The games don't contain DRM. So they are DRM-free. The serial is for the server, not to install the game.

The fact that GOG gives you the ability to join in games involving people who own a DRMed copy isn't really something to complain about. Never mind claim that in doing so they're breaking their promise.

There are games that you could argue have DRM in them, such as those that still require you to check the manual, but the games you're talking about don't qualify.

What we've established is that the term DRM is subjective, and subject to change. Therefore any discussion of what constitutes DRM is nonsense by definition.

My objection is to GOG basing its business on something that doesn't have a definition. It has nothing to do with DRM. DRM is just the term that is used.

If people keep referring back to DRM in this thread, I suppose I could start using the term "Unicorn free" in it's place, for those who understand what that means, and therefore what this thread is about, now that we know that DRM is a subjective term.

Question:
If I was selling you a line of products with the defining difference from my competition being the claim that they were "Unicorn free". Would you buy them?

Come buy our games, they're doodlewack free...

The real problem is that GOG doesn't try to define what doodlewack actually is.

If GOG gave a definition of what DRM was, we wouldn't be here in this thread debating what the definition should be. Unless we're to assume that GOG's definition of DRM free, is that anything they sell -defines- DRM free? Which seems to be the basis most people posting here are going from.

My point is that's not good enough for me. If I buy something that's doodlewack free, I want there to be a definition stated to me about what doodlewack actually is before I commit to buying. Especially when it conflicts with the definitions of doodlewack that are listed elsewhere.

Originally I posted this thread with the notion that GOG was selling something they purported not to be. As JMich pointed out, that's not the case, because "DRM free" has no definition.
Therefore, my complaint now with GOG, is that their main selling point for their product is pretty rubbish, which I suppose is perfectly legal, as opposed to if there actually were a definition of what DRM was and they weren't meeting it. But it leaves me not particularly inspired by the whole spurious DRM free product sales ploy.

well this is a fine twist on an old pile of horse-shit.

*puts tinfoil crown of numptitude on the OP

Actually, the only thing you have established over your repeated "establishing" posts is that its already well established on here that DRM free lacks a definitive definition and wikipedia isnt a source of reliable information.

Also, I put superglue on that tinfoil hat and it wont harm your wifi connection - just dont go near the microwave when its on.
I'm not actually. Guess you're some alt account numpty then are you?! YARP!

Sachys I'd tell you to stop digging yourself a hole but you're just too freaking hilarious!

Nobody posting in this thread knew that DRM has no definition, that's why it took so long for anyone to point it out.

If you knew then congrats on being well informed on the issue, now you just need to work on managing to not be an obnoxious moron X0P

Reverse that, apply to yourself.

JMich.
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_multiplayer_games_aret_drm_free/post57 (among others who didnt say specifically).

Reverse that, apply to yourself.

Opposite day huh Sachys? Compelling argument that one, real clever.

That JMich post was -after- he stated there's no definition of DRM. He even said that in the text of the post. Sheesh...

Exactly. Numpty!

So your point regarding that is what exactly? Were you trying to point something out to me, or was your purpose in coming here just to act like an immature fool?

First of all, I posted the fact that there's no definition on the day you started the thread. Post 12 to be exact.

Secondly, who said GOG doesn't define DRM-free for the games they sell? To quote them So, while there isn't a legal definition of DRM, GOG does define what they mean by both DRM and DRM-Free. Their definition of DRM-Free makes no mention of multiplayer, though their definition of DRM is vague as hell.

Yep I missed your original post, as it was in the middle of a whole load of posts from others, so I didn't respond to what you said until I noticed your second post.

There's lots of things GOG could do to change the situation around the DRM issues, like post more clear info about what they mean by DRM, or sell games with DRM allong side the games without DRM.
As someone said earlier, that's up to them to decide. But it's somewhat disapointing to see not just what GOG's situation with DRM is, but also that DRM isn't even defined and regulated well in relation to digital products elsewhere. It seems like it's a hot potato that regulators wouldn't be able to establish a position on, as doing so would move the world closer to deciding weather to ban it, and there are strong cases for and against.

Well, they kinda give a definition : "No copy protection, download and install when and where you want".

Although that definition is kinda lacking, since it could include an mandatory-always-online singleplayer as "DRM free" if it didn't have copy protection during install, and I would be quite pissed if a GOG game did this to me.