Oh, I do apologize. I admit I don't post on GOG that often, so I seem to have been unfamiliar with which non-mods do and don't have authority to dictate what does and doesn't belong in a debate.

And at this point I'm starting to be reminded of why I don't post on GOG that often. Sorry for assuming I could post a simple sentiment without being policed for using common colloquial language. I'll be sure to brush up on my legal jargon and linguistic courses before posting again.

Agreed. Same with "renting", where the meaning of the word isn't anywhere close to what happens with Steam, but it's used by Steam haters to inflame the discussion.

Why do we need to boycott Steam? It's nice, have acheivements and is overall very good. I like Origin too.

Still why I use GOG is that it has some bonus, and you can use it offline :) I use it for the games I really like!:)))

Terribly sorry for getting a teensy bit snarky whenever someone tells me the bleeding obvious as if they're actually educating me on something I don't already know.

Also terribly sorry for getting a teensy bit snarky about being chastised for a sentiment I thought would have been not the slightest bit controversial amongst the fandom of a website whose main selling point is being DRM-free.

Also terribly sorry for getting a teensy bit snarky when one of the pedants was so eager to pedant at me that he ignored the entire rest of my original post, leading him to ask me what my issue with internet clients was when I already explained that in my original post.

Terribly sorry that I got a teensy bit snarky because I felt a little disappointed in the above, since I had expected the people here to behave like people who can actually carry on a friendly conversation without being needlessly snobbish and condescending. I shan't be making that particular mistake again.

nah, but you do come off a bit as an ass setting yourself up as an "authority" on what jargon to use, then use wrong jargon. All you have shown yourself to be so far is everything which is wrong with DRM free movement... angry, fundamental and a discourse driven by propaganda. If his is what you want "DRM free" to mean, then fine by me.

That's kind of a circular argument. You only need the GOG website to be functional at all times, if you use it like you do, which the users who you're arguing with don't.There are actually benefits to being able to backup your games and all bonus content and run them independently of the service you got them from. For example, at one point one of the GTA games had a lot of songs from the soundtrack ripped out of the game on Steam, due to licensing issues. If you'd have been able to download and backup a DRM-free copy before that happened, your game would have remained intact and the publishers wouldn't have been able to prevent you from listening to the original in-game soundtrack (if you bought the game on disc for your console, they couldn't mess with it either). And I think even on GOG some bonus content has been removed in the past, and if you didn't make a backup, you were out of luck. So, yeah, usually these services don't retroactively deny you access to what you've bought , but they are able to, and sometimes they actually (have to) do it.

DISCLAIMER: I don't advocate boycotting Steam, but I think the reasons of those who prefer not to buy their games from Steam are not to be dismissed that easily. Neither Steam nor GOG is all good or bad, and one should use them consciously, without ignoring their downsides. And in the end, it's also a matter of personal preferences and priorities.

I think people and their steam boycotting is cute. Doesn't do anything or have any effect outside these forums. But its cute. What have the Romans ever done for us right? Is steam really that bad? Not really. Do people still complain and act like steam has killed their first born yes, yes they do. I have had one hell of an experience with steam. And do not regret the last 6 or 7 years or 200+ games.

except gog installers can be backed-up anywhere one likes, and therefor, the user is not entirely reliant on the gog. so how is holding out for a gog release hypocritical?

that said, i don't go out of my way to boycott or anything. i don't really care that much. though i do not spend money there.

I agree but you must understand in order for the 'Steam is evil' argument to hold any water than it's mandatory that Valve is made out to be the boogeyman. Keep in mind that a vast, vast percentage of every single person that has ever bought something off of Steam (must be in the high 90 percentile) has never once been denied access to any game they ever bought there. That's why the narrative always has to include 'yea but what if....'.

As a father and husband who shares a house with 6 other gamers I can not disagree with you enough.

VALVe absolutely deny access. I've got 80+ games on Steam and If one of those games is in use the others are locked out. And before any uneducated individual suggests using Family Sharing, it does not work like that. The only way for me to play one game and someone else in the same house playing AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GAME is to use offline mode or some other hack.

Sorry for the screaming caps but far too many people have difficulty reading the word DIFFERENT.
The demographic is changing, some single gamer living alone is not going to have a big issue with some of VALVe's policies. As soon as he starts sharing his life with someone there are issues. My situation is not a "but what if", it is an absolute. I can not let direct family members living in the same house as me play different unused games from my account simultaneously without work arounds.

As i said, this might be helpful if you are not connected to the internet all the time. But me and many other users are. As i said, if you are traveling, or like moving your games from a machine to other that's not connected to internet, i understand why you prefer GOG DRM-free games.

But if your machine is always connected and you don't need to play games on other machines that are not connected, and you don't "save" your installers, i think it's hypocritical to wait for GOG releases, as, practically, you don't get any benefit whatsoever over Steam.

If i would crave after playing Fallout 4, it wouldn't be easier to get it on Steam and play it right now than wait few years until it will appear as DRM-free? I would not gain anything for my wait, just that i won't get to play the game that i would like to due to my preconception. Steam it's basically not loosing anything due to my believes, GOG it's not gaining much either.

But anyway, if someone is sleeping better by "boycotting" the evil Steam, it's their option, of course, and i respect it. But if they are doing it for foolish reasons and brag about it... I don't know...
Well, but you know that it's actually illegal to own a copy of a game on GOG and distribute it to another family member? Whatever you purchase on GOG it's for your PERSONAL use. If your son wants a game, it should have a different account and get it on his account. Practically, i know it's pretty silly, as if you share an computer, you pretty much share the games too. But, from a strictly legal point of view, you are not allowed to do that. Steam lets you do exactly that, but with some limitations, as you said.

What is so nice and overall very good about it? As far as I can see, Steam offers nothing whatsoever that you would need a mandatory client for.

It makes updating a lot simpler for developers and players, but you don't need a mandatory client for that (see Galaxy). As long as a built in manual update function tapped into the Steam backbone, you could provide the same ease of distribution for the developers without even needing a client at all.

Sorting and organizing again can be done without a mandatory client. Some might consider the ability to buy games directly through the client a plus, but that too is no reason to force the client on everyone.

Achievements, as they are used in the majority of cases (Achievement unlocked: You started the game), I wouldn't even jot down as pros, but for the sake of argument let's assume they're awesome. Those too can be and are done by numerous games without a mandatory client.

And on the downside it has a lot of negative points, like easily changing purchased game content after the fact (see GTA: San Andreas). It severely hampers the ability to backup your games in general. It offers those horrible badge-, card-, gem- and whatnot-systems that actively take away focus from the games themselves and turn the whole process of buying into a game. It means I can't just lend a game to a friend because it is tied to my account. Even with the Library Sharing feature I wouldn't be able to play another game while they were playing the game I wanted to lend them. It can keep you from playing your legally purchased games just because you happen to travel to the wrong country.

That's a lot of drawbacks for a couple of advantages that could all be achieved without a mandatory client. In fact, personally, with the exception of badges/gems/cards/virtual cock rings, which I simply ignore, I consider every one of these drawbacks a complete dealbreaker.

That's why the few Steam games I have are all gifts e.g. from magazine subscriptions or what I consider "thank you"s for generous 100%-to-charity donations on Humble.

Licenses and terms of the GoG user agreement use the legal phrase "Personal Use". This does not mean only I can use it, but it can not be used in a business situation.

Actually, from a strictly legal point of view, that entirely depends on local legislation. If local law says you have the right to distribute software to family members, then GOG or the developers can't deny you that right. They can refuse to sell you the game in the first place. But once they sold it to you, there's nothing they can do.

Actually, large parts of any given EULA are null and void in whatever country one is in because it violates local law.