Some people are happy with Steam AND GOG, AND other stores to boot, and don't see a problem with using them all concurrently.

Nor do I. But I do see a problem with some users that think that they can come to gog and start saying "drm is double bladed"

Either put up with steams smuck "additional services", pay the price, or STFU.

Steam + another DRM = an absolute no-no for me. For instance, Far Cry 3 is available on Steam (DRM already) but also requires Uplay (Ubisoft's own DRM) in order to work. Even Steam reviewers of the game give it the middle finger (look at the reviews lol !) The game has been available on sale twice recently and I have been tempted but haven't bitten. Eventually that game will (hopefully) lose at least the Uplay DRM, when Ubisoft realise that insisting on it has seriously affected their sales (well, I hope so anyway). Yes, DRM is bad, and double-DRM is twice as bad. The games industry is such a strange thing these days : in terms of the games available, new and old, it has never been better ; in terms of the commercial side of things it has never been worse, for the customer anyway.

DRM is something that every person wants for their own data, but don't want for others. You'd certainly want to be able to control how what you post online is used, but you don't want others to have this control because it prevents you from doing some things.

DRM is a natural response to the easy of duplication of digital products, but the problem with it is that it takes away traditional rights of ownership, including the ability to use the product at all times once it's owned. The problem is that there's no known technical solution which can give all the classic ownership rights while preventing abuse of digital duplication. DRM-free is good for consumers because it's a solution that gives consumers most of these rights, which should rightly trump the problem of digital duplication.

Because it can prevent me from using my bought products just because the store I originally bought it from happens to be defunct nowadays. I just don't feel comfortable buying products which have such an arbitrary restriction, an umbilical cord if you will, to the store I bought it from.

Would you be fine buying e.g. a camera that wouldn't work anymore just because the store you bought it from has closed its doors? Why should that affect your ability to use the camera?

Now, it is fine if you feel differently, so by all means knock yourself out buying games with DRM, if it doesn't bother you. Some just don't feel similarly indifferent about it.

What you said about e.g. watermarking as a form of "offlline DRM", with that I would personally be fine, as it wouldn't prevent me using the product (game) in any way, irrespective of the availability of the store I bought the product from. It would still be some kind of deterrent for me to share my bought games to all my friends or all over the world on torrent sites, and I don't mind such deterrent.

Ps. I have several hundred games on Steam (but much more on GOG actually), so it isn't like I will definitely not buy any game with DRM. Reluctantly I sometimes do.

None of it is good in my opinion. However, most is ok (Steam, Origin, Uplay though I don't have much experience with Uplay.). DRM which has limited amounts of activations (Install limit.) and always online DRM are both bad. DRM which can destroy hardware like starforce as I am told (I don't believe that I have a game which uses it.). is also bad. DRM isn't good because it takes control away from the user and restricts their rights.

Nice speech - hard to glean from it what your own opinion is though :)

Everyone knows that DRM kicks only one type of person in the genitals : the honest customer. All arguments for DRM are negated by this persistent fact. So DRM is no kind of "solution" because it continues to be grossly unfair to the ordinary customer. If you were paranoid enough you could even imagine that the whole idea of DRM was a scheme cooked up by pirates and publishers in cahoots to extract as much money as possible from Joe Public. But obviously that's just nuts.

I'm not sure I understand what the OP aimed for by creating this thread.

Do you want GOG to operate like Steam does? Do you want GOG to stop being a DRM-free games provider because you prefer whatever convenience over DRM-free? And since you're already found that somewhere else, why does GOG need to follow suit?
What does DRM-free, torrents and whatnot have to do with GOG potentially/eventually implementing support for mods into Galaxy?

I don't know, you started this thread supposedly as a question, but it seems your arguments are oriented towards convincing people about the negatives of DRM-free, and the benefits of DRM.


I guess it's time for the obligatory question - is it that day of the week?

It looks like the whole warped idea of DRM was dreamed up on behalf of the games industry by some legal expert. It all boils down to the (legal) concept of "ownership", a very old and well-estabished PHILOSOPHIC concept (and all concepts are originally and ultimately philosophic). You must, therefore, now apparently pass a law degree in order to be able to even enter the debate with any authority or credibility. So that's what the ordinary customer is up against now : he is being screwed left, right and centre, but unless he becomes a legal expert he effectively has no opinion of any worth whatsoever. Isn't the world such a wonderful place now ? I wonder whether I can find a passage in the works of Nietzsche which predicted all of this ?

For me at least compulsory client in Steam is much worse than DRM. I wouldn't mind one time internet registration or similar, but having to install and launch games through a client is a big no-no. And I can agree that some of the current DRM is milder than the old CD checks or give-the-word-from-page-x-line-y-of-manual. But...

obviously DRM-Free>>Mild-DRM>Heavy-DRM>Compulsory-Client. So what exactly are you trying to say? Should GOG change its DRM-free policy?

yes, is

You've nailed my feelings exactly. DRM just makes me look and feel like I'm treated like a pirate to begin with. Why try and bother with being a honest customer then if I'm still looked at as a pirate? This is another reason why I hate DRM. And you captured my feeling in the best way possible.

Ok sorry to have brought this argument this way, I'd never say that GOG should adopt DRM as Steam or even worse Origin does, but there are different types of DRM in the sense of ways to protect digital rights. I still prefer buying games on GOG being DRM-free, but...

I mean, you can't copy a car, but you can copy software, it's perfectly understandable that developers try to protect their products with some mean. The fact that most DRMs are useless, harmful and with lots of inconveniences is a different problem. But a DRM that doesn't make it harder for the customer, that doesn't prevent offline installation or future use in any condition wouldn't bother me, and I would understand it because you cannot ignore the fact that totally DRM-free games are pirated much more easily than others.

I already corrected myself in subsequent posts after the OP, but people keep flaming me for that one, well. I didn't mean to offend anybody's sensibilities and I'm not some Steam lackey or uberfan, if you thought so, since I still prefer GOG over it, when I find the games that interest me at comparable prices.

The ONLY reason why I brought up this, is because I think at the future of the VG market, GOG included. Steam DRM doesn't prevent it from being successful, and I'm worrying that the easiness with which GOG games can be shared in the net through torrents can harm it in the long way. That was all.

I HATE the "just move" argument, I shouldn't have to move just to play fallout 4 for example (consoles are not an option for me)

So you think the only way forward is to destroy all the trust that GOG has gained?