Agreed.

They rejected Mushihime-Sama, one of the best shoot'em'ups ever, yet accepted Raiden Legacy, an incredibly bad port job of some older shoot'em'ups. Their curation makes no sense to me, it apparently isn't about how good the game is.

I understand about rejecting random game x which never had a retail release and seems derivative and buggy - there are plenty of these kind of games on Steam with forums full of people feeling ripped off. But when a game was physically released, got exceptionally good review scores and has a publisher who actively wants it on GOG, why are gog rejecting it?

To repost from an earlier thread with some minor rephrasing:

I think GOG instead should stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and make the wishlist more public. Make a poll on the front of the site for games/publishers vying for invitation, rather than relying on the obscure, perhaps even niche footer based community wishlist.

LIke, if the people vote that they want Bible Black (Currently sitting at 60 votes) and Active Software is willing to sell it, and they've approached GOG directly, it and six other choices should be up on the front page to be voted upon. I know that (probably) sounds like Greenlight, but it could keep the same curation that GOG has for the store. At the very least, it'd make pushes for games like Huniepop much easier.

Of course some kind of prequalifier would help, like if a games has over 1000 votes as Undertale does and is a viable DRM free qualificant, (IE, the publisher isn't a hardass), then it should automagically earn a spot in the running. That way, while the releases may be the same, the users get to choose the priority, so we aren't waiting 6 months for a hot game, and instead can send a cold game to the icy depths of the back end of the release schedule if it happens to be a dead fish, like Gothic 3 or Empire Earth III.

If a game isn't viable, like as is the case with Dialbo, that earns the Darvond shrug of, 'What am I supposed to do about that?'

Of course, parts of this system do rely on GOG doing some reaching out.

Having a mandatory, proprietary client to download & install games is a form of DRM. Don't forget that Steam can also unilaterally cut off one's access to one's library for which one has lawfully paid, therefore obstructing one from being able to reinstall games. If this "is not true" & these "facts" a not "right", feel free to directly address them. On GOG, Humble Bundle or FireFlower I can download the DRM free installer or otherwise compressed game files in any modern browser (whether if be Firefox, Chromium, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, Lynx, Midori, et cetera) and then install the game or otherwise extract the game files on any other computer regardless of whether said computer is connected to the internet or not. With Steam using their proprietary client is mandatory, there is no choice in the matter. If you are either unable to perceive the difference or are otherwise willing to ignore the difference, so be it; but there is a huge difference.

None of that says how well it will sell though - there are lots of good games which haven't sold well, for whatever reason - and at the end of the day GOG is a business, and will favour games that sell well ahead of any other qualities it has.

Does not mean you have to argue about it. Man, I have learnt that the hard way lmao.

There is also which you can use instead of the graphical Steam client, and you can use SteamCMD to download games for a different OS than the one you are using. So if the game is any from those discussed [url=http://www.gog.com/forum/general/steam_games_you_can_play_without_the_steam_client]here, you can use one machine connected to the internet to download the game, then move the files to a different offline computer and play.

But yes, being able to download games on one machine and play them on a second, fully offline one without any additional software installed on them does mean the game is DRMed *rolls eyes*.
See above.

GOG has the same clause in their ToS as well. Should GOG cut your access, if you don't have a local copy of the files, you can't reinstall the games. Same with Steam.

While having the files for Steam games locally available will not help with reinstalling all of Steam games, it will work with some of them. So Steam itself is not DRM, though quite a few of their games have DRM.

and what is stopping every digital provider closing your account if you act like a cunt? I can imagine GOG could do the same thing if they wanted to.

Besides an obvious cheap shot--
--yes, the digital provider doesn't owe you to maintain your account. The ability to play the game (governed by the EULA) and the ability to use GOG services (governed by TOS) are two different things. If you're a dirty tosbreaker and lose access to GOG, tough shit (however, unless accessing torrents is illegal, you can still download and play a copy from TPB under the EULA). If you lose access to Steam and the game requires Steam, tough shit x2. Try suing the rightsholder or something, maybe you'll win and create a delicious precedent.

They can close all my accounts for all I care, it will take years to find all the HDDs I have hidden around various countries mwaahhhaaa!!!

Seriously though, clients are only "DRM" when they are required to play the game, otherwise they are merely additional unnecessary layers in getting access to the product. Me I can't stand client software, its worse than DRM, contributes both to totally laziness on users (i.e. not doing anything themselves), and promotes social aspects which is anathema to me.

But I like being lazy. :(

So Valve offers you two ways rather than one to get steam games. They are still controlling the retrieval of their games though one of their two clients.

Note that I am not arguing about whether the games themselves are copy-protected or not. Yes, if the games themselves have no DRM on them, you can copy them around wherever you want. I regard that as being inferior to having a full installer though, which can also take care of dependencies such as libraries. So the only way to properly install a game on any system is through *one of* the steam clients, it's just that you can work around that limitation with games which lack other forms of DRM.

Nice touch with the rolling eyes, though. Really puts that finishing touch on your arguments.

I know, it does usually get the point across ;)
Either way, my point was that you need one of the Steam clients to download the game, but then, depending on the game, you may not need the client. And as for the dependencies, they are all included in the installscript.vdf and/or the redist folder, so you don't even need to go looking for the required registry entries.
Yes, an installer may be preferable, but I guess it depends on how lazy one feels.

Thank you for bringing to the attention of that program to those of whom were ignorant of it's existence. While I did a quick glance at the link you provided, I am unable to find any information regarding whether the sources are freely available so as to allow one to recompile the program. This does seem to be an alternative for those whom are willing to accept the other restrictions of Steam, but I still fail to see how this frees one from the other DRM methods Steam uses. If the sources are not freely available then that means that SteanCMD is still a proprietary program.

Also as you mentioned in the quote SteamCMD will only allow one access to an apparently small subset of Steam's library as listed in the second link in the above quote. The entirety of GOG's & FireFlower's library are DRM free. Humble Bundle's DRM Free offerings are clearly marked as such (the overwhelming majority of those that aren't DRM free are clearly marked as requiring Steam, UPlay, Origin, et cetera). But that's an extremely significant difference! With GOG one can download the installation files of any game sold on GOG (not just a small subset of games using an additional program of which sources do not appear to be freely available), back them up to removable media and then later reinstall any of the games regardless of whether one has access to one's account. The same cannot be honestly said of Steam. What's the ratio of the number of games on Steam that have DRM vs.the number of games on Steam that are according to your definition are kind-of-sort-of "DRM free" if one is willing to use an additional program of which sources do not appear to be freely available therefore this program is still proprietary.

As I posted above; there's an extremely significant difference! With GOG (or FireFlower, or the DRM free games on Humble Bundle) one can download the installation files (or the compressed game files) of any game sold on GOG (or FireFlower, or the DRM free games on Humble Bundle), back them up to removable media and then later reinstall any of the games regardless of whether one has access to one's account. The same cannot be honestly said of Steam.

You quoted my entire post, but you only chose to just address just this one part. You have nothing relevant to directly address the other issues I raised? Such as regarding having a mandatory, proprietary client to download & install games is a form of DRM or on GOG, Humble Bundle or FireFlower I can download the DRM free installer or otherwise compressed game files in any modern browser (whether if be Firefox, Chromium, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, Lynx, Midori, et cetera) and then install the game or otherwise extract the game files on any other computer regardless of whether said computer is connected to the internet or not; with Steam using one of their proprietary clients is mandatory, there is no choice in the matter.

Interestingly though, you still finished the sentence with a full stop which is an additional key-press, so your not really lazy at all!