this. so much this.

Removing Denuvo from Game#52817

yep, just like that.

To be honest, the main thing I use GOG for nowadays is to buy a second copy of my favorite games so I can back them up. I haven't bought a game exclusively from GOG in close to three years at this point and it's for many of the reasons you talked about.

The only way I could see DRM-free going anywhere near the level of mainstream is if Steam started offering offline installers for games that are currently DRM-free. It's not likely to happen but if they did, that'd put DRM-free on virtually every PC gamer's radar. The downside here is, like I said in my original post, such a move would probably put GOG out of business since they'd lose their primary competitive value. Sure, they'd still be the place to go for playing older games but there's not enough money to be made in retro gaming to keep GOG afloat if Steam did such a thing.

As for pricing, I'm okay paying a little more for DRM-free but you're right that the prices really are a high premium. What makes this worse is that most games today don't come with goodies anymore. Another really fun selling point for GOG was that line on the About page: "Offering games with as many goodies as possible is the GOG way - even if it means exploring our long forgotten basements and attics." If most GOG newcomers have goodies at all, they're almost always locked behind "deluxe edition upgrades" or whatever. That's alright for games that offer a lot of goodies in general, since they could make the soundtrack an addon or something, but most of the time these "deluxe upgrades" just add a soundtrack, maybe an art book and a comic... but even that is rare on GOG today.

It's frustrating, to say the least. I can't describe how much I miss those days.

Gog already lost some of their competitive value(and probably some bargaining power when negotiating new partners) when Steam started releasing older games years back. As for offline installers: a number of the games can have their contents archived and moved from PC to PC so it's almost the same thing.


I hear ya fren...I hear ya :\

Why, yes.

Thats why I never tolerated Steam ... not the only reason, but one of the reasons.

No you don't. Legally "buying a game" from GOG is no different from buying it from Steam or Epic Games Store. You only buy a license that allows you to use and play the game.

If you "owned" the copy of the game you bought, that would essentially mean you were allowed to make copies of it and sell them, as "owning a game" means the same as "owning the intellectual property (IP) rights to the game".

However, what is different between GOG and Steam is that GOG doesn't enforce any of that with technical measures, ie. there is no DRM that prevents you from making million working copies of a GOG game you bought and doing whatever you want with them, including selling them (which would still be illegal even if there are no technical measures trying to prevent it).

There are DRM-free games also on Steam which basically allow the same, but officially Steam does not support them running without using their Steam client.

All in all, I think GOG would have to abide by that same law, stating somewhere that you are "merely" buying a license to a copy of a game, not the game's IP rights or anything. And the license restricts what you can legally do with the game.

At the same time, it is not wrong from GOG to also point out that there are no technical measures to enforce those license restrictions, you are given the control but you are still expected to honor those license restrictions.

Not fully because they still wouldn't guarantee or push DRM-free, as they would still allow DRM'ed single-player games as well. So if I care about DRM-free, I still wouldn't see Steam as a store that tries to provide as many games as possible to me as DRM-free. Basically it would be the same if GOG also started selling DRM single-player games now, just stating "but we still sell some DRM-free games too, don't we?".

In fact, I wouldn't really consider them much different from today. They'd still be pretty agnostic about the whole DRM-free aspect, as they are today. They are not promoting or forcing publishers to use DRM with their games, Steam doesn't really care one way or the other. They wouldn't care in your example either as they would sell the game anyway, with or without DRM. GOG basically refuses to sell a single-player game unless it can be provided DRM-free. (Yes yes, I am aware there may already be a couple of cases on GOG where some cosmetic stuff or something can be obtained only through the client. but at this point I consider those insignificant exceptions to the rule).

As for offering DRM-free installers, Valve tries to keep their hands off as much as possible and let the publishers handle all the technical work when it comes to actually releasing and updating a game through Steam. So at least those DRM-free Steam installers would have to be handled either by the publishers themselves, or be a fully automated process.

Also, maybe Valve just loves the user data they get from the Steam client that they don't want to promote the idea of running Steam games without it, e.g. by officially offering client-free offline installers.

From the original article:

To me it appears that article doesn't fully comprehend what it is talking about either. The bolded part suggests that e.g. with physical media, like a music CD or a DVD movie, you legally "own" that copy and can do anything you want with it, which is what is supposedly missing from digital products like Steam games.

No you don't own them. Also with a CD or DVD, you only own a license to use the music or movie within the media, but you are still not allowed to e.g. make copies of it and sell the copies, which is what "owning" would mean.

Dude I dont care how its called in leganese. I dont want to give the game away. I just want to play them. Even if the company goes under. And thats owning the game.

And no you dont own a game like that if you buy it on Steam. Steam just had to finally admit to that thats not the case.

As I said, its just one of the reasons why I dont tolerate Steam.

Ok but don't get confused if and when GOG starts proclaiming the same on their store page, that you are not buying a game but a license to a game. Because that is exactly what you are doing, also on GOG.

You are referring to the technical side, ie. that GOG is not implementing any technical measures (= DRM) to enforce the restrictions in the license or service usage. And yes that is a good thing to us end-users and I like that too, but still I understand I am buying licenses, not games, on GOG. So I will not get confused when GOG is forced to say that out loud due to some Californian surfer dude law.

If CDP used to sell pirate copies of games without the IP rights holders' permission, that is part of the history I am not aware of.

Anyway, I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion. I am merely clarifying a common misconception of the idea of "owning a game".

Yes I also appreciate that GOG doesn't enforce the license restrictions with any technical measures (=DRM), giving me the control, and I try my best not to break their trust. Sometimes it is very hard, sometimes I do get an urge to play the same game on two different PCs at the same time, butt-naked! I am pretty sure that is forbidden in the license agreement, or at least it should be!

I've spent a lot of my life owning installation media whether that be on casette tape, floppy, cd, dvd etc..so was pretty slow to migrate over to Steam, but as physical media for PC began to die, what choice?

There's something nice about having the installers and being independent from the whims of companies that want to migrate folks to the land of owning nothing and controll access to content, yet still charge as if you were getting a physical copy.

So I appreciate the existence of GOG massively, not being tied to any platform to install a game I want. I also appreciate the companies and devs that have been willing to make their games available on GOG.