Wait hold on....I understand but vehemently disagree in calling Easy anti-cheat a DRM in the name 'its a non-integrated section of code running on top of the game as a requirement." But how is trying to stop you from cheating in a multiplayer game like Vermintide or online competitive environments like the multiplayer for Battleship Gothica in any way not absolutely necessary. Do you want it to be dirt easy to have half the game, yourself included, cheat like a madman and undermine the entire game for everyone else? There has to be SOME protection against outright hacking in a multiplayer game. What's wrong with hiring a third party company to handle that section of the code?

Edit: Yes, Battlefleet Gothic Armada(I think is the full title) having it for even singleplayer -is- bullshit, it's code that doesn't need to run at all for singleplayer and should have been integrated to run in-app when loading multiplayer, but Vermintide 2 has no such issue that isn't even remotely a single player game. Even making the AI bots for single player simple cannot accomplish the exploration and position management critical for later difficulties, we just do not have AI advanced enough to do it, let alone do it while adapting to if the player fucks up in not playing the way the AI expects.

No one said it wasn't necessary for the game, but necessary doesn't disqualify that it is DRM. Anti-Cheat by it's very definition manages your digital rights. It keeps you from playing the game or modifying it. It's not a bad thing in these circumstances, but it is DRM.

I'm even fine. Whether gog, zoom, steam and etc. All are DRM. Because you need an account for DL the game even a setup offline. So it's also a DRM

A lot of people here have said all forms DRM is unacceptable and there is absolutely no value to it in any way, including the original poster I asked, to the point they say Gwent should be removed from the store. When I say we should make a distinction between easy anti-cheat and central server likes because of exactly this, suddenly it matters? so DRM is okay if it's used for the right purposes, you know, the thing I've said should have it's own title specifically for this exact scenario so we don't have to balk as when DRM is reasonable and be able to have a purely negative label...

Or should you should be freely to modify the game even when it's specifically made as nothing but a network connection client for an online service? Because im getitng mixed messages now.

I feel like yelling "Are there any other squidwards I should know about?!" this is fucking ridiculous. Now were demanding that even having an installation method that requires GoG is DRM? What's next, needing the damn CD to install the game counts as DRM?

No, I don't really want cheating in a multiplayer game. I definitely get why it is used, but that still does NOT discount it from being DRM. It is managing what the players can and cannot do w/ the game. If they start say suspending, banning, or moving players to a cheater server from this - then you're being managed by EasyCheat, so it falls into the DRM part.

DRM does just that - it manages your rights digitally. It doesn't matter how or why it is done - but it's doing it. That's the whole point of DRM: to manager your rights.

Also, if say EasyCheat is in a game and you're trying to run it on Linux - yep, that's right; it won't boot up. A lot of these like EasyCheat and Battleye do NOT work on Linux period; and Valve's trying to get that them to get it working on Linux. If this was NOT here, the game would boot. So, it's again managing your rights, as a gamer - b/c without it on Linux, the game would probably boot up and work.

Bingo. I agree w/ Paladin181 on this one.

I'm reminded that i use AHK a lot. Having an AHK program running in the background refuses to let me run certain games because it sees it as cheating, although i'd programmed it to translate controller to keyboard output, which by any means is not cheating. But nevermind what they see, they can't differentiate it.

Probably the only reason to have a singleplayer game limited for some type of multiplayer aspect would be leaderboards. So have separate leaderboards, based on version, mods, whatever is appropriate. But in the end the game should be fun, and DRM does not make things fun. Not that i really need to say a bunch of that here....

It sounds like you need to look up the definition of the word:-

"Digital rights management (DRM) tools or technological protection measures are a set of access control technologies for restricting the use of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works. DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well as systems within devices that enforce these policies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

Your endless confusion seems to come from your false belief that only ownership checks are "real" DRM whereas back in the real world, it's the process of checking on something in order to activate a kill-switch upon a fail response (for any reason) relating to "blocking the use OR modification OR distribution" that's what's the actual DRM:-

- Does this person legally own this game on their account? If not I will block it from starting.
- Does this person legally own this IAP / DLC on their account? If not I will exclude that content from being playable.
- Is this person trying to play this regionally restricted game within the same region they purchased it? If not I will block it.
- Has this person been banned from cheating (eg, an account check for a VAC ban)? If so I will block it from starting.
- Does this person legally own this game on their account in order to be permitted to download Steam Workshop mods? If not I will block them from being downloaded / working.
- Does this software contain protective anti-tamper measure? If so I will block it from starting if I detect it being modded.

^ These are ALL forms of DRM. It's literally there in the name, they are all objectively actively Digitally Managing the Right to "use or modify" something. That they've evolved to do it for several reasons in an online world and not just one doesn't matter. That you like anti-cheat tech because you hate cheaters is irrelevant. That you see anti-cheat as "not DRM because it has a positive use" is also irrelevant as "copy-protection has a positive use in stopping piracy, therefore copy protection isn't DRM" is exactly the same argument.

It's been literally years since DRM was solely about copy protection / anti-piracy and even Wikipedia doesn't limit it to just anti-counterfeiting. Hence why it uses the definition "use, modify and distribution" and not "just distribution and nothing else". Anti-cheat isn't about using DRM to control distribution but it IS very obviously about using DRM to restrict the "use" and "modification" of the game. Scroll down, read the article in full and see everything from Philips light bulbs, John Deere Tractors, chipped printer cartridges, Keurig's coffeemakers, to watermarking detection are all classed as forms of DRM and most of them have nothing to do with being an anti-theft device. It's about vendor lock-in of consumables, enforced obsolescence, regional pricing enforcement, and there's zero difference between a John Deere tractor that uses DRM for counter-modification than EAC using it for games for exactly the same reason. It's the *process* of checking on something and *ability* to activate a kill-switch that's the DRM, not the "why".

Depends. If only an account that I created for multiplayer gaming is banned, but I can create another account with the game, it's not DRM. For example, years ago, you could create online accounts on various serves for playing Counterstrike and those accounts could be banned for cheating. Some servers even would ban the IPs of cheaters. However, that wasn't DRM, since it wasn't implemented in the game and didn't restrict the functionality of the game. You could always find another server for playing or just play with friends.

However, if anti-cheat measurements are mandatory, are built into the game and the game won't run without them, then yes, it is DRM. It checks the game against one mandatory account and the game refuses to run if that check yields a negative.

As always, DRM-free is about choice. It is perfectly acceptable if a DRM-free game is able to connect to an account on a proprietary server. But as soon as that connection is mandatory, it's DRM. It is also acceptable if a DRM-free game is able to use cloud-storage by using a proprietary, optional client. However, if that client is mandatory, it's DRM.

Indeed. And that's exactly what EAC, BattleEye, Vanguard, Ricochet, etc, do even without account bans, with the newest issue amusingly being EAC's accidental mass blocking of multiple Steam games due to flagging the entire Steam client itself as "untrusted":-

https://www.ginx.tv/en/new-world/new-world-how-to-fix-easy-anti-cheat-untrusted-file-system-bug

The very nature of modern anti-cheat systems (requires installing them as a Ring 0 kernel driver that attempts to hide them from other software with serious security implications) already makes them glorified Sony Rootkit 2.0's before they even attempt to check anything online...

You and many others want games banned from sale on GoG because DRM is unacceptable and wrong. You say you're boycotting GoG on the basis it has what you admit might have some use. And then you get mad at me for saying "hold on, let's not just lump everything into one term, let's make a distinction for the periods it's valuable" You demand DRM is so unacceptable that GoG should remove it forever, and then you refuse to even consider altering your definition and adding a new distinctive noun to ensure MMO and other multiplayer frameworks that require validation aren't hurt. Do you see the mixed fucking signals yet?!

And yes I took you with the benefit of the doubt to assume you were willing to admit that anti-hacking suites are necessary in network access clients. I note you did not answer my question directly in that I ask "do you think that anti-hacking programming suites are anything but necessary for an online game." you answered with "I get why it's used." I'm going to assume that was a mistake, because I don't want to believe you just tried to weasel word your way out of the answer.
I will say this once and only once to you because I'm getting sick and tired of this bullshit. I, do, not, agree. you cannot just declare to an open form of speech "This is what it means, stop demanding or arguing anything else." If you can't see anything but black and white, fine, but I am not going to join you in this penguin logic. And lesson about English: While conjunctions, pronouns, prepositions, and articles do have a set in stole absolute definition due to their structural position(you can't define "and" without referring to it's role as a conjunction for a reason), noun, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs do not. They can be redefined quite often, including and especially, -titles- like DRM. So please, for the love of god, drop this penguin logic of "this is the only one definition stop saying there is any other possible interpretation."

Now, only the actual subject before it becomes forgotten. This entire thread has made it clear that all DRM is unacceptable, -no one- has disagreed with that. Maybe some steam sympathizers are thinking it, but none of those people are here. If we are to demand all DRM is unconscionable to put in a product and is a game is labeled non-functional for it's inclusion of DRM, then I am NOT comfortable putting Denuvo and anti-hacking suites in the same goddamn negative. I demand, since DRM is a purely negative term at this point, that we alter the definition and make an offshoot more neutral term to make a meaningful distinction. I am not comfortable calling Warcraft 3's lobby system DRM. Nor am I comfortable calling the login and authentication measures for Warcraft or Guild Wars 2 DRM, while I will absolutely call Minecraft's login DRM.. When it serves a purpose to the design and is not just an attempt to prevent you from accessing the game for it's own sake, I am not willing to dump it in the same spot as Steamworks.

If you still want to repeat "but that's not the definition," then we are done here, im going to discuss with other people instead. I wish to add a term so that DRM can remain a pure negative and actually fit the emotional definition better. if you think that Warcraft 3's login system for multiplayer is just as equally unacceptable as Minecraft, then that is a discussion to move forward on, but I do not share that disposition, and I want to make a distinction. You can call it pointless, but you cannot declare me absolutely wrong on the basis there can only ever be one definition for a -noun- and all attempt to break it into two distinct words or phrases is unacceptable.

Edit: I make this distinction to to have a linguistic basis to define Hitman ad non-functional outright of a demo state, but still leave room for MMOs and competitive online games to retain their network framework without being labeled in the same group at Hitman. what Hitman did is unacceptable, lazy, and deceptive. It should not share anywhere near the same space as guild Wars 2 or FF14. I want to further distinguish why what IO did is wrong; I am not just playing a silly word game, it has a purpose. This is what started this debacle and I have been fighting tooth and nail to try and get people to grasp that.

No it's just to say that whatever they do. All blinds are drm. There is no drm free store. Because the creation of an account is mandatory to download a game. Even offline setup at gog or zoom. You need an account to download these setups. So drm. The drm will always be there.

Stop spewing it out then... DRM is some lock that's actively Managing your Right by blocking access to something based on a conditional check, ie, it's the lock itself and the process of unlocking it. The definition is there in the name the history and simple observable reality of how it's in widespread use today as content access far beyond just copy protection. Not what your personal feelings are over whether you think the lock is justified or not. Dry your eyes, put your anger issue aside and start dealing with reality that no-one has to "respect" your tunnel vision definitions any more than you are respecting anyone here you disagree with without spewing out f*** bombs or "I demand, I demand, I demand" every 5 seconds like a 6 year old child stamping his feet...

This is exactly it. If a game decides to say not like I'm running say MSI Afterburner to monitor the system's temps when a game's running & cap framerates (especially b/c they did a horrible job of say in-game limiting framerates) and screams at me - yup, it's DRM; it's literally managing my rights on what to do w/ said game.

A lot of times, anything using hooks or injectors - that can cause a game to think you possibly could be cheating...when it's possible that it really ain't the case.

DRM does that - it does the "management" of your "rights" as a gamer in a "Digital" format, no matter if you're actually say cheating or not; even in say an online game or MMO, which is normally where usually cheating is frowned upon.

Many older games do NOT have say controller support - and if a game is having issues b/c you're using a program to monitor that - yeah, it's doing the DRM thing.

I have some mods in say Skyrim: Special on Steam - and it basically will disable Achievements when I tried using them, long ago (when it launched). I'm namely using SKSE, SkyUI and the QuickLoot Mod (to make it do Quicklooting like in Fallout 4) - but yeah, that's some DRM there too; it's giving me a warning saying it will be managing me for using Mods and won't give me credit for Achievements for basically playing the game the way that they intended.

GOG claims there's NO DRM on their site - and that's the way it should stay, as that was their main mission statement from Day 1 here. No Battleye, no Denuvo Anti-Tamper, no Denvo Anti-Cheat, no Anti-Cheat, no account based online-required stuff, nothing.

EDIT:
I was having issues posting a super long-reply, so I might just break it up and toss it into pieces on here, here & there.

We do not have to see things the same exact way. We're all entitled to our own opinions.

I do believe DRM should be removed from games, once it hits GOG. This is literally in GOG's mission statement: that DRM is NOT allowed here. Even though, sometimes I think they're running into murky waters here w/ having things like Galaxy, goodies locked behind Galaxy like Cyberpunk does; some of the past issue they've had w/ DLC's not working when offline in the past (DS3, before it got fixed); a lot of SP-style content locked behind Galaxy in No Man's Sky (that got fixed); multiplayer games on here (especially if there's no TP/ICP support); etc etc.

If it does all three of the things in the words "DRM" by "managing" (that's the M) the "rights" (that's the R) of the gamer - no matter if the gamer themselves is cheating, modding, right, wrong, or whatever in a "digital" way - yep, it's DRM. Period. This is my opinion.

I already mentioned different sub-categories of what I see as different types of DRM, numerous posts back, stating what I feel are different types of it: client-app types, disc-type, Internet-check type, online-only games, account-based games, etc.

Me and GOG might not agree on say what "DRM" is; it's possible and probably. It's probably one of the reasons the whole Hitman 1: GOTY thing took off here, as GOG say might be fine w/ the Campaign being played offline is fine and enough for them - and wasn't even caring about say the progression stuff. I don't agree w/ this, as there's a lot of stuff (Disguises, Equipment, Progression, Equipment, Exits, etc) locked behind online-only server non-sense in what still here is essentially a single-player game, at heart.

I think you missed the point by a country mile. If you want to define DRM the way you have in your statement, that's not the problem. The reason I do not wish to join you in using that definition, is that it's too neutral. there's nothing wrong with preventing a network client from running altered code when connecting to a server. The problem is in the application. Putting it in terms of Hitman, why not have the highscore listing only available online so hackers can rush their way to the top. Then you can modify single player all you'd like and be free to play. It's probably easier to just have it all be offline, but that's a matter of pragmatism at that point. The point is, nothing about that definition is a problem.

No, the problem isn't a difference in term. The problem comes when you use a this neutral definition, this description of nothing more than software architecture, and then apply it as an insult, when you demand it can only possible be negative and need be removed entirely. I see over and over again "Hitman had DRM, that itself is wrong an unacceptable." I see, and agree, with people saying IO should be ashamed of itself for attempting this deception attempt to release a payed overpriced demo which locked an attached game behind an online subscription.

I want to make clear that what IO did was deceptive and made Hitman non-functional by ensuring it remains enshrined in a purely negative term. Since everyone is already using DRM as a universal negative, I want to, and will, separate out the difference between a login requirement for an MMO and a DRM login requirement for Minecraft. If you want to declare them the same, fine, but when you can't use it as a class negative and demand the term alone is a basis for removal. You can't have it both ways. Either DRM is unconscionable it should be removed outright from the store and we as customer are right to enforce it's removal with no holds barred or consideration, -or- we accept that DRM isn't a wholly negative term and treat it as such. You can't treat DRM as an absolute negative and then just lump anything and everything you want onto it as is convenient and still use it like an insult. Warframe, Gwent, Team Fortress 2, Warcraft 3 multiplayer, are all not capable of using direct lan to any satisfaction due to their design. Online requirements are required in those games. If you want to call that DRM fine, but then you can't use DRM as an insult and act like insisting there never be DRM of any kind is reasonable, while you put those games in the same lineup with what is attached to Hitman.

I am not going to defend the argument "DRM is acceptable under some circumstances," but I also don't want to surrender the term DRM as a purely negative affectation. so I break off the neutral aspects from the term which offer no harm and may even be necessary to the game's operation. That way snakes like IO are left with only an insult and no possible excuse to try and make their actions look defensible. I do not understand why that isn't clear or why this is such a problem for people, You have to pick, do you want a neutral term which has no basis to demand removal on face so you can keep your definition, or do you want to have a completely negative term which you can wave as universally unacceptable design? You can't have both, they are mutual exclusive. THAT is the issue.

I started this particular back and forth because I was baffled when someone went so far into giving DRM a positive definition. He said anti-hacking functions(the programing term) is in the same class of thing as the Hitman DRM, while simultaneously demanding it's something that has no logical place in any game or any software to such a degree it should be barred from sale on this store. Either he's changing definitions halfway through his statement, or he honestly thinks it should be seen as a negative to have anti-hacking functions in network client software. So yes, I am baffled by this, and by his insistence that "This is what DRM means, stop saying I was ever illogical or foolish to call it universally bad."

Small sidenote: There's linguistic issues to define the acronym here by it's original terminology, which I won't touch beyond this. Suffice to say the initial definition of "rights" and "management" by the guys who first coined DRM, which were it's original programmers, is hardly a useful measure.

I separated this out for later for a reason. It is not ethical to hold someone to a promise you know is impossible for self-destructive. We even have that enshrined in law. You don't have to follow a contract that causes you harmed or traps you into committing illegal activity. The same is applied here: If GoG did define DRM the way you do, then them saying "No DRM ever" is a naive and foolish impossibility that ensures the store can never have any game which heavily uses online server functionality. It is wrong to hold GoG to such a promise. On the other hand, if they define it using very specific basis such as "you may not lock single player content behind any online subscription or login," among others, GoG can keep it's promise without losing the actual draw the promise implies. It's the harder choice for sure, but not a wrong one. With that I'm doing something else for the day, this took way too long.

The rest of this is nothing but personal discussion for a short second, so feel free to skip if you're not interested in the man to man.

Brian, you have no ides what my emotional state as I write this is. You are on the internet, you can only guess my emotional state at best. The exaggerated use of fuck and other swears as an adverb and/or adjective on occasion for cheap emphasis gives you little to work on. I thank you for pointing out I was using cheap vocabulary and should not be repeating the same adverbs, if I ever need them, but you have no basis to assume my emotions. If I was screaming and angry to the point of absurdity, I would hope you wouldn't start insulting a man who's already escalated to emotional fighting rather than logical argument. I would hope you'd attempt to de-escalate or just walk away rather than return with a series of insults. I'd at least hope you wouldn't act like your being the good guy here. And I would additionally hope you wouldn't insinuate that being angry is something worth insulting. Being angry is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is being sorrowful. Both crying and raising your voice are fine things to do, so long as you don't lose your head. Given how long my posts are I think it's safe to say emotion isnt the basis behind my posts. Even if they were, insulting me for having those emotions instead of my arguments, attacking the emotional verve in which my covabulary is couched, it still an asshole move.