People shouldn't have to 'write their own downloaders' for DRM-free games they have purchased. As I said previously, it may be possible to argue that certain Steam games are technically not DRMed, if they work offline without the Steam client and/or can be downloaded via an API. However, for me the lack of easily-downloadable offline installers is simply not good enough.

The other thing is that Steam are essentially DRM-agnostic at best. They obviously don't care about the principle of DRM-free and leave it up to developers to decide whether to release their game DRM-free or not. I would rather support a store that is actively putting pressure on developers and insisting they release their games DRM-free.

This is part of the reason for my recent switch from GOG to Zoom Platform. GOG seem to clearly be going down a path towards becoming more DRM-agnostic, as opposed to truly championing the DRM-free cause. DRM-agnosticism for me is also not good enough.

No, I like GOG more.
Steam was nice for a time, but I got so sick of it.

What I hate most, is the constant tracking of all activities. And of course they have no offline installers.

Be aware, I am not arguing here to convince anyone of anything, just saying my thoughts about it.
So PLEASE be kind enough not to start arguing how wrong I am with my views on Valve and how I can avoid xy or that xyz is not a valid argument. I am not arguing.

So do you agree also that GOG has DRM in its game delivery and payment methods, because:

a) GOG also restricts delivery to only certain options, e.g. Galaxy or a web browser. You can't e.g. use a bittorrent client or Emule, or drive to GOG's headquarters to get your purchased game on an USB memory stick, or get it on a DVD-R disc delivered to you by the postal services.

b) GOG offers only certain payment methods, you can't freely pay in any way you choose, e.g. in bitcoins.

If you feel those examples are silly, I feel they are that only because the whole notion of "delivery DRM" or "payment DRM" is silly.

All that matters is whether the end product has DRM. There is no DRM beyond that.

Steam CEG is what the drm is, the client alone is just a client like any other client. Also linux sucks, it has no games,no backward compatibility or software and you have to jump through hoops to get things working.

Ah, I think I've spotted where your confusion is.

"Distribution" in that Wikipedia article refers to the ability of you, the customer, to distribute the digital good you have bought to others, e.g. your friends. That is one of the main points of DRM, it tries to prevent you from copying and distributing the game to others who are not eligible to use it. That's what old copy protections in CD games did too.

Obviously, those Steam games that, after the initial download and installation, can be just compressed to a zip file and then copied to another PC, and played there without ever logging into Steam, pass that test. Clearly you are technically able to distribute that game to everyone in the world. hence it has no DRM.

You, on the other hand, seem to have misunderstood that Wikipedia article to mean that if there are any restrictions or control over how you can obtain the game from the store, then that qualifies as DRM.

The problem with that notion is that then GOG has DRM too because it also controls and restricts who and by what methods can get their games from the GOG servers. You have to log into your GOG account so that GOG can check that you are eligible to download the game, and GOG offers only certain ways to download the games you are eligible for (e.g. Galaxy or a web browser).

Agreed.

In Windows Union, the hoops have to jump through YOU.

I know I know, Linux is anti-american because it is free and "made" by some European chap, probably a commie.

Sigh. These topics always end up in utter "splitting hairs" stupidity, usually divided between micro vs macro world-views:-

Micro (technicality) - "Convenience is a TOTALLY separate thing to DRM. Shopping on Steam is no different to GOG. Your web browser is a DRM'd game client no different to uPlay. Steam is a DRM-Free Store if even one game runs without the client, etc. Looking at EACH game in isolation is ALL that counts. People who want DRM-Free games care about absolutely nothing else whatsoever."

Macro (practicality) - People want DRM-Free precisely because of convenience, they really are inseparable issues. They're supposed to be all about having the gamer jump through *fewer* hoops, not the same or more, otherwise what's the point?... As pointed out by multiple people, what works (for testing Steam games for DRM) for a few or even few dozen games on Steam just doesn't scale to a collection of hundreds / thousands of them. It's just an unrealistically high workload to verify that every update of every (increasingly bloated) game is actually DRM-Free then repacking each time, etc, and back in the real world, people end up just stop testing them altogether as people have admitted to in this thread and whatever "well you technically could still do that" falls into complete & utter irrelevancy when people stop doing it due to becoming disproportionately unsustainable.

Therefore when people go shopping for DRM-Free 'It's Not DRM It's Convenience (tm)' will obviously be factored in the decision to buy games from a store or not based on that criteria, and the store as a whole will be treated as being DRM-Free or not (as a whole) depending on how easy / difficult that store makes that process. Some games on Steam work without the client, but when Steam itself actively hides information about what games are DRM'd prior to purchase, then actively encourages developers on the Steamworks development page to include as much DRM + online features as possible (literally the last thing any genuine DRM-Free store would say), then of course many people won't treat the store as a whole as being a "DRM-Free store on par with GOG"...

Stop. Your "DRM is purely a single issue" definitely doesn't speak for everyone. Regardless of how many pages this goes on, or how many times new topics of the same argument arise, or how many times people repeat themselves, or how stupid the analogies get, "All that matters is DRM" is simply flat out untrue as most people I know who want DRM-Free games, do so for an over-arching objective of a general "holistic" BS-free experience (ie, no DRM AND no unnecessary online dependencies AND no anti-cheat / anti-tamper crap AND no client, etc) not sit there arguing over just DRM with tunnel vision technicalities for the sake of arguing. As for Steam, the real bottom line is this - many people aren't going to treat Steam as a DRM-Free Store 'just like GOG' if they simply don't act like one and most people care about that far more than ultra-technical microscopic nitpicking. It really is that simple.

Other than what others already posted, even if Steam switched their model to drm-free, I'd still resist the platform based on inertia.

I have A LOT of games on GOG and not a lot of inclination to manage a separate collection elsewhere.

I dabbled with it in the past (Dotemu + Humble) and found I couldn't be bothered keeping track of these accounts (Dotemu being gone was a surprise for me, because I hadn't visited that account in ages).

Some people would say "selection", but there are already more games than I can play here. I don't need more.

Now, if someone else became better at drm-free than GOG... that, I could be convinced to jump ship for.

Examples would be:
- contributes to a drm-free multiplayer tooling ecosystem and enforces that all games providing multiplayer have some sort of drm-free multiplayer option
- aggressively contributes to Linux support (drm-free os) for games in their store (I know Steam does that, but it doesn't make up for their their client/server dependencies)

Edit: Thinking about it, based on their Linux support, if Steam strongly commited to supporting drm-free installers for their entire collection, I'd consider switching over because of that (though I'd have to see it happen first... not just read about a vague promise to do so)

Those are not actual quotes from anyone, but you just made them up, right? So in other words, you are putting words to other people's mouth?

I'm sure somewhere out there, there is a field full of straw men for you to fight.

Every cat is an animal, yet not every animal is a cat.

Everything that is inconvenient, or you don't like, is not automatically DRM. Hence, they are indeed separate issues, even if sometimes they may overlap (like if DRM in a game prevents a legitimate license owner from playing their game, that is inconvenient; I have never claimed the opposite).

None of that have anything to do with what I've said, that restrictions on how you can download your game from a digital store, or how you can pay them for your purchase, has nothing to do with DRM.

Those people who are testing the "DRM-freeness" of the Steam games are testing the games themselves, not how they can be downloaded from the Steam service. They are testing whether there appears to be any DRM in the game itself (and/or how to circumvent it), not what restrictions there are in the delivery and payment in the service where you buy that game originally.

The reason they are testing it is because Valve does not officially support their games DRM-free, ie. Valve does not guarantee any of the games in the Steam service would work without first logging into your Steam account. Hence, the end-users must test that themselves. And yes, that is one of the main reasons why I personally prefer buying my DRM-free games from GOG, not Steam or EGS or EA Origin.

That was what the OP was asking anyway: what if Valve did start supporting some of the Steam games officially as DRM-free, ie. people wouldn't have to test for the DRM themselves?

People should still use correct terminology, in order not to muddle up discussion.

Many have argued that GOG made the process of downloading one's games from the service harder by dropping the old GOG Downloader client (a proprietary GOG client meant only for the purpose to download games from the GOG service, go figure how DRM-free enthusiasts would use such a proprietary client as they are all supposed to be eeeevil and DRM).

So, does that mean GOG added DRM to their service, by making downloading of games allegedly harder? Now you either have to use Galaxy, or download your games with a web browser in dozens of smaller parts, with many more mouseclicks. I guess it is more inconvenient now for those who liked the GOG Downloader... but as said, not everything which is less convenient is automatically DRM, just like not every animal is a cat.

And at least I haven't claimed they would, or should. I've already said numerous times that it has value e.g. to me that GOG officially supports the single-player games in their service as DRM-free, something that Valve does not.

Hence this thread, ie. what if Valve did exactly that, started supporting some of its games as DRM-free products?

Who claimed "all that matters is DRM"?

Here is what I actually said:

"All that matters is whether the end product has DRM. There is no DRM beyond that."

It should be clear in that context that it means when we are defining what DRM is, it relates only to the end product only, not whether there are restrictions on how you can download a game to your computer, or what restrictions there are to the payment options.

It does not mean, as you seem to suggest, that I said people should not care about anything else but DRM in their entire lives.

Not everything you dislike or find inconvenient is DRM. The term DRM loses its meaning when you start using it that broadly.

I personally hate the taste of salted caramel ice cream (while I prefer e.g. straight chocolate, mango or even vanilla ice cream). Does that make salted caramel ice cream DRM? No, and it is not a "tunnel vision technicality for the sake of arguing" to admit that.

Read the first message in this thread. It was specifically asking, how we would react to Steam if it changed that, and started supporting some of its games officially as DRM-free products.

The fact that I personally would still prefer GOG.com due to e.g. gogrepoc.py has to do with my personal convenience, not DRM.

The main argument that I am arguing against is the suggestion that there can't be DRM-free games on Steam, or that even those DRM-free games are less DRM-free than GOG games because Steam-client is somehow DRM, and you officially have to use it to download your Steam games. That argument is completely missing the point of DRM.

Correction : "All that matters to you is whether"... You're still stuck treating a personal opinion of "what people should care about" as some universal objective fact that simply isn't. As I said timppu, I'm not going to go round in circles exchanging novel sized posts arguing over personal likes / dislikes. People who dislike clients (even Galaxy), know full well why they want DRM-Free offline installers and why Steam is no substitute. You aren't going to convince anyone with arguing for the sake of arguing until everyone else agrees with you, because many simply won't ever agree they 'should' be happy to use a client "because it's not DRM", if they don't want to use a client. The rest really is just word game semantics no-one cares about...

That was a hard weekend.

I have found something interesting for fans of Steam reviews and Gog Installers.
Yes, I am going to start calling it Gog installers, none like those out there, and the Galaxy is recognizing games installed before itself (that is why it`s optional) that is why I am using it. I did some heavy checks/tests.
Then it`s a drm of a game itself or not. The client is a part of it and always will be.
There are about 2700 games on Steam that can be launched without an installer, after using the client (visual or CMD) to download it, but there is much more on itcho indeed. Plants vs Zombies aren't present along with this 2700, and there are too many untested on windows games, it`s all looks like an experiment, and I got everything here on Gog.com.
apart from a hand console but maybe it will be here 4 times cheaper than Deck : ) I`ve been playing some CS in late days so I like Steam it`s just not making my type of installers and digital rights management.

However, Steam reviews are helpful. Setting a bar higher than 50%... let`s do 70% and 90%...

Here is a list of Gog.com deals with Steam reviews of 70%+
594 DLCs https://gg.deals/deals/?minSteamReviews=70&store=10&type=2
2216 Games https://gg.deals/deals/?minSteamReviews=70&store=10&type=1
and 209 Game Packs https://gg.deals/deals/?minSteamReviews=70&store=10&type=3

and here are Gog.com deals with Steam reviews 90%+
264 DLCs https://gg.deals/deals/?minSteamReviews=90&store=10&type=2
847 Games https://gg.deals/deals/?minSteamReviews=90&store=10&type=1
and 78 Games Packs https://gg.deals/deals/?minSteamReviews=90&store=10&type=3

Points and reviews differ from here. That would be the next step in Gogs evolution, reviews, and reputation system need refurbishment. ✴

Either way the outcome would be the same for me, as what use would I have for a key I can't redeem without an account to a service I already refused to use when it was nothing but a mandatory online update tool for a single mod?

Sorry, but you are missing my whole point, and yes those are silly notions of DRM. DRM has nothing to do with payments. But DRM is all about lack of control and no flexibility. Someone else is calling the shots, totally. GOG at least has options and flexibility, and give full independence with the final download. You get none of that with Steam, even with DRM-Free Lite. Yes, you can end up with a DRM-Free game of sorts, for some of their games, but it is not straightforward and often has required actions to be performed, and no guarantee of DRM-Free support for updates, DLCs, or even switching OS or even the same OS on a different machine, that might be missing a necessary dependency, that got installed during the mandatory install by the Steam Client.

Just to understand your point of view regarding "no guarantee of DRM-Free support for updates":
- If a game is released DRM-free on some platform and for years receives no updates whatsoever, while receiving numerous updates on other (DRM) platforms --- which, I hope you agree, makes it immensely inconvenient and robs one of all control --- would you consider this game at some point to no longer be DRM-Free?

I think his point is more about the fact that they might introduce drm in a later update, thus making the non-updated GOG version preferable.

Otherwise, yes, DRM-free customers have been treated as second-class citizens for years (well before GOG Galaxy and other such changes). Some of it is, as you just pointed out I think, due to the fact that GOG is the smaller store, but some of it is due to the fact that updating when there is both a drmed and drm-free version requires more complicated logistics (usually with version control and such).

Personally, I'd rather have a copy that might lag behind on updates, but that is drm-free. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

But, for DRM-free games, there's no difference between steam and GOG in that respect. In both cases you can keep the old version that you had previously downloaded. It's not as if Steam can somehow overwrite your backup DRM-free steam game without your consent, assuming you don't use the steam client.