No to both accounts (see what I did there?). It is actually quite possible to have a url for downloading stuff that is not linked to any account (though the url can actually be unique), and payment could only require an email to send the receipt to. From what I recall, the first few Indie Gala bundles went that way, and the later ones only had a url to act as an account, without any kind of authentication.
So no, an account is not needed to distribute digital goods, though it does make things easier.

Humble Store works like that, too, if you don't create an account or don't log into yours when buying.

itch.io has the same method of distribution, you don't need an account to buy and download from them. You get an unique URL and if you lose the URL, you can contact support who'll provide you with a new one

We were talking about the client here, not what happens afterwards. Also, it "could" not just be regarded as DRM, it is DRM by its very definition.

Well, there would always be some kind of authorization, otherwise payment confirmation wouldn't work. So in that case it could be IP address and cookie ID, or some other way (or if the receipt sent to the email contained the url, that would be it). But you are right, something like that would work and be ideal.

/edit: What I'm interested in then, how would updates work? itch.io was mentioned...so does the game just ask their servers to update the game without confirmation that you actually bought it?

And GOG users don't consider Galaxy as Multiplayer DRM, and the Grand-Daddy of DRM the humble Serial/product codes is also no longer DRM :P

Probably just like Titan Quest does on GOG. Full DLs again...


/shots fired.

No idea about itch.io but my guess would be that the url you have either points to a folder you find the files to download, or resolves to the most recent archive/installer version. Both are possible to use, and both can be done with or without authentication.

P.S. Distribution is a step after payment. You can have authentication/authorization on payment, yet no authentication on distribution/installation/execution, or authentication on any of the above steps.

Ok, I know there's this new trend of considering Steam to not have drm or not be drm. Well, I don't use Steam. I don't see myself using it for the time being.

Steam, as far as I care, is a drm platform. They do not support nor they inform about what games on their platform are drm-free. As far as Steam goes, none does. Some developers decide to not use CEG or any other method of drm. but that's on them, not on Steam. So you will never know if tomorrow they might have drm. Because, as you all know, Steam can change whatever game you have associated to their platform at any time they see fit. Be it by adding (or removing, as in Inside) their DRM or by changing it's content.

So if you want any drm-free game from Steam, you better zip it and move it away from Steam as soon as possible -which means install it-. Unfortunately, you do need the client for any updates. Mandatory updates. At which point the game may change or get drm. Or not. Because Steam never made any compromise towards the drm status of the game, nor they even ever admitted that any of its games is drm-free.

Bottom line, yes, Steam is very much a drm gaming platform.

Yeah, but a client for download and installation isn't the same as DRM on a game. In your OP you didn't complain about someone saying "the download client likely won't have DRM", you were talking about the game. What happens afterward is what is most important to someone who cares about DRM-free games. As long as you can move the game folder around to different rigs and play the game offline without any requirement for the client to be installed, the game is DRM-free.

I'm not the OP.

The problem is that people often talk past each other - and even intentionally, in order to promote one platform or the other, instead of just looking at the facts. For example, the poster in the Steam thread, regardless of how ignorant they may come across, did not say that Steam is not DRM. The OP put that in the thread title as if it was a quote but it's a strawman (and it doesn't really make sense either).

Yes, Steam does offer publishers the option to put their own DRM on games. Yes, the method of downloading and installing that Steam uses is restricted and client-controlled without alternative, therefor DRM. No, the Steam client itself is not necessarily DRM, just as Galaxy is not DRM. No, the store is not DRM, just as GOG is not DRM. Yes, Steam is a gaming platform / store that supports DRM and doesn't really care about customers interested in DRM-free offers. No, not every game on Steam has DRM on it. But yes, a majority does and for those that don't you are dependent on the community if you want to find out which is which. I can totally understand if someone is opposed to Steam for these reasons, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything neutral or positive that is said about Steam as bullshit.


Whoops, my bad, sorry. In that case, I guess we actually agree.

No worries.
And I do agree with what you said, except that I would merge the distribution and client part and still call the client DRM as that's the one that enforces it, similar to the methods used in games. The difference is that the client isn't just for that but also provides x, y and z while the DRM software (Securom, Starforce and the like) used in games were only built for that purpose.

GOG solidified themselves so well as "the company that makes old games work on new machines" that few people who know about GOG are going to let that image go. (It was a great unfilled niche, and Good Old Games is too catchy. :P) If more and more people start to think GOG is "slipping" in regards to compatibility (depending on how much "magic" people expect GOG to work on some games), they may shake the image but of course that's not the way they want to do it.

And we'll just go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round about whether or not "Steam = DRM". :P

Leroux! Put that in a flow chart and it is going to look just as bad!

Why do people still bring this shite up? Steam isn't DRM, just as Galaxy isn't. Saying that, I needed to download a day one patch and Galaxy without option from GOG just to play The Witcher 3, that makes them a DRM supportive platform.

Of course, no one admits to that due to their double standards.