Not with GOG currently, but the example you want to see exists... right in germany ... the unknown gamesload.de.

http://www.telekom.de/dlp/agb/pdf/40310.pdf
3.1.1. b (freely translated)
- you can sell your game to somebody else (except EA games) as long as you delete the software and all copies on your side

and further
- every second-hand buyer can get new activations if he asks for them

Simple and clean and better than GOG.

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you... of course I can burn one my GOG games to a DVD and sell it to someone else, I don't have to do it to prove my point.

Well, I can tell you that GOG offers more convenience that I've seen in quite a while.

The games bloody work (compared to even just a decade ago in PC gaming history and some of GOG's games date further back) and the downloading process is automated now.

If they can polish their downloader so that it can track down updates for you (without having to access your library on a browser) and fix the problem of multiplayer keys for your backlog (I see it appearing on new games that I buy, but I don't see it on games that I had already bought when they implemented it), I don't see how else they could increase the convenience of their service in a way that would significantly affect me (ok, Linux support maybe).

I don't need crazy GUI crap like you see in some sci-fi movies and I don't give a crap about leader-boards (and neither does 99.9% of the gaming world who aren't on them and don't care to be on them).

Tell me of one benefit Steam has that I would consider risking my library over.

Example - today i had a red dot on the "my account", 1 game has been updated. I search for the game for a while, then realise that there is a new function "new and updated", I click it and and it tells me that tiny and big has a update to 1.2. There are no patch notes or news... I am still considering if I am going to bother to keep the game updated for now.

Yesterday I turned on steam to do a little borderlands, I play a little and exits the game, and there is a message that 2 games have downloaded. I click the link and it tells me that 2 games have been updated and patched. While I was playing There is a link called "news" and I click it and it have the full patch notes.

Last year I had to swap computers. I reinstalled Steam and with the click of a button I had had my games there again, many with the same save stat as when I left it. There are still many gog games I have not bothered to download again yet...

Laziness? maybe, however Steam do make gaming a lot more convenient for me.

Also - for this discussion, do not forget that there are actually DRM free games on steam, and as protection goes, it is not really that hard to crack... I am not afraid of "loosing" my games any more then I am afraid of loosing my gog games if they suddenly goes bankrupt and I can no longer access my games online..

"DRM-free" is a marketing trick. When people talk about DRM-free games, they are almost always interested in the ability to back up a game, play and install it without an internet connection.

Copyright is at least three centuries old, and "digital" is at least 40 years old. But the term "DRM" is new, therefore it is quite appropriate that it only applies to a subset of rights management practices, rather than everything from the start of a digital era, much like an abacus is not a "computer".

So when you say that account-based licensing is DRM, you are arguing in favor of a particular literal interpretation of the term that the majority of people aren't using (which is even more disingenuous than arguing about dictionary definitions, because at least *that* is based on common usage). Which is to say, you don't like GOG's marketing trick (by which they are fooling exactly no one, because, again, they are using the common definition of DRM-free, unlike, say, indiegamestand). You're no better than people complaining about X.99 prices.

Regardless, account-binding licensing is awesome. Screw resales. Resales hurt the best games much more than they hurt the turds.

People like that are either stupid as fuck or company shills.

Pirates don't deal with DRM. I fail to see why the would complain. A customer or potential customer would be the people that would complain.

So is that a legal or a technical problem? DRM is technical means that enforce the legal limitations. These are not in place here.

The reason why we can't agree is that you consider the license the product, I consider the game the product (and who could blame me). That in legalese you pay for a license doesn't change the fact that the thing the user wants and gets is a piece of software - and in comparison to earlier models involving physical copies the user has more freedom than ever except for the legal aspect.

And again: legal circumstances do not count as DRM. I don't think that a sticker on a DVD that says "second hand sale prohibited" counts as DRM in your opinion, does it?

Though I don't agree with DRM, I certainly don't cry about it. I like to play games and if that means I have to put up with that crap for a few hours then so be it.

But when it comes to this argument both sides are just as bad as the other. I mean on this forum the amount of bollocks that gets thrown around regarding something like steam is quite depressing.

We all have different opinions and we don't need to argue about it... or I don't atleast.

Let me quote myself:

Now, you can call it what you want. But effectively DD killed of the second hand with what I call "account based DRM". Like even GOG uses. It effectively ties a game license to one person. It's not DRM on games, but it is still "DRMish" (And it is actually only the application of the law, not a program or really anything that lies in the hands of the publishers).

As I said, killing of second hand sale due to legal reasons (which ironically enough, lie within technical limitations) is what I called "DRMish" because it full-fills exactly what publisher wanted.

DRM promotes piracy. It does nothing to stop it. Your friend hasn't clue.

Nope, doubt it does, else there would be no DRM. The only games not Pirates is Open-Source games.

O, Pirate Bay, search for GOG and you'll get a whole bunch of "DRM-Free" games being pirated, does the pirated stuff work, I don't know, just did a search.

I favor more F4LLOUTs differentiation in a license and a technical (DRM) part. You can forbid somebody to do something (license) or you can technically inhibit something (DRM).

For example you could just sell a single download without any account and still have a non-transferable license. Just write in the license: it's non-transferable. Or you could have an account system and have the game resellable as the german service gamesload.de ("just tell us if you sell the game and please delete all your copies").

There is a legal aspect and a technical aspect. My personal favorite view on this is that all legal aspects are covered by a license and all technical aspects by DRM. That would be a clean distinction.

Doom is a huge brand. Divinity, not so much. It's not really a fair comparison. What you can take from your findings is that DRM did not prevent piracy. That is not surprising, however, because DRM is not intended to stop piracy despite that being the only talking point. What it really does is prevent second hand sales and enforce "vendor lock-in."

Also, the industry might not realize pirates are their best customers. Interesting study time! Study Finds File Sharers Buy 30% More Music Than Non-File Sharers. (Sure it's focuses on music but we are in the same ballpark.)

It should. I would wonder if it wouldn't be exact copies of the GOG installers.
But maybe DRM lowers piracy. Maybe DRM helps fighting piracy. The funny thing is that nobody knows because there aren't reliable numbers anywhere. Nobody has a final anwser on that.