My thoughts are pretty much what everyone else said above. I started out with discs and it was very popular to use "No-CD" cracks to remove the DRM for various legal reasons (some DRM was an insane security threat (Sony Rootkit), some wanted to play CD-Rom games when travelling with a laptop without having to lug the discs around, many just wanted to save wear & tear on the discs by only using them once (when installing) not every time they were played, some saw how damaged floppy discs were becoming hard to (legally) replace and wanted a zip / ISO backup just in case optical drives / replacement discs became hard to source, some were concerned about losing a physical code-wheel, etc). Digital games locked to store-fronts are no real different vs abandoned DRM, and large wealthy companies who run them don't even have to go out of business to stop supporting a store and render DRM'd games locked to it unplayable. See Microsoft's Games For Windows Live.

Do you know that for a fact, or is that just your experience?
(tip: it's not the former)

While that's true in theory - in the real world, DRM is never going away and will only get worse (end scenario = streaming-only). The (big!) publishers' believes in DRM are never going the change. At best, you'll get a late GOG release (because: extra money).
TW3 sold A LOT of copies without DRM. You'd think that that would've been one of the best possible arguments for EA/Ubisoft/Activision/Sega/etc. to change/review their ways.... think again.

What I'm trying to say is: not buying a DRM'ed game is a good thing (IMO), but I find it improbable that you'll be part of a world changing movement.

The bright side (for the moment): there are so many good DRM-free games (mostly on GOG) that you can be 'entertained' by those alone, for multiple lifetimes.

I remember reading a post called something like "the four currencies", which describes the cost of games in terms of 4 currencies. From what I remember, it was something like this:
* Monetary cost. This is the cost of actually purchasing the game, but could also include the required hardware. Note that this cost isn't always 0 for pirated games, and it can be 0 for legally obtained games (consider, for example, free-to-play games, including gacha).
* Time cost. This would measure how long it takes to get the game working, as well as how long it takes to get the game (including download times and the time to go to the store and back, as well as how long it takes the game to ship).
* Effort cost. This includes how much effort it takes to get the game working. (The original post I read calls it "pain-in-the-ass" cost, but I personally don't like using that sort of terminology.) This is where the practical negative consequences of DRM come into play.
* Ethical/moral cost. Most people would find this cost to be higher for pirated games than legally purchased games, but it can also apply to other aspects (like if the company has supported bad things, where "bad things" is a relative term).

So, in any case, the decision about whether to buy a game legally or pirate it depends on which one has the higher total cost, which can be used to explain why piracy hasn't completely destroyed the industry.

For me, the costs work out something as follows:
* DRM has a higher ethical cost to me than piracy. Hence, I will prefer to pirate a game rather than purchase a DRM-encumbered version.
* The cost of piracy declines with the game's age. Hence, I am unlikely to pirate modern games, as the ethical cost alone would exceed what I am willing to pay. (In part, this is due to my belief that copyright terms are far too long; if a game is so old that copyright ought not to cover it, the ethical cost of piracy is quite low.)
* If I already own a comparable or superior version of the game, the ethical cost of piracy goes way down.

Different people may have differently behave costs here. (For example, political views can sometimes play a role, and it is *very* obvious that people don't agree on politics.)

Actually you should check that, most of the big names now not only different versions, but some actually offer things like only downloading new parts to their installers (I.e. if downloaded previously then only part w needs downloading and replacing). In fact this is one of the key reasons why:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/provide_a_full_and_complete_changelogged_download_system
Is more important, if pirates get it, why can’t paid companies provide the same level of service. Better compression, better patch/dlc updates, tell you what has changed etc.

Or if:
* You have other uses for the internet, and don't have enough bandwidth for everything you need to do at once.
* You don't have internet at home, and therefore need to go somewhere with free Wi-Fi to download software.
* If you have a metered internet connection, or if you have to use a phone to tether and your ISP charges for it, this cost can turn into a monetary cost
* The time cost of downloading isn't all that different from the time cost of waiting for the game to arrive in the mail, except that downloading is usually faster. (If you live in a place with poor internet connectivity and the game is particularly large (especially if it's one of those monster games whose size is measured in double digit GB amounts), it's possible a physical copy could arrive in the mail faster than it would take to download the whole thing).

At least on Steam and Epic, there are quite a few games that, once downloaded, won't need the client in order to run them. No crack needed.

For the rest, yes, I think it is perfectly ethical to still be able to play your games 30 years from now, even if the authentication servers have shut down.

Legally wrong, morally acceptable, ethically acceptable.

Morally, I couldn't possibly care less what other people do with their video game copies in private settings. If you want to archive the game for your children or when you're an older person, go for it. Gamedevs and publishers are victimless here as long as people are legally purchasing copies per person or household.

Ethically depends on communities. If you ask a DRM-free board whether unauthorized mods or patches to your installers lets you archive the game without restrictions years down the road, people here will tell you it's right thing to do. The same goes for downloading ROMs or ISOs you already legally purchased a copy of before.

I'd be very surprised if someone here told you it was morally or ethically unacceptable.

I would like to know who is harmed by pirating old games nobody wants to sell? If somebody is harmed, then we might speak about something being unethical. And as I see it, if old games are not preserved, legally or otherwise, hypothetical next generations are forever harmed by loss of the work of art they will never be able to experience.

Not expected, that. ;)

I am sure, that nobody needs play computer games to survive, thus there is no reason to force somebody to do it that way.

Personally I buy only DRM free games which in my opinion could bring me fun for money which I already have. First years I bought nothing simply because it was not possible for me.

If I do not like DRM games, than I do not buy it and from time to time write somebody (i.e. to some company), that I would like to see something on GoG DRM free, because I do not buy it anywhere else.

For example in my favorite ice-cream shop I asked them to do more often limone ice-cream which they were avoiding and now I can buy it each 14 days (before it was never).

Since original question was to find other people opinion I wrote mine, but I DO NOT WANT to tell Jigowatts121 what to do. I am sure, that (s)he know it better.

I wouldn't do it, but I can understand those who do. At least if they've bought a game and are now refused the ability to play it. I mean, it's still 'wrong' in some ways, but no doubt they can convince themselves it's ok to do it.

It's the ones who don't consider the free rider problem and never bought the game that I object to (which is easy and I'm sure most people object too). Ruins it for the rest of us.

Not all games of today are services or drm. It's manly free to play games, some that have drm also get it removed eventually which is promising.

My family now has 3 generations of computer gamers from me to my latest grandchild to hit gaming age.

I don't think much has changed outside of the physical passing down of games. A few of my grandkids highlight the games that they like and show them to me either in person or online. I in turn do the same and often find that they already know about the game either from my kids or from their own discovery.

I don't think any of them have subs to anything outside of a few free trials here and there. We do use the family share features that are offered. When I was on Steam from 2019 to 2020, I was shared to a bunch of accounts from my family and played a bunch of stuff the wanted me to check out. Right now I also have the same thing going on with Stadia. Very easy to use and discover.

Since I've always been on the drmfree train since the 90's start having services sprout out, it's been a non-issue. If a game I believe warrants others to check out a link to it or gift is enough. The sales for games are so freaking cheap, I can't see piracy being a viable option for the games that we engage in.

I have a question as well.

What if a game does not become freeware for example, but the game is taken away from every platform and not available to be bought. Would piracy be ok in that case? Like, you want the game and would buy it, but it was taken down, the company is still alive, but you were not able to purchase it. Like for physical books, you could still buy it from someone who bought it in the past, and can buy it from them for a cheap or hefty price depending on how great it is. However that is not the same for digital games, so would it be justifiable? Its just a question that I am interested to see your responses! :)

In many countries you can make backups of owned games for backup/archival purposes...that includes stripping out DRM from DRM laden steam/epic games. Of course, you have to do it yourself...but it isn't too hard.Yep.

Btw, a question: what about games where no one but eBay/etc sellers have used copies at exorbitant prices? Still against DLing of such or no?


=-=-=-=If such a thing happened i'd just (totally not) "acquire" a "backup copy"(i.e. one without galaxy dlls and whatnot) elsewhere.