Calling someone you don‘t know an idiot is the line where I end my conversation with you.

I didn't call you an idiot. I said your definition of DRM is idiotic. And I explained why.

I don't want GOG Galaxy. I want to download the game I was given for free. GOG jerks.

I don't know about you guys, but I have to use DirectX for every game that I play. If that's not DRM, then I don't know what it is. Not to mention the Nvidia drivers filled with telemetry and also OpenGL. Go figure! O.o

You mean that's all it takes!?
Why didn't you tell me!?

I could have gotten you to leave me alone YEARS AGO!!! :P

Is DRM and DRM-free mutually exclusive? No. Selling both could be problematic, but how many gamers are really that concerned about DRM, and how many companies aren't looking to increase sales?

On the other hand, I'm often left wondering if GOG knows whether it's coming or going, so I don't think we have much to worry about at present.

Sorry, not trying to be rude at all with you and take in account that, of course, i respect your opinion, but your example is also a bit lacking. You said you were trying to show how his definition was idiotic but you example doesn't help at all. You perfectly know what he meant and an online client that needs you to be logged in with a specific account and password to verify it is you and what games do you own can't be compared with a game needing Dosbox to work in modern Windows. I do not need an account for Dosbox to be verified online to run wolfenstein or doom. I know you know this, i am just saying that your example doesn't fit in a discussion with an online client and you cannot simplify the question saying it is just "stuff i don't like".

Imo, if you take the formula (lol) for DRM as: "If i need X to play the game, then it has DRM" and change "X" with something that forces you to be logged in and verfified in order to let you play, you can apply it to whatever you want and that thing will be DRM'ed. Imho.

An example: i have a Nvidia graphic card and want to see frames at my games. I download and install the "new" (for me it's new, i am using a version from 3 years ago lol) Geforce Experience and i discover i cannot run it without an account and being logged into their auth servers. However, making an account is free, as it is free using their app. Is this DRM or not? I think here is what some of us can agree or disagree, and thus some (just some) of the different opinions around here.

As HereForTheBeer said:

Imo, that IS DRM. If Nvidia changes their EULA (again) and wants now, in order to use it's product, to take my credit card info and my browsing data or whatever i don't want to share and, if not, i cannot use it's app (and i cannot use it if it is behind an Auth server needing a log in), for me that's DRM.

Also, imo, taking what i have said, Galaxy client has something different: it is, for now (and i hope forever!) optional because we have access to offline independent installers. I cannot put the client in a comparison with Steam client, or Origin, Uplay, etc, or even with the Nvidia client.

I cannot say the same for Gwent, also imo. Even to play a single player game, alone me and myself, i need to accept an EULA, logging in a server and verify that it's me to play. That's the same that happens with the Nvidia Geforce Experience client and, for me, that's also DRM no matter if the game is free or not and no matter the gameplay or technical reasons to be like that. I understand they need to use their client because you can play MP and well, it's the easiest solution to use if you already have a client developed and working. But it's a form of DRM, imo. It's not a complaint, i don't play the game, it's just what i think it has, being that justified or not and even if it's much more kind than other clients in what their ask to let you use it.

Finally, because this is getting too long but it's the DRM question and has always a lot to say about, i don't like the big button in my library when i open a game and i don't like to read what it is happening with the shortcuts of a game installed with Galaxy, and while all can happen some day, still i do not worry about it and i don't think this is the final of DRM-free on GOG. Not at all. Also, i am not sure if someone can say "most of the users want the galaxy client and the social features". Or the other way.

Thanks for the response Kakarot.

Not entirely. I'd say DRM is if X is something that "forces you to be logged online and veryfied, in order to let you install or play the single player campaign".

And while I agree it is possible to include LAN or direct connect multiplayer, but the exclusion of this type of multiplayer option falls more under exclusion of certain features, like lack of Hotseat mode, than under DRM. Anyway, GOG has stated repeatedly from the beginning that their DRM-free policy extends to single player only, and therefore this is the definition by which GOG's products should be judged.

And by that definition Galaxy is not DRM. You can cut off your internet cable and still play any game'a single player normally under Galaxy just like you could play from the offline installer.

GWENT is an exception, but GWENT has multiplayer only at the time being, and no single player campaign.. However even if you take that into account then one should say "GWENT has DRM" and not "Galaxy is DRM". The first statement I can readily agree with, but the second statement makes no sense.

Thank you also! :D

Ok, we disagree in the first point lol You are talking only about games, and yes it has sense here of course, but i was trying to generalize because a client as a platform to launch games is not a game per se.

There is no single player campaign in the Galaxy app or in the Nvidia GF (girlfriend?) Experience client, for instance.

It's very possible that i made myself a bit unclear because my english is not great anyway and i tend to write worse the more i write something, but i tried to state that, in my opinion, Galaxy is different from the DRM usual platforms (and even apps that forces you to be logged in to use them under their conditions and private contracts) because we can choose to use, instead, the offline installers.

But the app per se has DRM once you need to log in and be verified online in order to install and play your games. You can play SP offline? Yes, of course, but log in to update or to install whatever first. So, even by your own definition, to be able to install and play a game that has a SP campaign with Galaxy you need to be logged in first, and thus has DRM.

Excuse me if i don't undertstand exactly your words, it you were instead saying that the app would have DRM only IF it forced you to be permanently logged in and online to install and then to play, then i disagree.

Steam also has offline connection, you can disable your cable for 2 weeks i think, so by the same definition it would not be a DRM platform, and i disagree there. Both Galaxy and Steam need you to be logged in in your account to be able to install games, and as you also said, if the game has MP, then GOG admits the DRM and only state that they are DRM-free for SP games.

I am not sure with Gwent, i think i have read something about a future (future, but i read that many months ago, if i'm not wrong) SP campaign, or skirmish or something like that. In such case, if the game still needed Galaxy to be installed and played for the SP part, what will you say? That then it would have DRM or not? (just a honest question about your opinion in that case given your words, not trying to demonstrate anything)

Anyway, there are multiple details even with a mostly common opinion for DRM. You and i share some points but differ in details. It's not an easy question, indeed.

For example, i can install a game with Galaxy and then be forever playing offline the SP part. I can disable automatic updates, i am not forced to logged in back in 2 weeks nor i am forced to update a game before running it (i'm a bit unsure of this last one, is it like that? I am honestly not sure but i think so). Those are specific details (and very important ones) that difference Galaxy and Steam clients, but the basic ground is the same for both. Maybe we should also add comparative adjectives (i am not sure if this is how those are called in english) like "rougher" DRM and "kindest" DRM or something like that :D

I am not against the use of it, and i understand the reasons to use the client and the need to be verified, etc, but that's DRM for me and i doubt even GOG could negate this fact (fact, for me, again lol)

Thanks again for an interesting discussion, and sorry my somewhat lack of english vocabulary to explain myself better :S

I disagree that is DRM. I need to log in to GOG to download and install my games, that is definitely not DRM. Just because Galaxy is a client doesn't make it DRM.
Plus, if you were to give me a copy of a game you own that I don't (which would be illegal, but never mind that for now) I could install it and play it through Galaxy. It would pop up to tell me I don't own the game (not sure how this works, I've never done it) but wouldn't prevent anything.
I'm not sure if it would prevent me playing multiplayer, but as discussed GOG never promised DRM free multiplayer anyway (and it can be argued that multiplayer is one of the few areas where a little DRM can be a good thing to prevent cheaters / hackers etc.).

To me DRM is something that is required every time you play a game. You need to log in, enter a key or connect to the internet. A CD check is DRM (though a fairly harmless one).
Bad DRM is that which harms the experience of legitimate users; like locking you out of playing because your internet connection is down, or stopping you installing it on your new computer because you installed it on two others already.
To be honest, the whole DRM free movement baffles me a little, because before finding GOG I'd never played (or hardly played) a game that didn't contain DRM in some form (usually a CD key and a CD check). So while many claim the industry is sliding into ever worse DRM (which a lot of it is) the existence of GOG actually means more games are available DRM free than have ever existed before. More games are being made without DRM included. To me, playing PC games has never actually been easier and less restricted then it is now.

How can you download a game from GOG when it's not in your account? How can you buy a game without verifying that you have enough money to buy it? I don't quite understand what you're getting at.

2 weeks or forever? Because there is a difference there.

If I'm not mistaken with Galaxy, you just need to log in once, and then can be offline forever and ever. You can install games from offline isntallers, add them to Galaxy (or it happens automatically?) and use Galaxy to launch them.

I just like to differentiate where the DRM. In the game (in which case it could be single player or multi-player or both), or in the launcher, or in the NVidia GF Experience, or in whatever piece of software. And if it happens to be in one of those, it doesn't automatically cause everything associated with it to be DRMed too. For example, Steam sells games (e.g. old DOS ones) which I consider to be DRM-free. After buying and installing I can launch them whenever I want online or offline, with or without Steam.

Similarly I don't consider Galaxy DRM in itself, even if it is used to run DRM-ed games like GWENT. I'm not saying it's good. I don't like it; I hate any game launchers in general. Call it bloatware and I completely agree. But not DRM.

Anyway, I'm not saying my "formula" for DRM is the only right one; if yours is different we can disagree on that point. But whatever someone's definition of DRM is, it should be consistent. Because people throw this word around and it becomes a buzzword which doesn't mean anything and it becomes difficult to argue against it then.

Regardless of what your definition is, GOG should be judged on what they promised. They made it clear in the past what their "DRM-free" promise refers to, and later they added a separate promise that GOG Galaxy will be optional. And so far I'd say they've broken neither.
I agree. Even the online check (as long as it's not required to be online continuously to run the game) in some ways I feel is less restrictive than a CD-check. I've scratched quite a few CDs because of the needless check and once was locked out of a legitimately purchased game when it wouldn't recognize my CD (turned out to be a common problem and they released a patch).

Of course there is a difference between 2 weeks and forever. I said it in my post, but those are details that share a commond ground.

And you are in some way repeting what i said. Of course not everything associated with a launcher/client that has DRM it is DRMed if it can be launched alone, but the launcher/client, then...

"Formula" was just a joke, yours or mine, we can have hundreds, because as i said, it's all in the details and even agreeing in some form, part of it could be very different and lead to a different "result".

Look what adaliabooks said. and you quoted the final part here. We are going in circles again and again with just some differences between us three:

This was my question. Are you talking about being permanently verified or something that simply needs you to be online firstly to install and then you can play offline? Because adalia is talking about permanently being online, amd i understand you are also, and in that i disagree. Also, in that way even Steam could be mostly DRM-free for a majority of its SP games. I mean, it does the same, you log in, you install the game, you go offline and play. You can even cheat this way, or install a mod, or whatever you want.

You both say Galaxy is not DRM, but even you have differences in details of what should be considered DRM. He seem to like the client, you don't. Maybe that's a thing and that makes also a difference. That's why i was saying there are too many "little" differences between all of us in what DRM means and there is no formula that could say it except the obvious: a digital measure of protecting the copyright blablabla. I agree it should be a consistent definition and that would make it all easier, but it isn't. It is not consistent in me, in you or in adalia. Well, not at least apart from the each one's opinion, because it is consistent in what i think it is, and you are, also, and adalia. Even with a basic definition that is widely accepted and we all can search for in our broswer, there are problems identifying each case.

Now, as you say again that GOG should be judged on what they promised, then ok, i agree with you, absolutely. But i thought that was not the discussion. Not promising to be DRM-free in Galaxy is to say something, at least for me, but ok, i agree with you, of course, i'm not discussing that.

Of course not, i already answered above.

I don't know how that works, i don't use Galaxy and i will never add to it a game i haven't bought personally unless it was a gift key from GOG itself. I do the same on Steam and i don't have any external game added to Steam. I don't like the clients, why should i do, anyway? But i honestly don't know exactly how Galaxy works in those and other cases.

And about giving you a copy of a game i own that you don't...i still remember the re-sell of used physical games in big well-known stores. I bought a game just 2 years ago in Portugal in a big international store, used, second hand. I know you are talking specifically about GOG (and Steam, and any similar digital platform i suppose) just wanted to say it. If i give a game to someone here (or on Steam, i don't use any other platform so i am no sure of the rest) i will do as a gift, with a gift key from GOG. I don't know what would happen in that case, or how Galaxy will react to that. I imagine it will cause a problem and your account can be deleted? I don't know. I am not even sure how do you add a external game to Galaxy, if you can.

Bad DRM...that's exactly what i was saying. Maybe we should add adjectives to the word, and those are just details. Bad DRM, good DRM...both are DRM. Saying that is trying to separate DRM in categories, but all are still DRM. If X company does it, or it does in Y way, then it's good and it doesn't matter. If i don't like it, then it's bad and harmful and we can talk against it. But where do we put the limit in what it is "good" or "bad"? That's totally subjective and makes the DRM question, also, totally subjective and thus pointless to be discussed, imho.

Talking about a "DRM free movement" is generalizing. I'm quite sure it does not exists apart from little groups, and it is just a way to call all the people who doesn't share your opinion. I could say i am baffled of the "pro-DRM" movement but that also only exists in those companies of the industry that think it's basic for their products and find new ways of making the product ..unassailable? (not sure the best english word here). I am not going to say that any of you that negate what i think it is DRM are from a pro-DRM movement, i am quite sure you are not. It's like the "famous" movement "SJW", i don't think it exists but anyone can throw that to any other person depending on their opinion because some internet people made it a trendy or popular expression.

Anyway, i am not in any movement, i just have my opinion about DRM. What you are saying in the end is that, for you, it is acceptable because you are used to it. I played games without DRM in the past, probably i'm more veteran and that's why my opinion is different than yours. And sorry but if a CD key is also a form of DRM to you, i cannot see why you still say that Galaxy is not when, at the very least, you are doing the same when using it.

For me, playing PC games has never been so difficult and restricted than it is now (i take your phrase with all the respects, but i have the opposite opinion)

What i can agree is that i am happy for GOG's existence and i hope the classic (ups, sorry, now backups) installers will be forever here.

Again, this is anecdotal because I've not done it myself but other GOG users have (legitimately too, for example a game bought on a partners account that is installed on the same computer); GOG will do nothing. Galaxy will recognise any GOG installation, from any source, and add it to the client. It will let you play the games and won't report your account in any way. The worst it does is suggest you buy the game. If it were DRM it would disable your account in some way for this behaviour.

I have no particular bias against DRM. I would prefer games to be completely without it and would always buy games that way when available. What I do dislike is games with DRM that adversely affects the legitimate end users.

I think the issue is partly in the change from physical to digital. To me Galaxy (or the website itself) is akin to the drive to the store or the postal service delivering a physical game. It is a delivery service for the end product, be that an installer that can be used again or an installed game. Once I have downloaded my installer through Galaxy I don't need any keys or checks to play my game, unlike a physical disk which requires the CD in the drive at all times and a key inputted every time I install it.
To liken logging in to Galaxy to a CD key is comparing two different parts of the process. Logging in to Galaxy is driving to the shop to get the game, not installing it when you've brought it home. The fact it does that too is a separate process (which doesn't need to be online or logged into anything if you don't want to).
But digital distribution combines buying, downloading, installing and playing all into one service. I happen to feel this is preferable, I don't need to store and care for CDs, or find them when I want to play a game (or change them when I want to play a different one). I can also redownload my game whenever I want or need to (as long as GOG is around), something that you can't do if your disk gets scratched, you've got to buy another one then.

Can a client be DRM? Yes, it can.
Is a client automatically and always DRM? No.