If I'm forced to install/use something that isn't actually necessary for the game to work in order to download/install/play it- that's DRM.

Why? I mean, you're pulling that out of your ass. I can't install or play a game I don't have. So anything that has to do with can be as much DRM as anything to do with installing or playing it.

Yes.

You would have downloaded DRM-free installers, but what you have in your account library would be indeed DRMed.

IT WAS OPTIONAL. It's not DRM if it's optional. Using it or not has nothing to with it, as long as it's your choice. I can't make it any simpler.

No, because I would still have to use something artificially made obligatory. It's as if in order for your car to run you would have to fill one tank with gas, and another with some special chemical that isn't actually necessary for the engine to run in any way, but the car is made in such a way you can't start it without that unnecessary chamical.

You didn't understand a word of what I said. Of course I wouldn't consider it DRM-free. Unfortunately, I don't know how I could possibly make the thing about "things not actually necessary to run a game" any clearer.

You are wrong and understand nothing.

END OF LINE

Reminds me of a PC Gamer article where they discussed playing after the bomb. Running off grid, salvaging parts and so on. The completely glossing over the fact the 70% of all games will no longer work.

P-Priestly? Dear lord, we're doomed...

We are indeed, taken directly from the wikipedia Gog (and magog) page:
The Gog prophecy is meant to be fulfilled at the approach of what is called the "end of days", but not necessarily the end of the world.

So galaxy maybe the end of days, but not the world.
More importantly, how many of those 20000 are actually any good, I mean once you filtered off keywords: Green light, gamemaker, crafting, retro.style, pixilated, etc. How many are actually worth playing, a few hundred maybe?

Don't be dicks and downvote someone for (politely) asking a simple question, people. It's not the OP's fault that things like this get asked a lot.

Well-explained, as usual (and without any histrionics or invective!). +1 +1

Actually, I learned from a bunch of YouTube videos and a couple blogs that that's not true! /s

Although I agree, what's wrong with dicks? Why is everybody looking down on them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLNdMY1JlR0

People look up at mine in the morning.

You have a very weird definition of DRM, especially when talking about the delivery of the game. So if the game required you to press the key "1" on the keyboard before it runs, you'd consider it DRM if it can't be proven it would have been totally necessary to include that requirement for the game to function?

I look at it from a practical view: if I am in the possession of the game already (ie. either I've brought the retail game out of the store, or downloaded the digital game I've purchased), can the store or publisher still somehow restrict when and where and on how many PCs I install and play the game? No? Then the product is DRM-free. It doesn't matter even if they made a full body check on the store and checked my receipt on my way out (before letting me get out of the store with the game), as long as they don't do that every time at my home when I try to install or play the game.

Why? Because otherwise all GOG games are indeed DRM'ed, as you can't freely download (deliver) them to your PC without first validating yourself as the owner of the said product license (by logging into GOG servers, and it checks which games you are eligible to download). That is not "totally necessary" in order to run them, GOG could just as well let anyone download any GOG game. According to you, only then we could call them DRM-free (because you insist extending the definition to the delivery part as well).

Why don't you consider them currently DRMed in your library? As said, it is an artificial restriction that GOG servers check which games you are allowed to run, as it could just as well let you download any GOG game without checking anything. It doesn't matter which client (e.g. a web browser) it uses for checking that.

You are contradicting yourself, because just after this you say that even if there was an option to use a different Steam client (separate from the standard one) to download your Steam games, you still wouldn't consider Steam games DRM-free. After all, then using the standard Steam client would be optional; you'd have the option to use a different Steam client.

So in reality your definition has nothing to do whether a certain client is optional or not. You just have this odd idea that as long as that client (used to authenticate your ownership of the product online) is a web browser... BOOM! it isn't DRM anymore. That's just silly, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Having to use a web browser to log in and download your GOG game can just as well be considered "artificially obligatory", as they could just as well offer you an option to get your GOG game delivered on a CD-R to your doorstep, or even go to their office yourself to copy your game(s) into an USB memory stick. Then you wouldn't have to use a web browser to let GOG check whether you are allowed to download any certain game from their servers.

Just to point that here you are again contradicting yourself. With the delivery of the game, you say it is not DRM if GOG checks whether you are eligible to download certain game... as long as they allow you to use a web browser for that check. Yet, here, in the running of the game part, suddenly a web browser doesn't get such a free pass from you. Here you consider it as DRM if it checked whether you are eligible to run the game, even if it allows you to use a web browser for that.

So which way is it? Make up your mind already.

But it is, obviously, totaly necessary for the store to function as a store. Right now I'm thinking you're being obtuse on purpose.

But I would still have to use a client. This does not change anything. It's still something totally unnecessary being forced upon me. It doesn't matter if I get to choose a totally unnecessary thing A or totally unnecessary thing B. Using one is still obligatory, and it's still unnecessary. How are you not getting this?

It has everything to do with that. In your example using a client isn't optional.

Can we maybe have a serious discussion? One that actually deals with reality? That would obviously not be a possible way for GOG to work, any more than not having accounts and allowing everyone to download everything, and you know this. Why even bring it up?

I cannot make myself any clearer. It's so simple, I cannot figure out how you keep twisting it around in such nonsensical ways. Obviously using the browser to access my account and download a game is necessary. Having to be online to play it is not, regardless of what program does the checking. I am not contradicting myself. It's just that I can't make you understand this simple sentence

"If I'm forced to install/use something that isn't actually necessary for the game to work in order to download/install/play it- that's DRM."

And I can't help that. On purpose or for real but it's just too complex for you apparently.

Someone else might just as well claim that a store or publisher can't function if they don't check whether you are eligible to run a game, every time you run it.

Whether something is considered necessary for the business, doesn't have anything to do with the definition of DRM.

A web browser (used for validating your purchases at any point) is also a client. And it can be considered "unnecessary" as well at least as the only option, as GOG could just as well offer a service to e.g. deliver the games to you on CD-R discs (for an extra delivery fee, if necessary), or even let you come to their office to copy your games to an USB memory stick.

Web browser is also a client, and it could be optional as well (by offering e.g. the CD-R delivery method as well).

First of all, claiming that GOG couldn't possibly function in any other way than currently has no basis in reality. One might just as well claim that Humble Store can't possibly function with a "Pay What You Want"-model... yet they do exactly that.

For instance, I could see it as a realistic possibility for a digital store to function with a donateware model. That is, anyone can download any game from the store (even without an account), but people could also donate money to the store and certain publisher, if they like their game enough. Sure the store might not make as much money then as there could be more freeloaders then... but it is a realistic possibility, especially as some SW developers work exactly like that, with the donateware model. (And I personally feel the Humble Bundle's PWYW is not far from the donateware model; there is some small minimum pay like $1 or $5, and anything above that is your optional donation to the store/publisher/charity).

When it comes to your claim that of course the store has to check who is eligible to download what, someone else might just as well claim that of course the store and publisher has to always check that you are the true owner of the game license and don't try to misuse the game, hence it should be considered necessary to make that online validation each time you try to run the game.

Whether you feel such validation is necessary for the business to function (either at the delivery part, or the usage part), has no bearing for the definition of DRM.

That is a very vague and weird definition of DRM. As I have pointed out numerous times, even defining what is really necessary (to deliver/install/run) the game is not straightforward, hence your definition is totally meaningless. You say it is necessary to check whether you are eligible to download a game; someone else might claim that also making that same check is necessary when you try to run the game (to check that you haven't e.g. given the game installer to all your friends after the download, and they play it too).

Don't fight it, I am certain you are starting to see that extending the definition of DRM to the delivery (download) part isn't very useful, unless you really believe that all GOG games are already now DRMed.

And then I would show them GOG and prove them wrong.

Do you hate logic and reason? Are they against your religion or something?

So, that would be a "no" on that whole "serious discussion" thing.

Those two examples are in no way comparable.

I wish we could actually talk about real things that exist, and not increasingly bizzare theoretical business models that have no bearing on anything.


I am certain you are a eight legged zombie from Alpha Centauri. Don't fight it. You know it's true.

WTF way of conducting a debate is this, ending with a bizarre claim that surely, your opponent now agrees with your nonsense?

I'm done with this. You're dead set to twist everything into some bizzare hypothetical scenarios that have nothing to do with reality. I should never have even engaged in this nonsense. If you really want to believe a mandatory client somehow isn't DRM- power to you.

Yet, many publishers avoid GOG for that very reason. They don't see it as a realistic alternative that they would sell their games without DRM. Whether you agree with them is beside the point.

If you are claiming no store could possibly work with such model, you'd be wrong. There has been at least a couple services which did exactly that, burn CDs or DVDs with the files you wanted and mailed them to you, for an extra fee.

It could be an optional service for an extra fee, e.g. for people who have a lousy internet connection or tight monthly data caps... but obviously GOG feels they'd rather not provide such service, but people should just download their games from their purchased games with a mandatory client (a web browser, or another type of client).

As I mentioned, there already are SW developers who work with the donationware model. I didn't come up with it myself.

Again you changed our definition of DRM. Earlier it was something about "what is not totally necessary to download/install/run the game" (and then you just decided that e.g. checking that you are eligible to download a game is totally necessary, while for some reason checking it when you run it is not), but now you say it is about a mandatory client.

With your yet another DRM definition, I'd like to point out once again that a web browser is also a client. In GOG's case, a web browser client is mandatory in order to download a game from their servers. Hence, according to you GOG games have DRM.

That's the problem when trying to discuss with you, you keep changing your definitions and goalposts. Sometimes it is that "if the client is a web browser, it is not DRM", while sometimes also a web browser client would be DRM to you, if you feel it wouldn't be totally "necessary" (whatever that means); in the delivery part you feel a validation check is "necessary" (hence not DRM? DRM is not DRM if you feel it is somehow necessary?) while when playing the game it is not "necessary" (hence DRM)...

I changed nothing. You are entirely hopeless. Or you're trolling. Either way- have fun with that. Bye!

Oh, I thought this was about a Mod for King of the Monsters.