Because it's a workaround. Their intention is for you to install via their third party software, which connects to their server. This is the equivalent of cracking a Steam game to install without Steam. GOG requires no connection, and the original compressed install executables are unencrypted.

I meant worse in effort needed to save the game files. It's not much harder to copy the game files and rar them away somewhere.

Actually, no, i don't. That's only DRM free if you're looking at it merely from a praticality point of view, which is the wrong way to look at it because in practical terms not many titles, including Uplay and steamworks titles i imagine, can't be rendered DRM free provided the paying customer is willing to shop around for a bypassing method, the different lenghts one has to go to in order to bring one of those methods into play being merely incidental.

In essence though Pallin is right, it's not DRM free, and if we as paying customers, and gamers, buy into the PR rap and toot a loophole, that can be plugged anytime at the platform's discretion mind you, as something more than a loophole then it's no wonder that Uplay's and forum bans = purchases summarily erased EA/origin bull become the future we're shaping for ourselves.

There's not a sigle DRM free game on GG. Same goes for steam, even for those few titles they carry that can also have their ties to the platform severed. That's not what DRM free means, DRM free doesn't mean " It may become DRM free provided you're wlling to monkey about a bit (or alot)", DRM free means "DRM free right off the bat, no if's, no but's, no bullshit."

That hasn't been true to some of the most draconian DRM schemes. If the legends tell the truth, I think e.g. many Starforce games remained uncracked for many weeks, if not even months. Diablo 3 may also be quite hard (or at least slow) to crack, if it really streams game data from the Blizzard servers while you play.

I bet that games in the OnLive service are also quite hard to crack, unless you have access to the physical/digital copy of the game. I guess it would mean you'd actually have to hack yourself inside the OnLive servers, and download the game data files from there.

I'm voting with my wallet, hence I am most probably not going to buy Diablo 3, nor any OnLive game. Unless the price is so cheap that I consider it a rental, and I believe I don't care to keep the game longer. Then again, easy for me to say as I didn't really like Diablo 2.

In my defense, that's what it sounded like you were saying. Observe:

You know.. You dont even need to use the gog installer, you can download right through your browser. the set up program is self contained and can be deleted afterwords.

To me logging in once, isnt really DRM.. But if people do constier it and are that opposed to it, It does make me wonder why they always post about it on forums, that ironically enough they have to log in, and never complain about that. Just a thought..

I'd agree with Desura, that their client is not DRM. Once you download the game (it's the same as using GOG downloader), you even don't need to use desura client to run the game and you can run it directly, so there is no DRM check.

The "Gamersgate is DRM!" argument is identical to the "GOG is DRM" argument: i.e. you have to be logged in to download the game, unless you've backed up the DRM-free installer. There is no difference, so why does GOG get a pass and the fallacy is used for Gamersgate?

I don't understand why we always have this misunderstanding. I'm going to ask you this in the most clear way I can. Do you consider that if a system requires you to connect to the server of a distributor every time you want to "install" a game that is not DRM?

In fact, I think the term DRM in video games started with just that. Bioshock, Spore and such started by requiring an Online Authentication every time you wanted to install a game, which is exactly what we have here. Why is this not DRM?

And GOG servers are NEVER necessary to install a game, only to obtain that game.

Because GG does not give you a DRM free installer. It gives you an encrypted installer that you have to connect to GG's server and authenticate in order to decrypt and install it. It's true that, during installation, you can copy the temporarily decrypted installation file elsewhere, but this is a circumvention of the DRM, not proof that it isn't there.

GOG, on the other hand, gives you a truly DRM free installer.

Here's a test you can perform to determine whether a game has DRM or not.

1. Download the installer from the digital distributor in the "officially sanctioned manner". Do not execute the installer.

2. Unplug your network cable / disable your wireless interface / whatever you need to be truly offline.

3. Install and play the game.

If step 3 succeeds, the game is DRM free.

It's not about downloading the game. It's about installing it. Once you download the game from GOG you can do whatever you want with the installer. You can copy it on another computer, burn it on a DVD, and you can then install it whenever you want and you never ever need to login on GOG again.
To do the same on GamersGate you need to "bypass" their protection (not much of a protection but whatever). You make it DRM free, GamersGate doesn't give it to you DRM free. GOG does.

I'm cool with GamersGate but just saying it's not the same.

Unless you bought a DRM'd game (in which case: well duh), that is incorrect.

A tiny bit off topic since this is about PC games, but it's been really pissing me off lately that Sony is getting more draconian about DRM.

You used to be able to activate 5 systems associated with that you could play your downloads on, and if you downloaded a file on the PS3 and wanted to copy it to the PSP you had to be online and signed into your account (though if you downloaded via a pc and backed it up there, you didn't have to be signed in, or so I hear, though I would assume that the license has to already be associated with that PSP for it to play.)

So, with the Vita coming out, I guess Sony decided to be bitchier about DRM in order to prevent piracy from blowing up like the PSP. They cut the number of system activations from five of any type down to only two console and two handheld (and it wouldn't surprise me if that covers both PSP and Vita systems). And the new PS3 firmware makes backing up and copying files more obnoxious for no particular reason. If you were playing a PSX game on the PS3 and wanted to transfer the game to the PSP to play on the go before you could just click copy in the XMB (well, transferring saves was a bit more complicated but still). Same thing goes for backing up PSP games. Now, you have to go through an extra step of "installing" them to the system you want to play on. You can't just copy the files directly, it has to be an "uninstalled" file that isn't associated with any system. So when you want to transfer a game to a PSP you have to either leave an uninstalled copy of the file on the PS3 (which clutters up the XMB, instead of neatly storing in folders like before), or download the entire file again each time you want to transfer it. Just completely ruins the idea Sony was going with for the VIta, the idea of transferring games back and forth between the console and handheld. And the bad thing is, that it doesn't make much sense to complicate it this much since IDK if you can play PS3 PSN games on the Vita (or PS2 classics for that matter), and the Vita doesn't play currently play PSX games for some arbitrary reason (though it might be added back later, who knows).

This isn't getting into the use of the Vita using expensive proprietary memory sticks instead of standardized sony memory sticks or SD cards. Or that some games will force you to buy one of said proprietary memory sticks and won't even boot up without one, despite games coming on memory sticks and some games letting you save directly to that stick. Or the terrible legacy software support plan. Or that Vita systems are permanently tied to one PSN account and cannot be changed without reformatting the system and resetting it to factory settings (in order to completely shut out the already obnoxious to do workaround of using different PSN accounts to download games and DLC from other region's PSN).

And what has Sony got for trying to prevent people from hacking the Vita with all this obnoxious BS?

Nothing, it was apparently hacked on day one with existing methods.

Just goes to show that treating customers like criminals just encourages more people to steal from you.

How is it incorrect ? It's DRM just the same, only properly labeled as such assuming that's what you mean.