Can we take it though, that that was done only for the possibility of their own games or just to ensure that crossplay could be seamless? And or to support selling Epic games via Galaxy?

DRM is definitely an inconvenience, but I suspect most gamers barely notice it or not at all, so all the other conveniences found at Steam come into play, and Steam trumps GOG a lot in many other things, not least of all is having most of your games in one place.

I'm not supporting Steam, because they are virtually a monopoly, but also because of DRM, but I won't shy away from the truths, and the truth is most gamers find Steam more convenient, and don't really care about DRM. That's a sad but true fact. That said, I am sure many are irked where there are two launchers involved, as the DRM is a bit more in your face then.

Tell me how nice it is to be able to seamlessly do multifarm via GOG Galaxy for Linux.

Wait.

What exactly has that to do with DRM which his post was about? Please enlighten me.

Mostly the latter part of here: At least Steam has a Linux client. No such luck on GOG.

So it's about a part of the post out of context. I see.

Very interesting thoughts, Time4Tea (and thanks to adamhm for that wonderful bit of perspective; I had not been aware of such interviews/comments but that is enlightening...also sad since the firm stance against DRM seems a relic of the past now).

My concern with a time-limited DRM system would be the effects it could have on DRM-free gaming as a whole. I don't know that it would change much on GOG (and I agree it would be preferable to the Galaxy creep), but I worry about smaller scale stores. In other words, if time-limited DRM is normalized as a "condition" of some releases being DRM-free, wouldn't that reduce the leverage a smaller store has (or force the smaller store into a similar system of having to accept time-limited DRM)? I feel a small store would lose out on releases it could've otherwise had.

Also, we see how the big companies treat GOG currently. Take your pick of Ubisoft, EA, etc...there are games like Assassin's Creed 2, Dragon Age 2, etc which are well over a decade old and show no signs of releasing here. Would a time-limited DRM system really change this? Or perhaps more relevant: would a time-limited DRM system bring enough big releases here that it would be worth risking any ill effects that would result from it? I lean towards no. The DRM really seems to matter. Iirc, Rockstar gave away GTA on Epic for free...but not without the precious DRM.

@rjbuffchix: you make some good points. Yes, I agree it's not clear whether it would have a beneficial effect on DRM-free gaming in general. It seems like it could lead to more newer games being released DRM-free in the long run. But, you make a good point about it possibly disadvantaging smaller stores, if it were to become normalized.

And yes, I totally agree that certain publishers seem dead set on retaining DRM, even in games that are 10 years old or more, in which case a time-limited system probably wouldn't help to entice them. CDPR's own recent addition of DRMed content to Witcher 3 suggests that, even for them, time-limited DRM would not be sufficient.

And of course, in that case GOG wouldn't be able to honestly hold on to their pretense of being a 'DRM-free' store. Though, perhaps they could re-brand to being 'pro-DRM-free'.

Most of the gamers on Steam don't like DRM, but either don't know about DRM, or are willing to put up with the inconvenience. But they certainly hate it when it directly affects them, that's for certain. Many people there rail against Denuvo and anti-cheats (especially in single player games), but don't understand that they are just escalations of DRM they already accept and endorse. I try to educate people but many don't want to hear it and will deride you. But then when someone loses access to their paid-for games, all of a sudden they're supporting what you say. That is, until the next shiny DRM-infused game gets released.

Edited to clean up grammar and run-on sentences.

Compared to GOG, Steam have a lot more resources and customers to do so and be viable. And even if they don't make much direct profit out of it, Steam are covering their bases and making money in other ways related to it. Part of Steam's advantage is the ongoing psychological one, certainly for new and younger customers, but also game providers. GOG has always had a real battle on their hands, no doubt just as much now, if not more so than in the past, despite being more relevant and having a lot more customers now.
I don't know about 'Most of the gamers on Steam', would need to see some factual data on that, and most in my experience, rarely see it as an inconvenience or even notice it. But most of what you then say, I believe is true enough.

Most don't really have a problem with DRM, until they do, and then their tune often changes. The issue is, that clearly does not happen often enough.

A LOT of people I have talked to over there don't think Steam requiring the client is DRM, and think only Denuvo is DRM, and Denuvo bad. I try to educate them, but it gets difficult when they start arguing from a point of being misinformed/uninformed and unwilling to see the truth. Their personal definitions of DRM don't include Steam, and no matter how you show them that it works exactly like the other DRM they don't like, they just WON'T see it.

Building into Galaxy actual GOG library ownership checks*, "Does the person own the title and have privileges to run it?" cannot do anything to further cross-platform play. Some things only have malignant uses. Ownership check that a game can do are one. Now I don't know of any titles other than CDPR actually using this feature, but we've seen it in the API docs

It's things like this that have led to the "unintentionally using Galaxy as DRM because of a bug": games coded so that they're reliant on Galaxy (and not just Galaxy being on the system, but Galaxy being logged in and sometimes even Galaxy saying "player owns title") even to run properly: games not saving, games failing to load at all without Galaxy, games that have certain features break without Galaxy, games that crash when the player gets an achievement if Galaxy isn't running and logged in. Galaxy use feature creep leads to "Galaxy not optional". Yes, a lot of the examples here are "good game makers don't have a problem doing it right". But convenience isn't only for users, but developers.
---
*I can't find the page(s) discussing this, but it was not challenged in that thread by other people who had the link to GOG's documentation that it was a feature. I cannot find it in the current, publicly-linked Galaxy docs on a skim this morning; may be it was removed, maybe we are in error -- though that it exists in CDPR titles shows that it exists. I did, however, find this quote in the docs that apparently should be made more mandatory and less optional:

Keep it as simple as possible, it's Steam fans after all :D
DRM is when a licence check happens at runtime (login to Steam required for specific content)
Denuvo is a technology to prevent bypassing this licence check, if at all it can be called copy protection.

So, here goes some important matters of the survey.

Image3: WTF?

Why wtf? That is part of pretty much every survey where someone wants to know something about their customers.
As you can see, you can ansert with "I prefer not to say" to every question.

These data are good for metadata. To see how educated or old the people are who want more BDSM in their games and how educated or old those are who want cuddly rabbits. It's all just statistics, good for creating better targeted offers.