Simple:
Draw a line from what Good old Games was trough what GOG.com with Galaxy is now, then Gwent.. and continue that line..

Not far down you meet Steam on your way...

Is Steam DRM? GOG vs Steam. Where are all the Good Old Games? I want all my games in once place. The only game that exists on GOG is The Witcher 3. GOG doesn't fix up games as much as people think they do. Competition is good for the consumer.

I was going to write something in my previous reply about this, but decided at the time that it would only confuse people - I'll write it here and attempt to explain:

There is a subtle difference between checking that the owner of a product is you, and checking that you own the product you're using. The difference is that the first is assuming that the product has been bought, the second is assuming that the product has been stolen.

When you authenticate on GOG (or yes, even steam where you are logging in just the store/your games, not from running a game!) it is the first definition - the games are there waiting for you. Who owns these games? You authenticate, then GOG/steam says "Ah, there you are, here are the games you own."

When you have to start steam and authenticate when running a game, it's saying "You're trying to run this game, but I don't trust that you haven't stolen this - I need to check that you own it before I'll let you run it."

With DRM, intent matters. Why do you have to login? On GOG, it's simply that it has to distinguish between individuals in order to provide games for the reasons I provided in my first post. With steam, if you're forced to log in to be able to play a game, that's clearly DRM. You're undergoing the same process both times - authenticating - but the reason is different. One is DRM, one is providing basic functionality.

Incidentally, that's why there's confusion about multiplayer and online and whether having to be logged in online is DRM or not. Once again, intent matters. Is it to ensure that you own the game/control your usage of it, or is it simply the game's way to distinguish between all the people who are playing (as it obviously has to.) Yes, there are other ways to do that without logging in, and having to log in is problematic in the long run when the authentication servers disappear, but it's not actually DRM - it just acts similarly. It still should be argued against because of the long term implications, there are other ways to distinguish between people. But the fact is that they're not purposely trying to control people, just provide basic recognition functionality. It may be less confusing that way, but the fact is that when you pay for a product, you own that product. Anything which purposely tries to restrict your usage after that, even in the delivery, is DRM by definition. What if a retail store refused to hand over the product you had just paid for, and said it would send it to you via its own means. You're not in possession then, but I think you would be complaining, as I certainly would be, about not being in control of the product you had just bought. Really, GOG isn't actually required to keep your games here for you, as long as you have already been given the chance to download and store it for future use yourself. It's simply an extra service it provides. One that many people would complain about if it ceased happening, but nonetheless, it's not one that (to my knowledge) it's legally obligated to provide.

In Steam you don't own your games, you subscribe to them, with GOG at least it makes you feel like you own your games, that's personally why I gave up steam due to it's licensing agreements and other stupid stuff you just don't need i especially like it when GOG doesn't tell you to get lost like certain steam does if you are not online, as Steam constantly used to remind me, that i needed to go online when I couldn't which was frustrating especially when they locked me out of a game session once, where as again, GOG does not do that, GOG saves you from any silly clients you need to install, and Steam is practically well bloatware, I must admit, i still own Origin games and Uplay games, but that is because most of the games sadly that are on Origin or Uplay aren't on GOG, but I still play a lot of Mount & Blade as I love not having to constantly have to update or it to say you must go online to use it. Ugh it still frustrates me like mad that Steam is a thing.

How many clients does it take to change a light bulb? o.O

I feel you are just playing with the words there. Both are indeed validation checks whether you are eligible to do something with the said game: either download it, or install, or run it. (For now I separate these three, even though in Steam and Galaxy it may be harder to distinguish between downloading and installing, because they happen at the same time).

Let's say you are a bad casual pirate whose intention is to share your bought game with 50 of your friends so that they can all play it for free. The validation check during download is there to restrict that the original purchaser only can download the said game; the validation check when running game is to restrict that the original purchaser only can run the said game.

So it isn't about whether you are treated as a potential criminal or just "Ah yes sir, there you are, here are your lovely games, good day sir, do you want lemon with your tea sir?". They are both treating you the same way ("potential criminal"), it just happens at a different time. The first happens when you try to get the game delivered to yourself, while the other happens when you try to run it.

Also to note, this is in no way related to which kind of client you are made to use that validation. I really fail to see the logic in claiming that the "delivery time validation" is DRM with a store-specific client, but not with a web browser. Especially if one also thinks that in the "running time validation" the used client doesn't matter but it is always DRM there regardless of the client. It is incoherent to suggest that the used client matters to the DRM definition during the delivery, but not during the running of the game.

The reason why I feel discussion about the validation (DRM?) during the delivery is fruitless is because it can be considered as a one time occurence, usually happening at the very beginning of the process. Yes the store checks that I don't walk out of the store with an unpaid game, but that's fine because it will in no way affect my ability to use the game after that, ever. (Someone might argue that in order to get support, like updates, hints or refunds from the store, you will have to validate yourself again that you had really bought the original game from them, but that doesn't change it. Support can be considered as an extra service on top of your purchased product,)

I concentrate on discussing DRM only when I have the game in my possession, meaning that I've walked out of the store with the game, or downloaded it to my PC (external hard drive).

Right, but when people talk about "DRM-free Steam games", they specifically mean those Steam games which can be run without the online validation and even the client, after you have transferred the game to your PCs from Steam servers. So basically you can zip those downloaded game files into a compressed file, move it to another PC which is not connected to internet and never had Steam installed, and play the game there.

I consider such Steam games DRM-free, but at the same time:

- They are not officially supported as DRM-free and Steam-free, so if you run into problems with them, you are on your own, no refunds or support from Valve nor the publisher (on the basis that they don't run satisfactorily without a validation and the Steam client).

- To me it is not as convenient as the DRM-free offline installers on GOG (to archive them into an external hard drive etc.), also because I have several different ways (clients) to download them, like any web browser, Galaxy, GOG Downloader, gogrepo, lgogdownloader. So those different download options are about convenience, not about whether I consider download-time validation DRM or not.

I am ready to call "multiplayer DRM" as DRM and yes it is about controlling the players, but as I've said before, overall I consider it even beneficial to me as an end-user, something that single-player DRM never is. Mainly because it is the way to ban cheaters and other unwanted players (not only those who try to play a pirated copy), which will affect my enjoyment of the game.

Also, I personally don't consider the "but can I play this game in 20 years when the official validation servers are down?" as important with online multiplayer games because there are other factors as well, like do I even find other people who are interested in playing the game in 20 years? I can't play it alone (except against bots, but then it is basically a single-player game anyway, and I hate playing multiplayer games against bots...).

So why then don't you consider it DRM when GOG restricts who can download it from their servers?

Yes I would have bought a license to use the product and even have a proof of purchase, but I would still not be in a possession of that product. When I say being in possession, it is no legal mumbo jumbo like "do I have a legal right to play that game?". It simply means I really have the product in my hands, I'm out of the store (or downloaded the game (installer) to my PC), and even if the store changed their minds and wouldn't want me to have the game anymore, they basically can do nothing about it anymore because they already handed it over to me. They can't delete the game from my hard drive, or snatch it from my shelf at my home.

I don't disagree with that, and I am unsure what it has to do with what I said. Yes, the ability to redownload your games many times from GOG servers is an extra free service provided on top of your purchases. Strategy First's digital store at least used to be different, IIRC they let you download your DRM-free game installer only a few times, and that's it, so you were really supposed to archive and keep your purchased games on your own hard drive. There was no service provided that you can redownload your games as many times as you want, that was not part of the deal. (They may have changed that later as nowadays that is a normal expectation on all digital stores, unlimited downloads.)

In theory it would be similar if a brick and mortar store would offer you an option to get your physical game replaced if it got broken (GameStop stores here at least used to offer such a service, if you paid a little bit extra for your game).

Look, if you want to treat the basic functionality of logging into an online store, something which is common to pretty much every website which has a store, as DRM, at this point I'm willing to say go ahead. I can't explain the difference between that and true DRM any clearer than I already have. You need to go back and read my first post on this.

Look, the web existed before steam was a thing. There has always been a standard way of using the web, and that is with a web browser. When Valve started selling games online, the easiest way of doing so for everyone involved would have been to use the existing functionality already provided by web browsers to download your games. There was zero reason that Valve needed to create their own client and their own protocol, except to use it to keep control of the whole process. That is why steam is DRM, and why the web browser is not. Sure. But a retail store has given you media which allows you to reinstall without revisiting the store. Steam offers no such functionality, and that is why it's an issue. You say you can get around that by keeping a backup of the install directory somewhere rather than relying on steam for a reinstall, but that is a kludge, a workaround, that doesn't perform the full functionality that a proper install provides, and may not work besides, particularly if there are other dependencies beyond the files in the game directory, such as registry entries. See above. And yet, there are older multiplayer games which have thriving communities, usually precisely because it didn't rely on authentication servers. It may not be important to you, or even most, but it will inevitably be important to some people, and that is enough to push for change, where the change won't impact anyone else. Why not? As I said, I've written enough to make the reason for basic store functionality to not be DRM clear. Reread what I have written. Perhaps I wasn't clear in the retail example - I intended it to be analogous to the situation where you have purchased a game from the steam store - you aren't immediately allowed to download at that point if you have used the standard method of purchasing via web browser. I.e. the retailer hasn't handed you your game after you have paid, but insisted that he deliver it by his own method (open steam to download.)

Yea but if you still buy games here. On each purchase you ask yourself if they still exist or if they are Galaxy only now. For patches it's already reality. Waited weeks for the newest "Expeditions Viking" and now two days for the newest "The Long Journey Home" patch.

That's been the case with many games, especially newly-released games, since long before Galaxy was a thing. The only difference now is that those who use the client can get updates sooner. But patches for games' offline installers have often been slow in arriving here. Most of GOG users in the past have been fine with this trade-off because DRM-free + client-free > "convenient" client with timely updates.

Sorry to be late to this, but weekend.

So let me ask a question, based on my actual one-time experience with Steam (that I've described on the forum a few times over the years):

Maybe 4 years back I purchased Mount and Blade: Warband from Half Price Books. No digital store involved. When I returned home from my trip I installed the game - there was an installation disk in the box, not a download code. The content delivery happened at the moment I paid for the disk in the box. The game installation went fine. The Steam client was also installed. I actually read the EULA / terms for the client and declined to accept them because I didn't like what they said, and because I did not see where the client would be of any benefit to me since I already had the game and did not want the features it offered at the time.

I tried to play the game.

It would not load because my Steam client installation did not finish. The game was in my possession prior to running the client installation, the single-player gameplay was not using any online features of the client, and Taleworlds themselves provided a workaround to bypass the client, making the DRM-free game DRM-free again.

DRM-free game, acquired outside of the Steam ecosystem, Steam still prevented me from playing. Is the client DRM on a DRM-free game?

Anyway, I earlier labeled it as "half-DRM". Shortcut term to state that there is that extra, unnecessary layer and step - even though it's a one-time thing for a particular DRM-free title - above and beyond the way so many other online purchases happen: deal with all of it on the website, one simple set of account terms, bing bang boom done. When the third-party client is required to the point that I can't play a DRM-free game that I physically purchased elsewhere - simply because I declined to accept the terms on a client that was not technically necessary for playing the game that I had already installed on my laptop prior to the client installation - then my opinion is that it's DRM in everything but name. But I recognize that once you get through that layer you can then do with the DRM-free installer whatever you feel like... until it comes time to download it again.

I don't buy into the argument that account registration and website download are the same. Nearly any store / supplier I work with will keep a record of my prior purchases, whether I call, email, or use a webstore. I keep track of my customers' prior purchases, as well, though my sales are not web-based. That's modern-day commerce, not just digital delivery of games.

-----

As stated earlier by others, I don't think minds are going to change with the umpteenth iteration of this discussion, but maybe it will help people understand that there are reasons - some based on actual consequences - why others feel they way they do about clients. For me, I got bit in the ass - albeit temporarily thanks to Taleworlds doing the right thing - by a client (Steam's, specifically) and am now leery of them.

In my opinion, no. The content delivered to you in the box was incomplete, as it still required either of the two on top of what you got in the box:

1. Validating the game online (with a Steam client, but it doesn't matter even if it allowed you do to it with a web browser).

2. The workaround (some extra file?) from Taleworlds, which you mentioned.

Only after you have that complete set, I consider it complete delivery. After that becomes the question: if you move the game (files) to another PC which isn't connected to internet, can you still play the game fine? No? DRM. Yes? DRM-free.

Your situation sounds similar as the pre-ordered The Witcher 3 retail version. The content delivered in the box was not enough to play the game, you also had to create an account to GOG to download an update to make the game installation working (it was intentional so that you couldn't play your retail game before it was officially released), or even download the whole content from your GOG account (ie. not using the content in the box, other than to acquire TW3 on your new GOG account).

But, since after that you were free to install/copy the game to another PC and play there, even without ever accessing your online GOG account ever, I consider it DRM-free as well. The content was simply incomplete on the The Witcher 3 retail box.

After you had the complete content delivered to you, then you had the DRM-free game. The content in the box was still incomplete. you needed the Tellworlds workaround (file?) on top of that.

So my question to you is, if it had required you to create an online account through your web browser and accept an EULA through it before you can play your retail game, would that have been fine with you and you would have considered your retail game fully DRM-free (even though it requires an online registration with a web browser before you can play it)?

That is something I don't understand: why the client used for that extra step (registration) is the biggest issue to some people? I would be damn angry if all my downloaded GOG games required me to log into my online GOG account before I can install or play their single-player content. It doesn't matter if it required that with a web browser or Galaxy, the tool required for the registration is not the real issue here. The requirement for online registration is.

I am not sure what that means. The whole point of DRM-free is that you don't have to redownload it again, as long as you keep the original installer or game files locally somewhere. With GOG games you have the offline game installers; with DRM-free Steam games you'd have the game installation files in e.g. a zip file, which you could copy to another PC and play there, even without a Steam client.

In fact, I don't even consider a requirement for an extra installed client DRM... as long as it doesn't require me to create an online account or log in online somewhere with that client. I would consider the extra client as an extra nuisance, but as long as it still allowed me to copy or install the game on that separate PC in a bunker with no internet connection and play there, I would still consider it fully DRM-free. At that point I wouldn't consider that client more than, say, a simple launcher that many games have when you run the game.

For instance Fallout Tactics, whenever I run the game, it first runs a launcher from which I then click the play button to run the actual game. A client which doesn't require any online connection nor online log in to run the game, is basically a mere launcher.

Am i angry because Fallout Tactics installs a launcher program which isn't really necessary to play the game, and causes an extra step to get to the actual game? Not really.

And right there is your DRM. The fact that said validation was possible exclusively via the Steam client, makes said client part of the DRM form and process. Had Taleworlds not provided the patch, his purchase would have remained very much DRM-ed, imo.


If I read HereForTheBeer's post correctly, that's exactly what and how it was in his case. He didn't have a Steam account (still doesn't?), and that retail purchase required him to do exactly what you yourself deem as DRM.

And once again I don't understand why it wouldn't be considered as DRM, if the validation took place using a web browser. A validation is a validation, no matter which kind of client you get to use for it (a web browser or whatever).

Furthermore, I didn't elaborate this for brevity, but IF that validation is a one time deal (ie. you install Steam with the game, validate it once, and then you have a fully portable game installation that you can move to your bunker and play there on a freshly installed PC without ever validating the game again), then I consider that outcome DRM-free.

As I said, the content on the retail box was incomplete, and needed something extra (either a (one time?) validation from Steam servers, or the extra file received from the publisher). IF, after that, the installation is fully portable and never requires another validation, never ever ever again, then that full outcome is DRM-free. If, on the other hand, the game would require another validation (through Steam, or whatever) whenever you move it to a new PC, then I wouldn't consider it DRM-free.

As I explained, similar situation as with the original The Witcher 3 retail release which required you the very least create an account to GOG.com to get an update to unlock the game (or alternatively install Galaxy and get that same unlocking through it, or even downloading the whole game content again from GOG.com from your newly created GOG account). The original TW3 retail release was incomplete and needed you to create an account to get some missing piece, but after that you were fully done. In the end you had a fully DRM-free The Witcher 3 in your hands.

Not the most convenient solution and I can understand retail buyers were angry as they thought their retail release was complete, but still, in the end you had a fully DRM-free release in your hands, one way or another.

Again, I didn't cover it for brevity, but it depends if it requires that online sign-in every time you want to run or install the game on a new PC. If not, then it is not different how The Witcher 3 retail handled it (you needed one update to unlock your retail game, and to get that you needed to e.g. create a GOG.com account, if you didn't have one already).

I don't consider it DRM that a retail game like The Witcher 3 or Mount and Blade: Warband requires me once to register and go online to get some missing piece to get myself a fully DRM-free release. That is no different than having to go online once with my GOG account to download a GOG game, same thing, afterwards I have the full game in my possession and never have to log into that account, if I don't want to.

If they require me to do that several times, e.g. whenever I want to copy or install the game on another new PC, then I consider it DRM as I don't (and never can) have a fully independent game installer or zip file that doesn't care if GOG.com or Steam closed their doors for good.

We are going in circles with this discussion, I've tried to explain the best I can what I consider relevant in the DRM discussion. To me the important thing is whether I can have a fully independent game in my hands in the end. And by independent, I mean I never have to validate it online anymore, ever. Not through Steam, not through Galaxy, not through Firefox. The tool (client) used for the validation is irrelevant whether it can be considered DRM. Whether the game installs or still requires e.g. a Steam client or Firefox to run in the background doesn't really matter to that definition, as long as it doesn't require me to go online and log in to anywhere with them.

I have to admit to myself that if it wasn't for that particular hiccup, or if I hadn't bothered to read the EULA / terms and simply clicked Okay or Yes or whatever it was, I might not have thought twice about the client and simply gone along with it. Though I was a gOg customer before that incident.

But it did happen: I saw one potential pitfall firsthand, and for an old-school gamer who grew up on code wheels and "3rd word, 2nd paragraph, page 18" copy protection that mostly relied on me simply not losing the manual or code wheel, this was a new twist that put copy protection out of my hands. A wake-up call, if you will.

I completely understand why a lot of people think it's no big deal. If one's gaming years started during or shortly before the Steam client came around, then using a client might be all that person really knows. And if their internet connection is fast and reliable, ditto. Or maybe it's an old school gamer who is ready for a client to take over the nuts and bolts of dealing with a library. none of those are me, and I have a personal anecdote that makes me think twice whenever the matter comes up. For me, it's a big deal as it relates to how I interact with this hobby. I get the "who cares?" attitude. But I do care, and feel I have a valid firsthand experience for why I should care. But this is only one customer out of millions out there, and my way isn't the only way.