Depends on whether the game in question will not need any sorts of reinstallations by Steam itself later down the road. As I said before, a game could rely on registry keys in a way that basically makes zipping the game itself a non-attractive option. Before you say these games are unlikely, may I present you with Sonic Generations.

Sure, Sonic Generations is a DRM'd game, but every time I reinstall my Windows, it throws up an error... that is up until I let Steam repair the game, only after adding the path to the game folder and the likes. That wasn't really attractive so I decided to delete the game. I am sad for its loss though. But it still proves some game out there might rely on Steam to install properly for a fresh operating system, so simply zipping them for future usage isn't enough.

Also another factor I'd like to put is that the store itself doesn't list whether games require the Steam client open or can be opened without. So if a new game XYZ was released on Steam, how do you know if its DRM-free or DRM'd with Steam? Through guesswork. Not very nice. Steam can tell you that Assassin's Creed X has Uplay DRM, but they don't tell you that Sonic Generations requires Steam DRM, or that Shantae Risky's Revenge is DRM-free.

I don't see how this differs between publisher funded or independent studios. Both can be working on different projects simultaneously, both can support older releases and so on. And indies have less resources for all of that, so it's not an argument why publisher funded are less likely to use GOG.

This can be playing a role, if big publishers are too drowned in bureaucracy. But if they can't handle releases swiftly - it's their own problem. They'll lose to more nimble competition.

We are talking mostly about new releases, so rights are usually quite well known here. Old games is a different case, I agree.

If they need steam, then they are not DRM free... and you need to find an example for DRM free games on Steam which is not... umm... DRM'd... your example does not actually prove anything, and make the rest of the post a bit pointless.
so a game is only drm free or drm'd depending on whether or not the store states so? How does this change the actual game files and requirements? Does it make it cumbersome - yes, is it DRM - no.

No, you missed the point. Said DRM-free game could work without Steam on this PC right after they installed and all. But then what if I reinstall Windows or move the game to another PC? Maybe then the game could break, namely because it relies on registry keys and the likes, which are installed on-download with Steam. That's not the point being delivered. The game is DRM-free if it can be played without the client in question no matter how the store states it, however, you still need guesswork to make up the list of DRM-free games on which DRM-free purchases are built and established upon. That makes Steam in my vision more of a DRM method, while only offering a few games DRM-free, and even not trying to help you in that decision.

Also I just thought of it, your initial example could work the other way around too. Since Steam hosts DRM'd titles that rely on the Steam client and your Steam account, then Steam itself is DRM. Sure the games have the DRM in, but its like only half the entire package; the other half lies in Steam itself, completing the DRM package altogether.

But then isn't really convenient. I have to decode the info manually and such, not really nice. Yes, that does not change that DRM-free games can be gotten there, but that doesn't change that Steam itself is DRM. CEG is useless by itself; it needs to rely on another program to actually be of the use it was intended for. That program is Steam. And then Steam by itself is useless alone, so it needs that the games have DRM that supports it added. Hence why Steam is DRM.

but does it make it DRM?

sigh.... CEG games can not run without CEG. DRM free Steam games can run without Steam. Ergo, Steam is not the DRM - CEG is.

As for that, no. But I want convenience that my DRM-free game is secured via a proper installation. By convenient, I mean an installer or a zip that will work on any PC I throw said game at. And not the new convenient where it means click download and watch it take ages to finish. Haaaaah. CEG games have half of the protection, relying on Steam for the other half, and Steam happily does its part as the second half of the DRM, including checking whether the account you're signed in to in question owns the game or not. If not, The CEG game terminates and Steam loads the webpage of the game and prompts you to buy. That sounds pretty DRM-ish here.

Let's agree to disagree here though.

Just to make one thing clear:

The bolded and underlined part is exactly what I do with the DRM free Steam games :)


edit - and I am just going to add (because it irks me...) - if Steam was DRM, then you could not run Steam games without it. You can run some games without Steam, ergo Steam is not DRM in itself.

I'm a bit annoyed, that gog-gamers are an afterthought especially for the big publishers.

I'm sure when Elder Scrolls 6 releases, Bethesda will be like: "What's with that other platform... ogg, no... gog, right? Let's fob them off with Oblivion, let's say for 20€, they will be happy and we got extra money for nothing."

Same goes for Heroes of Might and Magic. If we're lucky, we get HoMM6 the next months, now that HoMM7 is released; or we have to wait for the 8th game before we get a gog Version of HoMM6.

I think this distinction is confusing and misleading. Yes, some games on Steam are kind of DRM free, although I would actually want more checks that they all really only need to be zipped and run out of the box on any other system and do not need any installation.

But of course nearly most or all of the AAA games, which certainly make the biggest part of the profit, are not DRM free on Steam. You cannot just zip them.

Calling that not DRM is misleading. Calling Steam DRM is for all practical purposes quite a good approximation.

But if we want to be more accurate why not saying: Steam is DRM but it is turned off for a few rather less popular games. I'd be totally fine with that.

Disagree completely with your argument.

While it's true AAAs have resources, but they have more complex mechanics and coding into them. It's bound to be problematic. Diablo 3 had horrible launch, but now it's smooth as butter. How many disastrous Indies can do that? Many AAAs, just as many indies.

And I enjoy AAAs more than Indies. It's a matter of preferences between you and me.

Tell it to WB and their supposedly multi-million release of the last Batman which was ugly broken and riddled with bugs. Not sure what you call AAA, but initial meaning of the term was quality: [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry)]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry)[/url] and quality is not something guaranteed, whether it's coming from a publisher or independent studio.

Anyway, today the term AAA is pretty useless, because it can mean different things. Some mean big budget games by it, others mean publisher funded. Which leaves the rest puzzled, should big budget games developed by independent studios be called AAA or not (for example Witcher 3 or Star Citizen)? And then there is the quality meaning as I brought above. So, it's better not to use this term altogether, and explain what you mean instead (big budget, publisher funded or high quality).

And it's fixed. I've been playing it no problem. Heck, I did 100% story mode. Zero crash during my experience. Sure it was horrible Batman at launch, but they patched it. Do you even have the game to even say anything? Or is it just taken from people's bitching and moaning?

I red reports, ranging from mocking game's pathetic bugs to people raging about wasting their money on such broken game. It doesn't matter much to me anyway - I'm not playing DRMed games and brought it as a counter example to the claim that publisher funded games have hight quality expectancy.

Fixed later, but horribly broken at release time. So surely it didn't have any acceptable quality then. It was simply garbage. Most games are fixed if developers continue working on them. And it's not uncommon that independent studios do it longer than publisher funded ones, who push for dropping older titles even if they are half baked in order to push some new "hot" mass market thing.

My point is, that today publisher funded development nowhere guarantees quality, and even big budget doesn't. And I don't only mean technical quality, but even more so artistic. Mass market approach of publishers dilutes art, restricts authors vision in order to get more profits and so on. So going back to the point I brought above, what should be called "AAA"? And how useful is that term? I find it useless. When I evaluate a game I look at its qualities and not at how much budget it used.