And exactly how that doesn't qualify as DRM?

He's talking about an entirely optional client that does these things. You would still be free to use the DRM-free downloads without using the client.

The Witcher 2 tried that. It got a massive community backslash for having DRM. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, just stating what's happened.

Oh boy - I am so glad you did not read the rest of my post, and made sure you did not quote it either. Just to say it again, and this is a fact (read - my opinion). You can keep you facts (read - your opinions) to yourself as we will never agree on this, and whatever I say you will take out of context like you usually do.

"There are more, but low level DRM make every single one of these EASIER, before you say anything, yes it is possible to do them without DRM, but with it can be automated, made easy and much more user friendly and convenient."

Define DRM. I am not sure I agree with him that it is not DRM. But as I see it the difference between DRM and the copy protection we all know from the 90s like disc checks is that DRM manages the access to a piece of software. It manages what rights various users have to it as control by the copyright holder. I am don't immediately see how requiring an account for a cloud saving system is DRM on the game. It is an account for an online service. It doesn't stop you from installing the game on a 1000 PCs and to run it on all of them simultaneously. It doesn't stop you from running it offline. It doesn't authenticate or verify any of the files of the game.

Edit:
I am not totally certain either way, but the more I think about it the more I tend to think it isn't Digital Rights/Restrictions Management since no rights/restrictions are being managed but a service is being offered.

It's still DRM as you need to log in somewhere so some client can check if you own the game with server, and you need to do this to get full functionality. If it's DRM free, than it doesn't check anything, it just allows you to sync it, then anyone can use it, even those who didn't pay for it.

I think it's ine of primary reasons why GOG doesn't offer it at the first place.

I read it but it doesn't change anything, DRM doesn't make it any easier... it has absolutely nothing to do with it; if you had said "having a client make those thing easier" then yes I would have agreed, but DRM or not doesn't change anything.

By that logic, the GOG downloader is DRM as it requires you to login to use it.

You're now talking about the DRM of the -client- rather than the DRM of the games.

Well I wasn't part of those discussions and I don't think I would have been part of the backlash. I can only speak for myself though.

It's not, as you can get full functionality without it.

No it's not "full functionality", it's only some optional features that you can decide to use or not.

What about the downloader that only let you to download games you own ? Following your theory it would means that it should allows you to download all GoG games and not just the one you own otherwise it would mean GoG's games are now longer DRM-free.

because you need to keep track on your software to do so. You need to manage your software at then end point. You need your software to verify itself. This is all easier with DRM if you want it automated. You can do this yourself, if you want to, then it is without DRM.

From what I remember there was confusion about updates and free DLC only being available through the updater, which was somewhat concerning. Eventually it happened that they were all released on their own as well, and I for one stopped caring, but it was confusing at first.

It seems you are using a different definition of DRM and some of us.