And how is it different from peoples who don't like content creator using DRM to defend their right ?

Seem very arbitrary to me , you don't care about DRM so it's bad and egoistic to complain about them, but on the other side you do care about the whole "threaten to sue" thing so it's OK to find that evil.

The thing is, to my knowledge there is no strong movement to make DRM illegal, so I read SimonG's post as a straw man argument. I don't even see a united DRM-free movement campaigning. It's just as Simon says: a bunch of individuals who don't like DRM for their own reasons, mostly the inconvenience it causes them, and they don't even speak with the same voice, regardless of how many times Simon tries to lump them all together after a few individual comments rub him the wrong way.

He's actually right in most everything he says, but I don't see any point in it. People don't like DRM because it bothers them? So what? Should they like it because it doesn't bother other customers? People are egoistic because they defend their very own interests in business? What's next? Of course they do, the same way as the content creator who put DRM on their work for their very own 'egoistic' reasons. Maybe both are valid, maybe both are irrational. But both are after their own interests of course, since we're talking business.

Sellers and customers have to find a common ground and they can't find it without proper communication. It's up to the sellers to decide whether any criticism is relevant to their business but that doesn't mean that customers should stop communicating their interests just because they might be in the minority. They will always be in the minority and have their interests ignored if they let themselves be discouraged by being a minority and keep their opinions to themselves. And everyone who doesn't agree because they have different interests is free to ignore their opinion, unless they feel threatened by it (but that would disprove the claim that they're an irrelevant minority).

I only came to the point were you brought in the guy rights... it was silly. and it is. I am not saying you are a bad person. I say it was a silly argument.

I support DRM in the same way I support putting locks on my doors and windows. What I don't support is covering my entire house in reinforced steel. The balance between convenience and security is an elusive one but as many gaming companies get it wrong as get it right. It's just the one's that get it wrong that really piss me off and make me want to either not play their games or download a pirated version so I can avoid their annoying security measures. The fact that I can do so with almost every game suggests overly obtrusive and expensive DRM is counter-productive.

What is his position on game companies or publishers that have gone out of business? Does he not concede that at least online activation would be an issue in that case?

.
I agree completely (though I think publishers are generally the ones that decide on DRM, rather than developers). There are lots of companies that don't want me to buy their products or services, and I'm fine with that (it's not like I don't have other choices).

The pirate in me

How Larian ended up self-publishing

Really? I can object to DRM for personal reasons or debate what I think its effect on the industry overall is, or could be. That doesn't mean I expect anyone else to automatically agree with my position, even if I could be bothered to make the argument. For example, even with all the trouble my brother had getting Diablo 3 running, he had no interest in checking out Torchlight, and I did not do more than mention it.

Pirating games is also going outside the customer-creator relationship.

i don't support DRM but i'm well past the point of caring.

i don't mean to be condescending, but i used to argue at great lengths about issues like DRM and DLC. then i grew up.

between studies, courses, exams and jobs the importance of these issues has faded to nil. add to that the fact that DRM has never caused me any problems. why worry about it? i got better things to do.

nowadays i buy any game i like regardless of the client it requires, etc. even the once-dreaded always online requirement has become inconsequential to me. so what if my connection is down for a few hours once a year? i got hundreds of games to play anyway.

Yes, I'm aware of the list.

Around 100 of over 1700 games...mmmhmm. And you still need to authenticate to install them. And the vast majority of those 100 games are indies available DRM-free elsewhere or where DRM was impossible (Flash games for example).

Just because a given game does not use Steam authentication does not mean that Steam authentication is not DRM.

Perhaps the term "Steam authentication" is the issue here. Steamworks does have a DRM component. It's optional, but it's used by a lot of games. If that's what you mean, then maybe I should read what you referred to and see if that's what they talked about -- but I assume it isn't.

If on the other hand you're talking about logging into Steam to download games as being DRM, then you're talking nonsense. It's no different than having to log into GOG to download a game. It's enough to show one Steam game that you can copy to another PC without Steam and run successfully to prove that Steam can function purely as a content delivery system and isn't by itself DRM. Since the list contains such games that's a good enough proof.

I think that for the average user there is a significant difference in effort between uploading a 10MB MP3 file, and uploading a 20GB game.

I could see GOG implementing an automatic updater at some point.

Automatic re-installer, probably not, but I don't mind reinstalling my games if I reformat (which doesn't happen often).

If you know how to do a backup, the main thing you'll lose if GOG goes bankrupt is updates to your games.

So eventually, you'll be dependent on emulation to run your games (which is part of the reason why I'd like to see them support an open-source OS like Linux).

With DRMed online-dependant Steam game (which I'm sure are a significant portion of the games you get on Steam), you become dependent on some third party pirate to crack your game and redistribute it to you (hopefully malware-free) to play your game once their server goes offline.

I'm sure they'll eventually get it done (they have made moves in that direction already).

It's not THAT hard.

I wrote an utility in Python the recursively navigates you GOG directory (with the only requirement being that games be in separate folders) to check for the validity of your installs and goodies against a local database in a couple of hours.

With a week to work with, I'm sure they could code an expansion to their downloader that does the same.

It would just need to:

1) Keep a local DB up-to-date (it only needs to download the entire content of the DB once and then it just needs to get the updates).

2) When the user requests it, recursively navigate his GOG directory and update any installer or goody that is missing or not up to date (it can do it by navigating the pre-established directory structure created by the downloader, but it can also do some 'smart' detection by recognizing the setup files for various games when it recursively navigates the GOG directory).

3) Download missing files and replace obselete ones with the new version (their downloader does this part already).

Voilà. Not that complicated.

nobody stops you from backing up your steam games either, if you know how to do a backup....

DRM is ineffective and generally punishes paying customers while failing to thwart pirates. As such it is a waste of money and also hurts sales as some customers will avoid titles with DRM, particularly the most inconvenient forms of it.

The guy the OP speaks of sounds like someone who enjoys argument for its own sake and his own need to try and feel superior to others which is probably founded in actual feelings of inadequacy on his part. It is a waste of time to argue with such a person. They are not open to any ideas other than their own. I would tell him something along the lines of the above and finish it with, "I think we need to agree to disagree. It is clear I am not going to persuade you to see the reality of the situation."

anyway, if steam fails I am sure they will remove the drm on the games as they have stated several times

I'm sure they'll eventually get it done.

It's not THAT hard

Right, but many need a server to run (or at least install, or activate or whatever).

What good is your backup to you when the server they require is no longer there?

Why?

If they go bankrupt, their creditors will have them by the balls and they are more valuable to their creditors with DRM on than off.

Also, talk is cheap.

What ties them to their promise if they go bankrupt?

The goodwill of their customers? Doesn't matter, they are closing down.

A lawsuit? That's only if their statement to remove the DRM is legally binding (which I doubt). And even if it is, get in line behind the creditors if you intend to launch a lawsuit.

Please, let's not be naive.

It's already hard to make most people honor their promises that are hard to keep and these are people, not corporations that look at their bottom-line first.