While being strongly against it I don't dispute the existence of DRM at all (I am even very lenient on the definition). My whole point is that everybody should rejoice that both steam and gog exists, each providing a service in a mutual alternative which should cover most needs.

Watermaking files isn't such a weird concept, and often a quite decent way of making files identifiable while not restricting use (which DRM does).

GOG doesn't use such a system (yet), but some stores selling DRM-free music does, meaning you can do whatever you want with the files and don't require an authenticated player to read them, but the seller can still get the unique identifier find out that they came from your account, and thus recognise that the copy off a pirate site originated from you.

I could see GOG adopting watermarking in order to limit piracy, if it could be implemented in such a way that the installers wouldn't need to be completely rebuilt for every user (which takes time and drive space). My first thought would be to attach a few bytes with a number identifying the account to the end of the file (or change bytes at a certain location that is predefined as not actually used), which could be done dynamically and quickly when the download is requested. There is one main problem though, checksums would need to be calculated for every file and every account that has said file, rather than one single checksum for each file, and in cases where the installer checks itself (primarily multi-file installers), the sum it checks against would obviously need to be changed.

I think they've been banned recently (thanks GOG if true!), but there was absolutely at least one such user around. They've posted numerous threads telling other people to do the same.

And for that matter, people totally buy stolen GOG accounts. Before the wave of hacks hit (before the gogwallet even), I shitposted a lot about how I'd ragequit if 2-factor authentication were implemented, because there's nothing to steal on a GOG account and no one would be stupid to "buyrate". What can I say, crow goes well with tabasco sauce.

Guys, guys, GUYS! And a gal. No need to argue, the answer is clear:

I hit the reply button first, so I won the thread already.

While I see the point, I am merely arguing semantics: Your argument is the basis of DRM to begin with. Claiming there has to be a trade-off... Well, why not just buy DRMed games and cut of the middle man for your trade-off?

Before buying your next game, you can always look at a video on YouTube to get an idea of the game play. I do this all the time. I usually look at the first few minuets of the video. Other times I look at short bits of different parts of the video.

I can tell you what I didn't like: it's based on a premise that I don't think deserves to be discussed in 2016, much less to be propped up as a scary notion.

Horror implies some sort of escalation of threat; the worse the status quo, the harder it is to craft effective horror. In a mundane setting, death or loneliness are scary. SOMA is already creepy and fantastic, but the reveal that's supposed to be horrifying is the equivalent of "also, your jesus cracker wasn't properly blessed".

But no, it's not something that could be discovered in 20 minutes.

The support told me that the game had been started, and could not do the refund, they proposed me to convert the purchase into Wallet funds. for me it was a good solution, I accepted.

thanks to the gog.com support.
is good advice, to follow for the future.

Yes, it will definitely help with future buying. I am glad that it worked out with GoG.

with a rep of 48 ?
you get rep by posting on here

I had a even worth case in one of the game forums, I only saw first rep 5, till realising that he was registered 2010, as he later mentioned, he only posts (in the game forums) if he has/had questions. So not so unusual ;)

Still doesn't mean he bought anything. As Goodaltgamer mentioned, he might be one of those people who only ever asks/answers questions in the subforums.