Launchers are just another form of DRM. If games weren't tied to the launchers, Would steam be as popular as it is now?

Of the ~14 000 games sold by Humble Bundle, more than 1 500 are DRM-free. A filter is provided in their store to sort the games based on the DRM they are polluted with, "DRM-free" being a valid option (such a filter would be welcome on GOG too).

I tried searching with that filter, and I'm not sure I agree with their definition of "DRM-free" based on the results. Even with that filter active, every single game that came up in my searches was "provided via Steam." Now, it may be that it's just for initial activation, but when the description of every game I looked at includes the line: "A free Steam account is required." that is not DRM-free to me. DRM-lite, maybe, but not free. It excludes people like me whose gaming computer is not online. A true disappointment.

Don't you use your computer to download games then? Most games on steam work perfectly fine offline after installation. In some cases you do need to go online for a first time, but that is it then. I guess those titles won't be showing up if you look for DRM free

Their wording is confusing, what you actually get is a Steam key *and* the ability to download a DRM-free installer/archive (from humblebundle.com themselves, not from Steam). The DRM-free installer comes with no tie to Steam at all.

Well, indeed, but this may not be a feasible solution depending on the amount of privacy, segmentation, or whatever else a user may desire. Being forced to sign in even a single time to an unnecessary client is too much for some, it means that toroca's machine can not be truly offline. For the sake of an example, it may just be in a location without internet service perhaps, but it doesn't matter. Even after purchasing and downloading a game in one location, a user is still forced to send a ping to Steam on the second, final device. In that way Steam is sticking its nose into business it has no right to after the sale, when all that should be required is the simple moving of files done privately and at the users discretion.

No, I don't use my computer to download games. I do not have internet at home, so any game that requires the internet for any reason, whether it's a one-time activation or an always-online requirement, is off-limits to me. That's why GOG is my primary source for games these days; offline installers with no internet requirement. I download the install files to a flash drive at my public library and take them home to my computer to install and play. Also, my computer is an ancient desktop system I cannot currently afford to replace, so it's not as simple as hauling a laptop somewhere to use WiFi for Steam activation. I'd have to haul the whole thing; tower, monitor, mouse, and keyboard. Technically possible, but more of a pain in the rear than I'm willing to engage in.

So you're saying that even though the game description says it requires a steam account, that's not actually true if it comes up with the DRM-free filter active? If that's what you mean, then you're right, their wording is very confusing. So let me phrase this in another way to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here; essentially you're saying Humble is just like GOG as long as the game comes up under the DRM-free filter?

Thank you, this is exactly right. The biggest issue for me personally remains what I said above about not having home internet, but what you've laid out here is also a major concern to me. I have serious moral reservations about purchasing any software that is dependent on an external server for activation or continued use.

As I laid out in my entirely-too-lengthy post earlier in this thread, I'm not one to naively believe that Steam or whatever else will always be there. If Steam ever goes offline, or even just has something like a Denial of Service attack against its systems, any game dependent on their servers will not work. Such a thing might be temporary, but I shouldn't have to forfeit even the temporary use of a product I purchased because of someone else's problems.

As long as I have offline installers such as GOG provides, it doesn't matter whether I have internet at home, whether that internet is up and running, or whether some third party somewhere is also connected and operational. None of that will affect my ability to use a product I purchased if that product has no such requirement.

At some point I will be able to replace my 15 year old computer and get internet at home, but even when I do, I will most likely severely limit my purchases of any software (game or business) that requires an internet connection to use. I despise that particular business model, and I will support it only when I have no other choice.

If you want to see the difference for yourself, I happened to find one. See Tacoma on Humble bundle. Games that only have a DRM download read "Game is provided DRM-free for Operating systems", whereas the other games you saw also include the clarifying "is provided via Steam for Operating systems... A free Steam account is required", which applies to the Steam portion only. It's more clear if you look at the icons under the 'Platform' section for a given game, as for different platforms different operating systems may or may not be supported. For example, the Legend of Grimrock has no official Linux Steam version, but does have a DRM-free one.

God... I was reading the entire thread, but this is by far the worst thing you said.

> There was no summer sale, spring sale, so on and so forth.

Yes, there were no sales with those specific tag lines, but there were still sales. But you know what there used to be back then most importantly? Retailers competing for better prices. Multiple retailers competing between them would lower game prices a lot more, and a lot faster than it happens now. Nowadays with Steam, you see 5 year old games still being sold for 60 bucks 90% of the time, and only 10% of the time at 50% off, while before with physical copies, it was commonplace for games to have their base price (NO DISCOUNT) already at half the original launch price just after a couple of months, and there were even sales on that reduced price.

> updating games weren't as automatic and simple.

Correct, you wanna know why? Because it wasn't needed. Games were sold as a complete product on launch day, and you'd never need any updates at all. Mindblowing, I know.

I'm not even "old" at all, but man do I feel like a carcass when I see people like you, very likely around my age, genuinely having no idea how bad things got. Ignorance is bliss isnt it? :)

In a nutshell, people essentially used to complain about having to own their games (God forbid one has to get off their ass to put a disc in a tray), and now they love not owning their games. We have what we deserve to be honest. Well I surely don't deserve this, nor does the majority of people on this forum, but the overall majority does. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go buy some PS5 physical copies while we still have those. It won't be for much longer I'm afraid :(

EDIT: I should have read the following replies. Blatant anti-ownership apologism and using the usual physical media "disadvantages" as a justification. Far too gone.

Not only that, wait long enough and you can pick up games for super cheap because they are in the bargain bin for being old. Or at a yard sale. Or sold on ebay because people finished playing the single player game and are moving on to something new which are cheaper than many sales. Also allowed the customer to get back some money too so it was a win for the consumer, loss for the company which is why they prefer everything be online. Kills the second-hand market (which it has for PC).

I do think alot of PC gamers saw the writing on the wall when Steam was announced. Unlike how OP likes to depict, PC gamers were initially very against Steam and its blatant DRM. Alot of players sucked it up though because it was Half Life 2. Probably was when PC lost the physical media war (showed that gamers were willing to put up with alot for a "hype" game) and Valve did a great job marketing themselves as a "good guy" to the point that new gamers dont seem to know a world without Steam. Didnt help that physical stores began selling Steam keys which only put themselves out of business.

Console is definitely trying to go that way (except Nintendo). The release of "digital only" consoles is a bad sign with PS5 Pro being "digital" only with a disc drive sold separately. If PS6 becomes digital only, Ill probably just abandon Sony and go full Nintendo since they still seem to sell all their AAA games on cartridges at least.

I wasn't paying attention to the announcement itself but best believe as soon as I learned what Steam was, I was so disappointed at where PC gaming had already gone irreversibly. Therefore I held true to my desires and left PC gaming for nearly a decade and a half aside from some small indie games directly from developer websites.

You guys are absolutely right about the stores. I remember stores like Babbage's/Electronics Boutique having shelves and shelves full of gorgeous PC "big box" games. From my recollection, the "console" section of these gaming stores was actually much smaller and seemingly less important to their business.

Somewhere around 2005 or 2006, I remember buying Max Payne 1, at Gamestop I believe, pre-owned for $5. Yes, pre-owned PC games existed and were inexpensively priced. Same game that is now on the Dreamlist and which I would re-buy in a heartbeat. On that note, I have a feeling it will cost more than $5 now, even accounting for inflation.

Ah, I don't mean to rain on your parade but unfortunately I would amend that first sentence to "(especially Nintendo)." While it is true that they release cartridges, they have been going in an anti-ownership direction for several years now (the worst offender being the subscription service to play old games, with no equivalent of being able to buy them like the Virtual Console used to be).

I suspect the next step is to increase the amount of DLC, content, game modes that will only be available via their online service. In effect, the "physical" releases will be barebones (if they're not already) and much of the content will be DRMed. All these companies are the same anymore. Valve, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony; they all want to get you online as fast as possible and to rely on it for as many things as possible.

So it's no surprise I have no interest in the current console generation. It's history repeating itself. I sat out PC DRMed digital rental-gaming, and I'll continue to sit out console DRMed rental-gaming.

That is amazing, still, you can have a lot of fun, even with a 15 year old pc...... I still have my old xeon waiting for me in the basement... boy let me tell you, i thought i could trust dry information because according to the stats a R5 2600 could beat that old xeon but no sir, no 300 dollar cpu can ever replace a 2000 euro big shot

Well, if we weren't having this discussion here on GOG, I'd have never looked at Humble again because of that phrasing on their site. They really need to find a better way to state the actual requirements, because I can guarantee you it has cost them sales from at least a small percentage of gamers like myself. Not a majority, sure, but any needlessly-lost revenue matters, even moreso to the smaller players in an industry. And considering that their mission is to use some of their sales to support charities, that makes the misleading wording even more unfortunate in my mind. They're not just costing themselves, but also the people they're trying to help. The addition of just a few words would help here; they could simply say something like "Steam keys are provided for this title, as well as non-DRM offline installers for supported platforms."

So I thank you kindly for the clarification. :) This means I now have at least one other possible source for games, even if only 10% of their library falls under the DRM-free filter. That's still more than I knew about previously, though from what I've looked at over there so far, I think I'll be even more limited than here on GOG as far as what games my computer is capable of running. But eventually when I can replace my rig that will cease to be an issue as well.

I definitely have plenty of enjoyment even from my old system. As long as you accept the fact that modern AAA titles are out of reach, there are still plenty of amazingly fun games out there, and even some relatively recent releases are perfectly playable. Two of my most recent purchases were released just four and three years ago respectively, and they run fine. And some AAA title of years gone by are within my reach; just a couple I've gotten from GOG include Dragon Age Origins and The Witcher. Those are both older than my computer, but still very fun plays. And I have even more on my wishlist, like the original FarCry and Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Now, Skyrim might require me to cut the graphics detail a bit, but it should still be playable, and considering how much I enjoyed Elder Scrolls Oblivion (which I found on DVD in a pawn shop for 50 cents, one of the best game purchases I have EVER made), I'm looking forward to giving it a try in the near future. And I still regularly play even older games that I enjoyed quite a lot back when they were new. SimCity 4, Civilization III and IV, the entire Battle For Middle-earth series, Railroad Tycoon II, etc. Hell, I still play some console games for systems that are probably older than 80% of the users on this forum! :D

You must have quite a magnificent display of old consoles in your possession if they outshine even the curmudgeonly old ghouls that haunt these lands.