This might be unpopular on these forums, but for me personally it's the biggest reason i started using GOG. I've always thought if Steam offered more DRM free games and an option to download DRM free installers for all DRM free games i'd have almost no reason to use GOG (except that they sometimes get games working that are broken on Steam). I don't mind the profile stuff or GOG getting more modern features like Steam. If it helps them grow and stay in business all the better. The biggest reason i'm here is DRM free games and installers for backup of all those games. I often post on the Steam forums of different games asking the devs if they'd release a GOG version of their game. I've been willing to pay more for a the GOG version of a game than the Steam version in the past.

If the day comes where GOG gets rid of their most important feature IN MY OPINION (DRM free games & installers for them), then i have no reason to use them over Steam anymore and that is when i'll go back to getting everything on Steam.

Maybe you don't anymore OP.
But some of us were brainwashed by Red Hat and Yggdrasil in the 90's and started to and still follow (or try to follow) the teachings of our lord and saviour RMS.

Early MS-DOS games also have all the copy protections, including DOS version of Gunship.
I know it because Gunship is the game that can not be backed up with DISKCOPY command.
After I break Gunship by DISKCOPY, I bought the 2nd copy of it, and learned the XCOPY command.

Early CD-ROM games have less copy protections, I guess that is the time you shift from Amiga to IBM-PC.

Yeah, and some studios patched it out themselves like with Red Faction Guerilla and Dark Souls 2. I'm just saying for singleplayer it can just be ignored for everything, as far as I know and per my experience. Just make an offline local profile, set notifications to none, forget it exists.

There was a huge misconception around this though because the interface requires you to "log in" before you can play and people assumed that meant online.

One of the DRM representations for me is, for example, the need to be online to play single player games (Uplay, GameSessions, etc). A disrespect with consumers, in my opinion.

I confess that I have no problem with "DRM" when they allow me to play offline, don't interfere with the performance of the game, and don't require that I have to open any other program to run the games (Steam + Uplay to run Ubisoft games, it's ridiculous).

But I also had many problems with intrusive DRM, which motivated me to buy from GOG and prioritize it.

Without using work arounds or bypassing its DRM Steam blocks the concurrent use of different licenses on different computers at the same time. This stops a basic usage right.
So yeh, DRM is still a problem.

Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it never will or doesn't have issue for others.

Uplay only required that for a few games before stopping, and patched it out of the ones that did require it. Uplay works exactly like Origin and Steam now.

Yes, I do care.

DRM means I'm forced to accept updates. If an update adds lootboxes, removes soundtrack, or just plainly forces me to download a patch BEFORE I play the game and the patch is non-essential for me, well, eat shit. I can either accept the stuff coming down my way, or not play the game because of the higher up's meddling.

DRM means I need to be constantly online. So if my internet goes down for a while, screw me. You could always scream the excuse that is "offline mode" at the top of your lungs, and I would say that its reliability is an offshoot. Plus, offline shouldn't be a "mode".

DRM means extra overhead on your hardware, whether it's in storage being wasted for the DRM solution, or precious CPU, GPU and RAM going to the DRM instead of the game or the operating system which deserve them more.

Does DRM give me anything of benefit? No. Absolutely not, and although you may not like it, Galaxy has shown you can have a lot of these benefits with DRM-free games. I can play my copy of Shadow Warrior 2 fully offline without Galaxy. Ultimately, I don't think we should be stooping down to a level where we are saying DRM is fine, whatever the reason is. It always failed to work on its intended target (the pirates) and when it does, its hardware overhead becomes visible. And yet when it's defeated by the pirates, we still have to deal with it?

I like having my games without being forced to install a client and hook it up to my account. I want to simply install only the game to play the game. Nothing hard to ask for. If I have to install the game and a client to play, and ask me for a login to play the game, thank you very much, but I don't want to continue dealing with you.

I believe some games still have installation limits. Halo 2 shows this on Waypoint's FAQ for instance:

"I can't install the game despite using a genuine CD key with a copy I purchased?

Halo 2 Vista can only be installed a maximum of 5 times per CD Key. Please note this includes uninstalling/reinstalling the game regardless of the situation. For example, you install the game with a fresh CD key, you have 4 installs left. If you then have to reinstall the game for whatever reason such as a new install of Windows, you will have 3 uses left. Once you have used all 5, you can no longer use the CD key you have. You will need to purchase a new copy."

Waypoint

Well there ya go! :)

I came here when GOG was still calling itself Good Old Games, because I wanted to buy good old games; I was never really interested in being part of a DRM-free revolution. I have trouble caring deeply about something that's never actually impacted me, and the only time I can remember getting really frustrated by DRM was Two Worlds II. Furthermore, my crappy internet doesn't allow me to back up my library in any systematic way; whether it's GOG or Steam, if they go away my games go with them.

That being said, certainly DRM doesn't benefit the consumer; at its very best, it doesn't make our lives worse. So, I'll buy from GOG instead of Steam if I have a choice, and even if I can't backup my library as a whole, I'll back up games as I download them to play.

Anyone knows how they have removed the copy protection from many of the DOS games sold here?

They have access to original sources and recompiled them?
Some Devs provided unprotected exe?
They used some crack legally...?

I remember having a partial decompiler tool where i found specific texts in a program and mapped them to locations within the program. Decoded those potions, figured out what as the controlling IF statement, and nop'ed or jmp'ed over those portions.

God i loved that tool... too bad won't work on more modern stuff; Although OllyDbg is more useful for today's exe's.

Dos stuff uses similar techniques and a little more straightforward with it's flat memory model.

edit: Hmmm it's not displaying the link.... [url=http://www.oocities.org/~sangcho/disasm.html]http://www.oocities.org/~sangcho/disasm.html[/url]

edit2: Weird....

I wouldn't have cared about DRM at all, until I was burned by it badly on multiple occasions. Of all the instances, the worst was Max Payne 3, which I paid full price, and which the Gameshield DRM + Rockstar Social Club caused CTD which I never got past, and thus, never got to experience the game at all, while pirates paid nothing and could play the game just fine. I would no longer make myself a little poorer to make multi-billion dollar companies that treat me like a criminal a little wealthier. There will never be a title out there that will FOMO me into paying for a DRM'd game again. And it's not bad at all, I have tons of GOG games, plus plenty of DRM-free titles from other vendors. :-)

Wow, good to know. I uninstalled it from my computer, but I will download it again.

Thanks :)