I'd say that NO ONE wants DRM! It is something that only benefits some companies by giving them control. The problem is that there are lots of people that ignore the issue, and that gives staying power to DRM.

Am I the only one who can see some analogy between the DRM-Free'ers and the Free Software movement?

I would put up with a delayed DRM-Free release, and even a price increase (if you really want to own it, it will cost you extra). But I suppose the big players don't want you to find out there are alternatives. You may actually start questioning things.

That seems quite pertinent. Let me see... there is the second-hand market. There is the remote-disable of copies that do not follow their rules (running modified or unpatched). There is the mandatory running environment (you must/must not have this hardware and/or software to run). And the limited number of activations.

There are even people who would rather have DRM for all the features Steam offers. That is despite said features can be replicated in far better implementations than Steam will ever do. I suppose they're the ones holding us back.

As I said, some suits use DRM to cover their incompetence (i.e. as a job security), which means they don't care how it affects profits, as long as they keep their positions.

Something doesn't fit here. Are you saying that major publishes don't want to use GOG because of logistics overhead, while independent studios are OK with it? If anything, independent studios have way less spare resources than big publisher funded ones, and they have to go through the same exact logistics overhead. Using your logic, indies should be less likely on GOG, yet the opposite is the case.

Simple. DRM doesn't prevent piracy (it's broken and same stuff is pirated ever since with pirates never dealing with that DRM anymore). However it does annoy actual legitimate users who pay, which means that those who use DRM actually are getting less sales, because some people are irritated enough by this trash and avoid it altogether.

That one always gets to me. I've read time and time again over at the Steam forums that many do not mind the Steam DRM ("it's just a one-time online activation!" or "I'm always online anyway!") or that, unbelievably, Steam itself ISN'T even DRM. It's just sad that so many would readily accept this.

Some in this thread have claimed that recent AAA titles aren't important, or that there are plenty of fun indie games here so we don't need to care about AAA titles. As much as I love games from smaller studios, they're not going to be pulling much of the Steam accounts here. As long as this is true, the corporate suits will see that the big money is still in Steam (or their own service with DRM), the vast majority will remain on Steam, and the status quo will stay.

I really do wish there was a way to expedite the decline of Steam and growth of GOG so that we start seeing some big-shot AAA titles DRM-free that aren't half a decade old.

Heh. And once you argue about how Steam is DRM, they'll brag about their small tiny weeny list of DRM-free games to try and prove their point. Ironically though, its a weak way to prove their point that Steam isn't DRM.

If you make a so called 'backup' of a Steam game, it will ask for an internet and your account. Doesn't matter whether the game is DRM-free or not. Some of those 'DRM-free' games when launched separate on a computer with Steam installed, will just launch the Steam in-game interface as if it doesn't care about you. Finally, Steam itself is DRM. It provides developers a lazy, ineffective way to stop pirates (read: a very short fence that you don't even need to jump over if you're a pirate!) from pirating the game. It also just so happens it can screw the customers no matter what (read: you can trip over the short fence if you're very careless; or want to stay legit without daring to step over it). Leave them be. Leave them destroy PC gaming while we cherish what we have left of proper PC gaming. Just because they have internet always, doesn't mean their internet will not go down, and doesn't mean Steam will always be up.

/rant

That is in fact not true: You need the client to install the games, There is no seperate download for installation. Even if some games could be started without the client, it doesn't make a difference at all. Steam was DRM from the beginning, is it now and will always stay the same. And there is no reason to bind on that, being literally a "slave" to a platform. :-) If GOG decides doing the same I'll be gone here, but I have the installers downloaded and saved. I can use them for now and also in the future without having any boundaries to an account.

And just a general notice: GOG was never comparable to Steam and should not also in the future. So saying to all people here for wishing more features like Steam: STOP making this platform just a simple clone, use therefore your beloved Steam-client. There is no problem staying here and having fun with the games but the basic principles should stay untouched.

Incidentally this is a concern I have with GOG Galaxy, and why I don't want to use it. It seems to me like a steam-ish clone, albeit without the DRM prison attached, and I don't like that. I just want to download, install and play the game. I don't give a flying pig's arse about asocial networking, achievements and all that other crap. I just want to play the darn thing without all that other noise.

Thankfully it works fine to download games now with a download manager, but I think it's a shame they have discontinued the GOG Downloader, and I worry GOG Galaxy won't be a "choice" in the future. The way the site has been redesigned already makes it a little disingenious.

Also incidentally however, the main point of Galaxy is that they want it to be so good that you'll use it, not to force you to use it. Achievements and social networking and all that mumbo jumbo can be disabled (just not right now in this beta). The selling point of Galaxy is that its optional and you're not forced to use it. Fortunately, the GOG Downloader isn't the only method to download games from GOG, as they also provide traditional downloads from your browser.

The overhead cost is not the same to large publishers and indie devs, so your assumption there is incorrect (reasonable, but incorrect). 3 reasons:

1: Opportunity Cost.
A large publisher can have staff working on getting new games out the door, or supporting the long tail of old games. New games typically make more money than old games, and the entire industry revolves around new games, publishers typically think new > old regardless of which games are involved, and view all staff not working on new games as a problem. This includes admin/management and lawyers.

2: Contract Vetting
Large publishers have their own process all contracts need to go through and can't just accept GOG boilerplate. An indie dev can contact GOG and get the game released using GOG standard boilerplate, while large publishers need to have all contracts vetted to be sure it doesn't disrupt other distribution agreements, etc. It's like supply vetting on other industries. Even if another supplier may have a material slightly cheaper, it's not worth the trouble to follow market prices for materials if the cheaper supplier hasn't already been vetted and approved, because the cost and time to process a new supplier is large.

3: Lost The Files/Rights Problems
An indie dev has all of their game materials right there. You wouldn't believe how many large studios don't track source code much past release, much less know who all has rights to which parts of the game. All of that needs to be straightened out for each game regardless of how new it is. Steam is ironically helping with this because gamers now expect updates and bug fixes instead of just a CD release that's pretty final, so studios are keeping modern game files around. But those still need to be tracked down, and all the parties with rights contacted, and it's a huge hassle (ties into #2 above, kind of).

TL;DR Indie devs have much, much less overhead than large publishers, which makes releasing on niche distributors feasible for them where it costs too much to be profitable for larger publishers.

actually, no, you are wrong.... either it is DRM or it is not. If you can even get only 1 single DRM free game from Steam, it proves that Steam in itself is not DRM... The size of the list does not matter, what matters is whether it works or not. You can argue that there should be more DRM free games delivered via Steam, or argue about the definition of DRM, but as soon as you acknowledge that there is a tiny weeny list of DRM free games on Steam, then ergo you can get DRM free games via Steam and Steam is not DRM.

The DRM Steam make use of is called Custom Executable Generation (CEG) and yes - most games on Steam make use of it. However, even if most people do, it do not mean that it is not possible to have DRM free games on Steam. (and I am not talking about using Steams back-up features, but the games which you can copy over to computers which have not got Steam installed, and do not have interne tconection and still works).

But this is an age old discussion, and I guess that even knowing this fact it going to change anything.

(and I am not sure what was ironic about your argument?)

AAA Game companies don't like gog. It conflicts with there interests. Maybe old ancient games they might allow. New ones forget it. I'm with you Op I don't buy DRMed games. I did in the passed but I fixed that problem. Today most games are crap out of the box and broken. I don't even want to start with DLCs and micro transactions inanities.

But as long as people foolishly support these groups they will thrive.

Fear not gog will grow. Because one day those current AAA games will be on here sooner or later.. Just might take a few years :P

You do know AAAs are the source of money, right?

And crap out of the box and broken are closely associated with indies, not AAAs. For every 1 broken AAA, there are 100 broken indies figuratively speaking.

No Indies games I don't expect them to have flawless games.. I expect them to have a few bumps. However AAA brands is different. They have the resources to make games properly and choose to cut corners and speed production in the interest of $$$.. So its quantity over quality. Indie is a different mechanism. I don't compare apples and oranges. :)

And for the last 10 years many of the games released by AAA are shit. Only thing favoring them is there sound and graphics over indie. I prefer an indie game because I know what I'm getting. Where as AAA are a cheating lie.

Never the less Gog will dominate all games sale here sooner or laterz muhahhaaa... ;)

It is ironic because Steam's DRM-free games are that tiny weeny of a list anyways. But no, since Steam uses backups as a standard for 'reinstallations', and to store game data offline while also unpacking it to a fresh condition, it still doesn't change that the DRM-free game in question still needs to be restored via Steam, and also to do that, might as well have an account owning said game. That means that if I want to achieve a state of fresh installation with a DRM-free Steam game, I can't without having to rely on Steam, that or take the game out of the DRM service without all of the registry keys and the ability to repair the game later using an existing installation. One wrong bump and there goes your DRM-free status with the game. At least here on GOG, I can install the game via GOG Galaxy or let it or another external downloader download the installer and have the ability to properly install a game on my person all the time.