But if you get the standalone installer, you don't need to authenticate for any future installs using the downloaded installer. If you can archive the games to your HDD (no matter in what form), but need to authenticate again to install them then that is DRM.


If you're viewing it from that point then DRM doesn't exist. I mean most/all/almost all DRMs can be "circumvented", so you just need to put enough effort in it for a game you legally bought, at most install 1-2 additional programms and you're good to go. So there isn't even a reason for gog to exist - it's just convenience....

No, because he isn't modifying or replacing the files that consists the game.

Some games contain functions to request access to the publisher's or store's servers in order to authenticate and would block you from playing unless it gets an "ok" back. If you change those functions (or replace the files with already-edited ones) to always assume the "ok", or use an external solution that always gives an "ok" response (say, redirecting connections for a certain domain so that an application on your own machine responds with "ok"), you have circumvented the DRM.

Simplified: If you don't do anything to the game beyond actually copying the entirety of the game folder, install its technical dependencies, and the game runs fine, there's no DRM.

I didn't say anything about modifying or replacing. Those two represent only a subset of methods to revive games you bought years ago, but refuse to function properly thanks to DRM.

I updated my response. And yes, it doesn't matter if you need to circumvent the DRM because the game can't access its authentication servers (whether the publisher have taken them down, placed them on a new domain and you haven't installed the patch to make your install aware of that, or the game just can't access them for whatever reason), or the game requests that a separate client application is running and you use a file that always returns "client is running fine, and its servers said you're fine". You're still circumventing DRM. The game is still DRM'd.

You don't need to do that with Galaxy downlaoded files either. That is my point. You can take the files, zip them or whatever. Move them from PC A to PC B, install your dependencies (directX, etc.) and run the game from the exe. No authentication needed. In the vast majority of cases that is all that is needed. If it doesn't work then that is a technical issue, likley due to missing registry entires, etc but it's not that hard to re-package the game files, the registry and recompile the game into your own installer (but this is more technical).

If Galaxy really had DRM, none of that would be possible. Hence, Galaxy doesn't have DRM. You are thinking of what Steam does (and trying to compare that to Galaxy) because most games on Steam actually has DRM.

If you actually had to authenticate your games after moving them to another PC, then yes you would be right... Galaxy (or rather the games downloaded with Galaxy) would implent a form of DRM. But that is not the case here.

Not having DRM to begin with does not equal circumventing the DRM, moving games files doesn't equal circumventing the DRM. Try to take a game with Denuvo or some other DRM system, or even Steamworks DRM from Steam and try it. You will find you can not play without authenticating with Steam. Then and there your DRM comes into play, and so yes DRM does exist very much so. You could try to circumvent it, but that is besides the point.

Galaxy downloaded games are DRM free because I don't have to circumvent anything.. they are DRM Free out of the box.

No it doesn't.

A while ago I wanted to show Dying Light to a friend. We were at his place, so I simply downloaded the installer from my account and installed the game on his machine. The funny thing is: He's also a Galaxy user, and his Galaxy detected the game. It warned that the game was "offline" (not connected to his account), but still let us play it (without game time tracking and achievements).
(We could have run it outside Galaxy anyway of course)

That is DRM-free. That is what it's about. The user is in control, not the publisher or distributor.

(PS: He now really owns the game btw. and played through it twice).

I was mainly defending standalone installers. Honestly, galaxy is convenient and that's why I'm using it, but I'm always also downloading the backup installers, if that feature's gone, I'm as well. And there's no reason why any subsequent installations of a drm-free game should work any different from first by simply double-clicking a "setup.exe" file (at least the possibility should be there).
I'd say the argument "only install via gog and then you can just move files" describes quite an edge case here. Yes, the games are technically DRM free but making the process artifically hard is at least a dark-pattern. I'd personally consider it a form of DRM if the installation via gog is made as easy as possible but the DRM-free way is made artificially difficult.
I mean this could mean that the game is just a single folder you need to zip and move to a different machine.
It could also mean that the installer/game is creating 10^6 (random) files (or more) and registry keys at random locations of your system that all need to be present for the game to work. This isn't technically a DRM but it makes it artifically hard to move your games to a different machine. So I'd considere a standalone installer a proper way of providing a DRM-free game.

Yeah. Stand-alone installers and DRM are entirely independent beasts. The presence of one has no dependence whatsoever on whether or not the other is present.

A while ago, GOG's Linux releases were simply archived folders - then GOG figured that this "confused" people, and moved to use InnoSetup, which means that the user needs to know how to set executable permission on the installer rather than just "double click, and extract".

Their Mac OS X releases were similarly simple, a disk image that you just double-clicked to mount and then copied the game ".app" to where you wanted it (standard procedure that most Mac users were comfortable with), but then they decided that they needed to touch system directories and switched to using installers.

When you find one that does, please tell me and I shall reconsider my stance.

Some early DRM ideas didn't really restrict you in any meaningful way - serial numbers that were only checked locally (because you couldn't assume that people had an internet connection, and if they did, it had a cost per minute), and instructions to type word 5 from page 8 in the manual didn't at all restrict multiple people from using the same purchased copy of the software software on multiple machines. But I guess using a photocopier was the then-current equivalent to redirecting domains and using a server emulator today.

In the absence of standalone installers that'd certainly be a way to reduce installations without gog galaxy (from a developers point of view) while still complying to the DRM-free directive.

I also forgot about CD-keys. You could still move the folder to a different machine (depending on the way the key is verified/ the game activated). It'd definitely allow for singleplayer games. However, CD-keys are generally classified as DRM...
(And unfortunately there's an increasing number of games on GOG that include a multiplayer CD-key that requires an internetconnection to authenticate with the publishers server to play a game over LAN - so at least that's a way of DRM that's slowly sneaking in to gog...unfortunately)


edit: you edited your post before I refreshed....

I do wonder where are all the downvotes coming from. I mean, if people don't like the reality I'm describing and think downvoting me will somehow change it, or if they think I want GOG to stop being DRM-free.

Cause I don't. You'll find few people here more adamant than me about wanting their games DRM-free. But my wants don't change the reality of the industry.

Messengers often get shot! ;-)

I don't know if I share your gloomy outlook. Right now GOG has a USP - it's not because Steam is making the big bucks that there's endless room for clone-like services doing (exactly) the same. Maybe greed will decide, maybe not.

Fun fact: about half of the DRM free games I have from Humble are just zips of a game folder. No installer provided, non needed.
Just copy it where you want, run and play.
Is that DRM free? Because that's what BKGaming is saying you get with Galaxy.

Sure, it's not exactly intuitive or easy, but the possible future BKGaming describes is never likely to happen. Even if GOG went Galaxy only I doubt they would remove the backup installer option from Galaxy.
What he's saying is that Galaxy isn't DRM and that using it doesn't make games have DRM.
Galaxy is just a tool, a way to access and play your games. You can use it if you want, of you can completely ignore it.
GOG wants people to use it because it is easier, that means people have less problems and raise less support tickets, that's cheaper for GOG. It probably uses less bandwidth as updates are smaller, not sure that matters to a business on GOGs scale but it might.
It allows developers more control over uploading and managing their games, which means we get patches quicker (when the Devs bother), that's better for us and GOG.

And for those who don't want to use it the only thing that has changed is the installers are a few inches lower down the page.

Well to be fair, if GOG ever went Galaxy only then I don't see them keeping to backup installers either because they use the same offline classic installer for both. There would be no point to remove the site ones while keeping the option in Galaxy, both require the same work to be done. Only reason I can ever see them removing backup installers is to decrease overhead and to streamline the process on their end.

But as I said, If that ever came to be I also see them adding some feature to Galaxy that offers that same convience factor as standalone installers for backup purposes.

But for now, I don't see them going anywhere... and if they did it would be long after Galaxy has been developed for and improved on. Galaxy still needs a lot of work, so a good 5 years or more probably.