is DRM-Free Lite at Steam and not available at GOG and not an Indie game available at Itch.io, then just keep using Steam for them.

Unless you have that limited mindset, that says only one store and all games must be there, then it makes sense to get the best from all stores. A single store is a bit like throwing all your eggs in one basket, so never seemed sensible to me.

1) no. You are free to choose whichever browser you want, or write your own, or use command line. Are they proprietary closed, a lot are yes, so you don’t have control over the app itself. That isn’t drm, but it also does not give power to the user, so control at a certain level.
2/3) clients in general are not necessarily drm. They can include such things, and are very heavily focused on always online, and so are inherently out of the users control. They are also proprietary, and unlike a browser you have no options on what you use or how.
4) no. Downloading is a method of acquiring your product, the same as going to a store. Control comes in when it’s not a one stop shop, I.e. you have to return to the internet each time. So online multiplayer, online achievements, online saves, online xyz, are all control mechanisms.

You will note I don’t use drm, rather control mechanisms. DRM is actually a fairly small point, if far more well known, in the great scheme of things. It’s all about controlling, milking, and monopolising your customers. You can see this in the online gating for certain content, pre order locked content, Kickstarter content, all methods of locking users in. Online works both ways for pubs/devs, they not only control their user base, they can milk the data collected for their own goals, not saying it’s all malicious, but even game time and things can be used (and in some cases misused). The next level to this of course is streaming (and mmos and such like). Take the product fully out of the users hands and allow them access when and if you decide and how you want. It is the ultimate in control leaving the user with nothing and the dev with complete control over product and anything associated with it.

So really it’s two fold:
1) will the game files that I have run on my disconnected machine fully. This depends on various factors like drm, online gating, client requirement, compatability.
2) do I actually own/control my product. This is a more wide reaching thing.

For me, the internet is a means to get something to me, like the post. After that I disconnect it. Anything further is outside of my control. Sure you have to pay for and download something, just like you have to pay for postage or go to the shop, but you should not have to do that each time, nor fill in forms detailing all your data every time either.

Nope, because as with many others, I consider a client to be a form of DRM and have a dislike of backing up an "installed" game (I prefer to have an offline installer that will also handle installation of any dependencies if needed (like registry keys, C++ libraries etc). With GoG, all I have to do is use any modern internet browser (not dependent on GoG) and I can download my installer and back it up. My only interaction with GoG is through a website to make the initial download.

I respect that other people may disagree with me on this and have their own views, but to save everyone's time, don't try to change my mind as you won't be able to.

Regarding Steam, as they were the first people to provide a client and push download heavy DRM (I didn't find copy protection on CDs and DVDs as offensive, although starforce could be a nightmare), I avoid giving them money on a matter of principle. My entire Steam library is made up of games that I bought through Humble bundles, where 100% of the purchase price was given to the Diabetes UK charity.

1. Clients are 'wrappers' for one store and that's their only feature. Browsers aren't. If a new version of a browser (eg, Firefox) doesn't work with gog.com another (Chrome) will. Or an older version. Or a fork (eg, Vivaldi / Pale Moon). Or another device (Android tablet / Raspberry Pi). The only way browsers will ever be just like clients is for Firefox to only access mozilla.org, for Chrome to only access google.com, etc. So no, browsers aren't DRM (except for playing paid for "browser games" (flash).

2 & 3. People desire DRM-Free games because of game preservation / some guarantee of having long-term control & replayability in years to come. DRM gets in the way of that. So too does other stuff that isn't DRM. Years ago it was easy to separate them, eg, typing in a serial key offline and GameSpy were clearly not the same thing. Today they are being increasingly deliberately merged into dual use. Eg, A modern account-dependent online multiplayer game will usually do two checks at the same time : 1. Does this person own this game, and 2. Is there zero ongoing account bans for cheating for this player. They are both done by the same API on the same account at the same time upon starting the game. So in reality, "yes but anti-cheat programs / online dependencies aren't intended to be DRM" becomes meaningless semantics when they do double-duty by design.

Clients are often the same when it comes to say, Epic Games version of Alien Isolation or Steam version of Cognition, both of which "play" but can't save without the client because what should be a core part of the game code has been dumped on the client. Your Right to save the game is being Digitally Managed by the middleware client, and what wasn't intended to be DRM ends up exactly like functional DRM. The fact clients are constantly pushing the boundaries of wanting to handle more and more stuff that should be in game is exactly what's causing them to trend to increasingly acting little different to DRM, and inevitably stuff like this will be treated no different to online DRM if it insists on functioning exactly like it.

4. "Downloading from the Internet for the first time" isn't classed as DRM any more than "I need to drive a car to get to the store to buy a DVD-ROM" was. It's just false over-extrapolation. How it gets downloaded is another matter (see below).

There are plenty of issues that arise. Eg, if you have to use an older OS whether through choice or necessity (no TPM = No Windows 11) and yet that client was locked to the newest OS (whilst the games ran fine on your OS), or perhaps something undesirable (extensive data harvesting) was introduced in a new version of a client that was bad enough to cause you to click "Decline" and it refused to install, clearly you wouldn't be able to download the game via a client even for the first time. Exactly why compulsory client and a multitude of browsers to choose from aren't the same thing.

And I speak as the person who created and is maintaining the Epic Games That Work Without The Client thread, to say it's starting to become a massive pain in the rear to keep re-downloading, re-testing, etc, every new version of every game claimed to be DRM-Free due to stuff changing in patches. Oh look, here's another new issue to deal with... The workload for actually maintaining a DRM-Free game in terms of being guaranteed DRM-Free patches or not very definitely isn't even on the same planet as DRM-Free offline installers.

^ Exactly this. Me : Downloads DRM-Free game from Steam. Game has a bug that needs patching. Patch gets released but includes DRM. Illusion of Steam being a "DRM-Free store" instantly shatters...

Also Me : Reads Steam's EULA. Disagrees with parts of it (perhaps the "you agree to allow us to share your usage data with 3rd parties" bit). Steam doesn't install. Illusion of "browsers & offline installers are no different to clients" completely collapses...

There's also the practical side. 1. Install unwanted client, 2. Login via unwanted client, 3. Download game via unwanted client, 4. Uninstall / rename unwanted client folder, 5. Test DRM Free ness of game without unwanted client (which these days means playing it for a bit to make sure it saves not just 'can I reach the main menu'), 6. If it works, then zip game up and call that your "offline installer". Two weeks later = game needs updating. 7. Re-install / rename unwanted client folder. 8. Move your game folder / unzip the game zip you created (if it isn't installed) back into Steam folder. 8. Login via unwanted client again. 9. Update game via unwanted client. 10. Uninstall / rename unwanted client again, 11. Test DRM Free ness of game without unwanted client again. 12. If it works, then zip game up and call that your "offline installer" again. Repeat for every new patch of every name game.

On what planet is this some 'it's just the same' substitute for "Download offline installer via web browser (that you're permanently logged into anyway to use the discussion forums daily), then download new version a couple of weeks later"? I've done the above for literally a couple of games like Portal and Half Life that I know will never be sold anwhere but no way is the average person going to do that for a large game collection and claim "It's the same DRM-Free as GOG" without everyone nearby bursting out in laughter.

Yep another huge reason I would touch steam ever

Under the Steam Subscriber Agreement you do not get a license from the publisher, put rather from Valve (NB most GoG games are licensed via GoG not publisher too).

The Valve issued License terminates when the SSA Ends (GoG's EULA has no such clause), and the SSA ends if you don't agree with the latest SSA.

So even If I was using a "DRM Free" Steam game under the contracts I agreed to at the time (not agreed to an SSA in 7 years), I would be using unlicensed software.

Good point. An extension of the same issue - whenever you install a game via a client you are bound by the platform's (Steam / GOG's) latest EULA. Yet every time you reinstall an older offline installer, what you are agreeing to is the EULA that originally came bundled inside the installer (just like a disc based game). So even if GOG did shove something hostile & unwanted in a new EULA on the store / Galaxy, offline installer users with already backed up older installers would remain permanently unaffected if they simply kept that older version.

No, absolutely not.

Some games on Steam may be technically 'DRM-free', but they do nothing whatsoever to facilitate DRM-free gaming. Installation of their client is required to download and install any game and they provide no offline installers, so backing up their games is much less convenient. DRM-free is only possible on Steam with inconvenient workarounds.

Plus, I will not support a store that is pushing DRMed products, regardless if some of their games may be 'DRM-free' (even though you can't have true DRM-free without offline installers).

Unless Steam would implement also offline installers and/or the ability to download without their client (which in itself isn't DRM, like some claim), probably not. Maybe as a "I buy it from Steam (DRM-free) if it is not available on GOG".

But overall it would certainly be a big step if Valve would officially start supporting (some) games as DRM-free. Then again, if it is a mere tag, could Valve also remove it from some games afterwards? Ie. they would be DRM-free at first, but not later?

Drm free on steam is like drm free on EGS. Devs can do that, but they arent obligated to. And if someday they will decide to add drm with new update - nothing will stop them. I already own plenty of games that used to be drm free, but then stopped being this way (and sometimes it wasnt even developer's decision. Say, older game maker games didnt have drm at all. But then it got patched out on engine side - if you ll decide to implement some steam features (say, cheevos), engine will automatically turn on steam drm integration as hard dependency. It could be done as optional check, but instead it works like this and every developer who updated their game's engine version, automatically enabled drm without even knowing it or having any control over it). Unless drm-free tag will obligate devs to stay this way (I have doubts about it), everything said above remains valid. And I doubt steam will do that, because there are very few users on whole platform who cares - steam's selling point is availability of content and it will always remain this way.
But GOG's whole business model is built around drm-free games, they ll lose their community if they will make this restriction optional (and dont quote me with absolver and gwent - the fact that some games require galaxy for multiplayer and have no singleplayer content has already caused lots of negative feedback).

So yeah - I dont see issues with buying some games on steam, if they arent available there - especially if at the moment of purchase they dont have any drm protection. But until there remains the possibility for these to turn into drm-protected with every minor patch (and, as I said - I doubt it will ever change, coz its never been steam's selling point), I wont rely on steam as primary drm-free storefront

No it doesn't, if you have downloaded a DRM-free Steam game and then compressed into a zip file. The Steam client can't touch that game anymore, it is completely DRM-free.

That is what people call DRM-free games on Steam: the games that work fine without the Steam client present or installed at all, after you have downloaded the games.

I don't quite get your point. GOG might do the same, poof suddenly all your GOG games on GOG servers would have DRM in them, and not work without Galaxy.

The point is that Steam could actually do it without big repercussions, but Gog instead would go bankrupt because everyone would leave lol

answers
If a game requires you to be logged into some online account any time you want to play your game, then yes browser is the client that is used for that DRM.

If the browser is needed only for e.g. downloading the game (one time), then no, then it is not DRM.

If a game requires you to be logged into some online account any time you want to play your game, then yes epic games client is the client that is used for that DRM.

If the epic games client is needed only for e.g. downloading the game (one time), then no, then it is not DRM.

If a game requires you to be logged into some online account any time you want to play your game, then yes a client is the client that is used for that DRM.

If a client is needed only for e.g. downloading the game (one time), then no, then it is not DRM.

No, just like bringing a physical game from a store to your home is not DRM.

That is not a question, but a statement. But the statement is true.

tl;dr: I agree with your general point that you were apparently making.

Yet, the delivery part, and what restrictions are put upon it, has nothing to do with DRM.

If you bought a physical game, or a vacuum cleaner, from a store and they said the only way to deliver it to you would be using UPS (not DHL, not normal post office, not you going to get it yourself... only UPS), would that count as DRM because they "control" how you can obtain your product?

Of course not, restrictions on the delivery methods don't make the product itself contain DRM. It is only when you use the actual product, after the delivery, that defines whether it is DRM free or not. If the company still somehow controls how you can use it (and can also change them afterwards), then it has DRM. If you are required to call the company or log into some online account with a web browser every time you want to use the vacuum cleaner, then it has DRM.

In your Steam example, if the Steam client is only needed for downloading the game, and not for playing it (even on a separate computer where there is no Steam client at all), then the game is fully DRM-free.