Where do I "look at the stock trades of the main founders"?

That (in conjunction with certain other things) would be strong 'evidence' of monetary greed by them.

It really bugs me how people don't quite understand the meaning of DRM. Content for a game being exclusively available through Galaxy or being able to purchase games from another platform through Galaxy, that isn't DRM. It's really ridiculous to slap "DRM" onto any particular business practice we don't like. It not only cheapens the warnings against actual DRM but it's just blatantly ignorant.

DRM is "digital rights management". It's when a company only leases you the rights to a game. It's when a company outright forces you to use a game client just to play a game. It's when a company has the rights to give or take a game or its addon content away from you at a whim.

You may not like the stuff you've linked to. I'm not necessarily saying that I like it either. However, that doesn't make it DRM. This is as ridiculous as the people that complain about having to log in to a separate account to play certain games' multiplayer. They use the DRM tag to describe their grievance against such a thing but again, that is such a misnomer and it's quite absurd overall.

That "addon" content was a jacket, sword and other completely unnecessary stuff. It was a reward to thank the loyal fans, particularly ones that use their client. People act as if it's such a tragedy to use Galaxy (which is STILL optional) when it's actually a fantastic client. Furthermore, a jacket, sword and plushie hardly constitute DRM.

What you describe is exactly the speech that we denounce. To say that it's okay because it's just a t-shirt and a sword is an argument that is not an argument. It is not the content that is criticized but the principle, the method. It's like those who say: it's not important if Facebook is monitoring me, I have nothing to hide... again, this has been described several times: it doesn't matter if the content is important or not, what is harmful is the lock that prevents access to this content. And the Gog client is great or not, that is not the question.

It absolutely is an argument. It's a reward to those who actually give Galaxy 2.0 a fair shot (which, let's be honest, most GOG users don't). If you can't live without a jacket, two t-shirts, a sword and plushie, that's not their problem, it'd be your own for utterly refusing to even give Galaxy 2.0 a shot. That still doesn't qualify it as DRM. Also, using the privacy argument is an invalid comparison. Literally NO harm can come from you using Galaxy or at least hopping onto it just to claim the rewards, whereas a lack of privacy can cause a whole plethora of issues these days.

Look, whether you like this or not is irrelevant. It's not DRM to reward Galaxy users with low-level cosmetic items that are rendered obsolete within an hour of playing the game. It may be something you don't like but something you don't like does not equal DRM. That is what I take issue with here: people don't understand DRM or the very real dangers it poses because "DRM" has become a blanket term for every business model/multiplayer framework/whatever that people don't like. Frankly, I find that to not only be very irksome but it's also just ignorant.

If I recall correctly, when GOG introduced user profiles for everyone (here on the website) which are connected to Galaxy, the profiles were not only public by default but included the option to search a user by their email address. If the user was playing on Galaxy, and racking up all these stats for their profile, and used the same email for GOG as they did elsewhere for personal/work, someone could easily search them and find this information. It is not difficult to think up hypothetical situations of how this could be harmful; perhaps someone was gaming when they should have been working, perhaps someone is now facing an angry partner wondering why they spent so much time on GOG when they should have been doing x,y,z. When you say "literally NO harm" can come from Galaxy and the way it is designed to share everything, you are quite mistaken and should immediately retract such a statement for its blatant falsehood now that you have been called on it. And all of the problems of situations I just explained is even BEFORE we reach any privacy concerns on GOG's side of things (other than their opting people in automatically to the profiles).

Additionally, using Galaxy, yes, even just hopping onto it to claim the rewards, is a different type of data GOG can use aside from privacy concerns. By using Galaxy, GOG/shareholders can now justify counting you as a "Galaxy user" in making decisions going forward and in taking further steps towards the issues we are justifiably complaining about in these topics. In other words they can say, "the offline installer users are just a very very small minority and even many of those who use offline installers also are willing to use Galaxy." Whether they are accurate in assessing customers' desires is besides the point; think of it like a lawyer making an argument, twisting any possible fact into a way that favors their case. Better yet, think of voting (if this analogy is allowed, otherwise mods can delete this portion of my post). Even when people have the option of write-in votes, and write in their own name, "no one" or, "yo mama", the political class can still spin the raw numbers as people participating in the process and use it to justify the system they are pushing on everyone.

Don't think for a second that GOG/shareholders won't use any excuse possible to funnel more people to Galaxy. In fact, the Galaxy links everywhere and the hiding away of offline installers proves that. If when it originated (or should I say Origin-inated), Galaxy was so great and so desired, it should have been left to stand on its own without all this artificial "help" to its visibility.

Yes. GOG faced a shit-storm back then and had to paddle back to make the profiles private by default and offer the option to deactivate them.

GOG, like any other company, wants to have full control over their customers and their data. The days of 'mutual trust' are long gone.

Firstly, there is an obvious inconsistency in what you wrote above. I have highlighted it, to give you a hint.

Secondly, what you wrote is your definition of DRM. Other people use different definitions, since there is no universally agreed definition of 'DRM'. For me, DRM is any game content that is locked behind a requirement to connect to a remote server. Your definition is no more 'right' than mine is - it's just different. You don't get to unilaterally decide what definition of DRM everyone else should be using.

Third: there is a flaw in your definition. You say "It's when a company outright forces you to use a game client just to play a game." How do you define 'the game'? What about a situation where only part of the game content is locked? Let's say 3% of the content of a single-player game is locked, but the rest isn't - is that DRM? It is not as black and white as 'either the whole game is locked or it's not'. A good definition of DRM needs to cover the tricky greyer cases in between, where only part of the content may be locked.

There is a difference between DRM (Digital Rights Management) and DRMTJFCA (Digital Rights Management That Jacob Fel Cares About), This thread is about the former.

Rewarding Galaxy users may not necessarily "be DRM". The way this rewarding is done however is DRMed. If for example it would be treated like a DLC that you get as a Galaxy user which would come with its offline installer then those CP2077 cosmetics(*) wouldnt be DRMed. That is however not the case. Even if you already 'own' those cosmetics and want to install CP2077 on an offline machine with the offline installers you simply cant. Thats a clear and easilly recognizable symptom of DRM.
So obviously those cosmetics are DRMed.
(And whether they are useful to you or how long they are useful to you, me or anybody else doesnt change any of that.)

(*) The cosmetics themselves, not meaning CP2077.

And it's still quite a nasty joke to have DRM on a T-shirt celebrating DRM-free... That's like a real leather jacket celebrating veganism.

A lot of good points and I have my own problems with Epic.

I was going to and was excited to buy "Control", thinking it was DRM-Free but then hearing I had to use the Epic or Galaxy installer to open it so I can run it in the 1st place I find unaccptable.

I don't want Epic getting my money if I can help it given their relationship with Tencent whom I LOATHE trying to get their hands in my pocket through games or movies in some way,, be it shares with games or co-productions with movie companies like Sony, Constantin or Paramount. I don't think I need to tell you why I have concerns about this and why it may be justified. The other note is I HATE how Epic doesn't just charge to license Unreal but gets ROYALTIES on EVERY game sold. Please devs. get away from Unreal and use MT Framework, Unity or anything else if you can or Epic will suck you dry.

I gave up on that. I give Netflix my monthly contribution and access their huge repertoire.

I pay far less for my movies/TV shows under this model than if I "owned" it, which is fair as the movie/TV industry are too much a bunch of control freaks to let me own anything (closest you get to that is buying a bluray/DVD and then navigating the murky waters of ripping the content off it. it can be a lot of work).

Its bad for preservation, but at least its fair and honest.

What isn't fair or honest is if I pay ownership prices for a rental experience (which is pretty much the only thing you can legally get if you opt for anything other than paying one of the Streamers a monthly contribution to access their collection) so I just don't do it.

With covid, movie theaters may never recover and streaming services (which pays them a fraction of what movie theaters or the ownership model pays per unit of content produced) will probably be their most viable source of revenue in not too long. I have no pity for them. They deserve what they are getting. Fight for my pennies fools.

I do in the sense this is the riches way to try killing the last strong tool against them to organize against them. Movie theaters are the last affordable mass group gatherings and the rich scum want it dead as strong bonds can form and keep this way.
First they came for the single wage earner households but protests still happened when the worker was treated unfairly so then they destroyed that by making 2 income household necessary but it still happened That didn't work so they made them too busy and nervous to bury them in debt. This didn't work so they realized the last thing left, community, and there was no one in enough numbers so they gathered up who were left in the US and you see it now.
I'll also take oowning something over this NeoFeudalist crap over an entire subscription model the goons of the Financial Times are espousing on behalf of the greedy elites.