Even if the own net is a blast... something like this could happen:
https://www.pcgamer.com/what-a-surprisethe-diablo-4-beta-test-servers-are-being-crushed-and-people-cant-get-in/

The most stable and most hassle-free game is a fixed offline game.

How do you mean

Are you telling me there was an actual choice, that I could have bought day 1 DRM Free releases of all the games I bought on Steam? Because I'm kicking myself if I missed that.

or

Do you believe people, on mass, could have shunned Steam if there really wanted to; that they knew through some hive mind that if they did, a DRM Free Option could have happened; but in full knowledge of this they actively chose Steam because of a forum and forced updates?

Because if its not one of those two, I can't see how the verifiable reality that DRM Free Versions of the majority of Steams popular games from the last 20 years did not exist is somehow a lie I've created.

Good lord dude.

PEOPLE. DON'T. CARE. ABOUT. DRM.

THEY. OUTRIGHT. PREFER. STEAM. TO. DRM. FREE.

GOG. MARKET. SHARE. IS. MINUSCULE. EVEN. WITH. SAME. DAY. RELEASES.

I'm trying to think of clearer ways to say this but I'm at a loss. I'm not sure why I keep bothering since I already said I wouldn't bother. I blame boredom.

Ah yes. Having to go fetch a copy of the game at the store and bring it back home. The sweet BRRRRRRRR of the CD/DVD drive as I waited for the game to be done installing. Possibly a continued spinning/BRR if I was forced to keep the CD in the drive, meaning I had to switch out for every game.

vs

Press Install.

How is this supposed to come off as better for zoomers exactly?
It was one of the biggest, besides Steam at one point. It didn't make a difference then. EGS swept in and probably surpassed it within a year. Heck, I've often said GOG probably wouldn't even be around anymore if it wasn't for the CDP IP propping up the sales. That's how much people care about DRM-Free.

As for big players picking up DRM-Free. That's simply not going to happen. Has there been *any* indication in the last few decades that we are heading that way? It has been quite the opposite. Maybe something like Steam deck support might, ironically, be one of the biggest reasons for your games not to be too attached to DRM that isn't supported on Steamdeck, assuming Steamdeck even keeps going strong as it is for now.

There's no incentive to go DRM-Free for the big players. And there's less incentive now than there was when GOG came out. People aren't growing up with the concept of DRM-Free anymore. They never experienced that. All they care about is that something works, now. They'll cry and whine and even use the DRM-Free argument WHEN they aren't able to play their game because of it. But the moment that passes all is fine again and they soon forget.

When cloud gaming eventually becomes a thing (whether it be in 5, 10 or 50 years) ownership will become a thing of the past anyway. If they can keep 100% control of the game they will, be it to prevent datamining, or to shut it down if they want to sell a sequel, or simply to sell us the color blue so we can show it off.

People do care about DRM.

You can shout your opinion that everything is futile and GOG will never influence Steam in any way in multiple threads, in the process insulting people that don't share your opinion, but it is your opinion only, and not one shared by everyone, not even a fair majority given the amount of people who are replying to you.

Two problems

First, I wasn't talking about Steam vs DRM Free
By me saying Steam wasn't a choice I'm talking about Steam vs "anything that's not Steam", that an alternative to Steam at point of release on PC simply did not, and still for most games does not, exist.

Second, is you keep framing it as a

McDonalds vs Burger King type situation, where consumers look at option A and Option B and choose Option A. Again for consumers there was no Option B

The only people that really got to choose Steam over some other option, were the publishers in late 00'. They chose Steam over GameSpy or GFWL or anything else, not consumers.

At no point during the rise of Steam, could consumers Choose the popular GameX with or With Steam. The only choice they had was Physical Media with Steam or getting it direct from Steam.

Yes there were indie games where you could choose to download from devs website or Steam or from other sites, but those didn't account for the majority of PC game sales and users.


So yes between the choice of something that didn't exist and something that did, consumers chose the thing that did exits. Yay go team "actual product", I wonder if they're going to end up beating team "hypothetical vapour"?

That would require publishers to either trust GOG's marketing team to keep the homepage appropriate to their game's target audience, or to not release on GOG at all. Whoever green lights the decision to spend time porting to GOG would face the possibility of complaints about what they're linking to without the easy get-out of "hey, similar stuff is shown on Steam's homepage"; doing that for less than 10% of the market share is a potentially career-limiting move.

There's many walls of text in the porn-game threads discussing the details of what's appropriate, but most of the discussion can be summarised as two heavily-entrenched and heavily-polarised camps arguing, with little middle ground. Asking people to look from a developer's or publisher's perspective doesn't get much traction there.

Also, GOG often only announces the very last moment that a game is coming to GOG, where it's shown on Steam for months. That's very annoying.

Seriously, do you need a game always on "day one"? Nowadays many games are seriously buggy or even broken at "day one"... it is not the best way on how to play a game. In the beginning people will start to moan and some years later the rating will increase a lot... yet they still always are touching "unfinished stuff"... hard to understand. I mean, most likely, you may have around 100 unfinished games and yet you still need a new game and as quick as possible... please. I highly recommend to finish the unfinished stuff first; it it is to worse... wipe it out of the collection. Just difficult to believe to many people it is all about "how quick they can play something new..." almost a trophy on its own if they are able to achieve "i was playing it first".

Besides, Steam is not always fastest: I was playing "Star Ocean: The Divine Force" several days sooner than any Steam user was capable of, because i had a physical copy and a PS5 that was able to run it: While the Steam-DRM was taking care for not enabling it any second sooner than indented by "a bigger might". By the time the Steam users was able to play it... i almost was finished already. So thats why i use the nearly unbeatable combo "GoG and PS5", this way i can play almost anything the best or even fastest way possible. "Kuro no Kiseki" was the only exception so far, but this is one single Steam-Game... in so many years.

But yes indeed, GoG and any advertisement are NO good friends, and i am not sure who is actually causing it because i see a advertisement-lack on way to many spots.

No, I don't mind not getting it on day one, but I would like to know if I get it at all.

Months (sometimes years) of waiting without knowing if a game will make it to GOG or not.
At some point we just buy somewhere else and are annoyed if it makes it to GOG shortly after.

Clear statements like "We don't want to release DRM free on day 1, but will go to GOG in 6 months" would be nice with an according announcement on GOG.

That - and updates. Our "second class citizens" list shows all too many abandoned games which don't receive updates anymore. In the case of Another World it would have been high res backgrounds and more languages, nothing big or connected to online features that require Steam. Why on earth can a cosmetic patch not be released on GOG? (let alone fixes for game breaking bug which we miss as well)

Let it be clear: Not all games are affected by "lack of updates" but there is a good amount of them, still.

In my mind, if the publisher is "abandoning" their game at some spot, then to me it becomes legitime for modders updating it, no matter the files used. I mean, to me it should be a legitime user-demand for publishers to update their games. Of course without forcing it, simply as a important option in many cases. Ultimately if there is a lack visible, simply have to fight for your needs... no matter what it takes. I told already, GoG is "they way of the fighter", is not the the convenient "way of the sheeps".

But I also wouldnt mind if the list of games that don't get updates would be significantly shorter.

Some devs blame the GOG api for not uploading updates. Most devs are able to use it, so either the others don't care and look for excuses or the API is really a pita which some devs are willing to accept and others don't.

Nah, sorry, but I don't see that...
Now - would "DRM-free" have a chance to get more popular than it is now? - Maybe (and that's a huge maybe).
But then only due to the bigger numbers of customers that it would potentially(!) reach.

However: a Steam backed "DRM-free movement" (in its most strictest sense) would still come with all the downsides that "DRM-free" on GOG (or "DRM-free" in general) comes with, so why would Steam customers care for it?

For them, a "DRM-free-Steam" would just be Steam with lesser features and less convenience.
That's not really much of a selling point.

Better because you have something physical you own, which the zoomers also never experienced so it's a moot point, true. Given the choice, I will always pick a disc and BRRRRR over just a shiny install button. If retail games were still a regular thing these days, all of my game purchases would be that, even with GOG being there. I only buy on GOG because it's the only viable option left for me. I've been buying old retail game boxes regularly until like a year ago, but the well has sadly finally run dry as all the game boxes I was interested in, I already own (from what was still available in the shops/e-shops in my country).

Honestly sucks Blu-Rays never made ground in the game department due to the popularization of digital distribution.

To try and bring the conversation back on track

Steam backed DRM Free, would still cause the same issue GOG has getting developers on board.

This whole Steam vs "DRM Free" conversation is a distraction from the main issue which is

Company B can't get Devs to release their games on their platform because Company A is so dominating it makes releasing on Company B financially unviable for the Devs, which in turn reduces Company B's ability to compete and further strengthening Company A's domination.

We've ended down the conversation route of "But people CHOSE Steam", which an objective look at the history of Steam its actually "People chose steam over not having any of the games they wanted to play" rather than "People chose steam over some alternative way of legally playing the games they wanted"

Valve has had market domination for over a decade, the vast majority of popular games are exclusive to Steam. The PC gaming market was not competitive. GOG built its position from a niche, Retro and DRM Free, but without a guaranteed stream of timely released popular games that Niche will only get them so far.

The situation of the Market is far better than it was 5 years ago, we're slowly seeing viable competition emerging from the likes of Epic and Microsoft. Though its now more segregated, with more companies having exclusive titles.

GOG is in a precarious position, with many devs now choosing Epic as their "alternative" to Steam where they once might have gone on GOG.