That's a fair argument but it's not the same for everyone. For me for example, if I'd lose the opportunity to digitally download my games, I'd rebuy them elsewhere (cheap), whether I have no-DRM copies or not. My main purpose for buying is the digital backup, so no-DRM isn't a plus for me, unless it removes obnoxious drm (to me) like Always Online or non regenerating Machine limits.
Funny how people keep saying this yet you do not OWN anything, even when you buy from GOG. What you do have is more control. However you still just bought a license to use that copy under certain terms, like only using the copy for yourself. You're not allowed to do anything you want with it, like selling it, hence you do not OWN it.

Actually you can download the installer file and save it to any external hard drive. Installs without any login or internet connection. Game = owned for life.

Can you do that with Steam? Save installers and run them outside of the client without a net connection?

You should really check facts before you irrationally defend Steam by bending the truth every which way possible.

What the hell is wrong with Steamheads? Does Gabe have pictures of you guys on the toilet or something? How hard is it to accept the fact that Steam is not perfect?

Now that you're blatantly lying about how GOG offers products to its customers, you should stop posting.

Oh, and guess what? When everyone bought CD-ROM games you weren't supposed to do whatever you wanted with those either.

And for your other point, GOG is the same form of digital backup as Steam. Do you think that GOG only allows one download per purchase or something? You can download your GOG games as many times as you want and install them onto all of your owned computers.

Honestly, you're completely full of shit on this but can't admit it because OMG STEAM GABEN.

Good lord. You're the one who hasn't a clue. Read my post with some reading comprehension because you obviously didn't understand a word.

At this point, you're the one who seems to be lost in your Steam focus to actually concentrate on what I'm saying.

No. You need to read, son. You're spreading lies on here.

Can you do ANYTHING with your Steam games? No. So your point is erroneous.

Stop trying to bend the truth. You're just making a fool of yourself.

Once more, GOG lets you download the installer and keep it. You can use it however you want within your ownership. And it's always there for you to download again and again.

How hard is that for you to understand, Steamhead?

I assume the Steamhead is supposed to be some kind of insult. It's quite interesting to see what kind of animosity Steam seems to stir in you.

Just because you have more control over the copy you get from GOG, doesn't mean you own it. Just because they can't take that copy back, doesn't mean you own it. It just means they have no way to enforce their license agreements. But those license agreements are still there. No matter how much you think you 'own' this copy, you do not have the right to sell it, you do not even have the right to lend it to your friends. You *can* do it, but you don't have the right to.

Is it sinking in yet?

And don't tell me that doesn't matter, because if you really believe that then why are you buying it, and not pirating it? Because that's the only difference you know. The pirated version is exactly the same. The same exact installer, that you have, on your own HD, fully under your control. The only difference between that, and legally having access to the game, is the license.

The same license agreements exist for physical goods, smart guy. You have the right to use that product within your home, on your computers, without 3rd party intervention. You have a license to full personal use.

GOG qualifies this description. Steam doesn't.

There's no animosity. I'm just perplexed at your lack of fundamental logic and ignorance of facts.

By your definition none of us truly own anything. You're twisting this into a philosophical, ancient question of "what is ownership?" to sustain your gasping argument. You're interpreting ownership literally.

"Well, the only real owners are the people that developed the product then, eh? Then nobody owns anything. Then Steam and GOG degrees of ownership are no different."

That's the broken (lack of) logic you're using, and it's laughably bad and wrong.

Edit-never mind.
this thread is really horrible though

In the US the courts have held that we both "own" it and can sell it to our friends. It may or may not work that way across the Atlantic, but the case law is fairly clear. The only restriction is making additional copies and distributing them (with limited exceptions).

I see. So you're saying US citizens can sell their GOG games?

On top of that, I assume that any game you *download* is strictly speaking already a copy, so I doubt you have any right to sell/distribute that.

God. The same Steam con and pro's again...... ;)

Really, it's the same you say. Then will you be selling your games when you're done with them? Because that's what people with physical products usually do when they're done with them, or need money. Often sold to or by collectors.

I highly doubt it.

So where this 'the same' ownership you were talking about before included selling the product, with a GOG product that has suddenly gone out the window. It's already different. You're just conveniently leaving out the part that *you* don't care about, but regardless of that, it's not the same.

Basically people buying here at GOG have already pretty much given up their right to sell the game. They won't. Because no one will buy it, because you're not supposed to, as per the site's agreement. (whether that stands up in court or not).

That's a nuance difference that you just simply ignore here, yet is very real.

In the same way for me, I ignore the fact that control of my games is not 100% mine, if I leave it on a digital download. Because for me, all I care about is having access to it, from a digital download spot, when I need it. For me that's enough.

And the nuance difference there, is that the copy can, under special circumstances, possibly not be accessed or even taken away if I do stuff I shouldn't be doing anyway.

But the point here is, that from the point of 'owning' it on CD, to 'owning' it on Steam. It's just nuance differences. They're just different levels of ownership, none of them are complete ownership of the product.

And yes, this is about 'owning' something. The word owning. You simply don't.

What you're talking about is control. And the different levels of control you have over what you bought, and yes in that sense I'll easily agree that Onlive gives you far less control over your copy than Steam, just as Steam gives you far less control over your copy than GOG, just like GOG gives you less control over your copy than Retail.

What was the subject again? ;-) Just my two cents here, as I have read through many of these types of discussions in other forums across the internet, and always refrained from comment. Trying to do my best to express my views, without resorting to name calling, and belittling others, I can say both sides have valid points. What it is seems to boil down to, is indeed "control" of the product/license after you have made your purchase. IMO, and in my case, this is what is most important. I for instance have a seperate computer that I built a few years ago that is dedicated exclusively to gaming..offline. This computer in fact doesn't even have the ability to go "online". I have no Anti-virus, or other protection oriented software. The result is a computer that runs games with practically no crashes and conflicts. Because of this, I will not buy games that need online verification/activation, or need to be online constantly "just to play". Will I miss out on some cool, and enjoyable games due to this? I am sure I will, but there are plenty of games available (mostly older, and now and again some newer games) to be played in the "old school" manner I prefer....offline.

The limit of my DRM tolerance was "disc check", and some this even became a bit too intrusive for my liking. Thanks to GOG, I have been able to get versions of favorite games of mine, to free myself of even this, without having to visit questionable sites searching for crack. In short, say what you want, or believe what you want to believe, but Steam, and such sites are indeed just another form of DRM, that I personally have no dersire to deal with. For those that don't mind, knock yourselves out, you're not going to hear me tell you not to buy there. As for me personally, when I buy a game, I like knowing that I still have the game available to load on a new computer, play on my laptop (where I may have no internet access), and reload on my gaming computer in the future (because I have copied it to disc or an external hard drive) even if GOG disappears some day, or I just can't access it for some reason.

To sum up...yes, this is actually control, but in my mind, this is as close to actually "owning" the game as is legally possible. I can basically do what I want with it (within the licensing aggreement of course) theoretically till the end of time. Steam, or for that matter, even most games available on disc these days with their intrusive activation and DRM schemes just don't cut it for me. For others though, it's the old "Mind over Matter" axiom, if you don't mind, then it don't matter. Nuff said....

This I can certainly agree with. I'm basically just highlighting that ownership when it comes to licenses is not a strict, single term. It means different things to different people, and even changes depending on the situation. Basically it's simply subjective.

And yes, I can certainly see where something like GOG with the no-DRM installers will give a sense of control to the point where people feel secure they 'own' it.

I'm basically just saying that people are getting used to owning games in different ways. GOG is not the same as a CD. A CD/DVD had more value since it's generally accepted as a method with a used sales market (or did at least till the advent of single use CD-keys etcetera). A GOG game however has no resale value, nor am I even completely convinced you have a right to, since selling the complete product would mean selling the account as well, else you're just selling a copy. And the account I assume is classified as a service, which is something you can't 'sell'.

And where GOG is not the same as owning a game on CD, Steam is not the same as owning a game on CD nor GOG. And I fully recognize the actual loss of control is something that rubs many people the wrong way. But to me it's simply yet another different form of owning a game. The loss of control doesn't bother me much since it has never affected me, and I doubt it will unless I do something severe to make it happen.

Who knows, this might be because I've played MMO's for over a decade for instance, where as soon as you activated your game, you really didn't have a game to sell anymore. (legally), just a box and a CD.

According to US law, yes we can. Though clearly the onus is on you to not do anything to violate copyright while doing so (such as keeping a copy for yourself).

I understand it's not that way in some parts of the world but the courts have always held that if it looks like a sale of property, it is a sale of property with all attendant rights. The courts have only made one exception of which I'm aware regarding the purchase of business software to a businessman, who is presumably more sophisticated and the court did hold the EULA to be more like a contract in that single case (circuit court, though, it's not binding in any other circuits though could be used as precedent if the case circumstances can be argued to be similar).

And pretty much, yes, your "copy" is yours to do with as you please, just as your copy of a movie on DVD or book on a dead tree is. Really, in the US it's not nearly as complicated and business friendly as you make it out to be. Nothing in those cases specifically excluded digital goods. To change it case law would have to be made to show that digital goods were sufficiently different and should be treated differently. No one in content wants to try to show that if they can help it, it'd be a very hard, up hill battle.

Then what are you selling exactly? The copy you downloaded, as I mentioned, is merely a copy. If you sell it, by burning it and then selling it or anything similar, then you're basically copying and distributing something, since you still have access to the original on your account on GOG. Unless you say you can sell that, but can you? Disregarding the fact that it would be impossible to sell any game individually on an account that has all your games, is it legal to sell an account to a service? (curiosity, not sure how it worked with MMO's for instance) And if you were to try, what's the likelyhood GOG is within it's right to end that service?

Edit: I see you mentioned the keeping a copy yourself part but that's the rub here then isn't it. Although you may have a right to sell your digital 'copy' if that were the only copy, I'm not sure have the right to sell your GOG account. (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be happy with you selling your GOG games either ^^)