Hi everybody.
I just wanted to say "good job" to everybody at GoG. The experience is flawless. The page is a joy to navigate and pretty much my "Gold Standard" as far as online shops are concerned. It's so effortless that I even repurchased a game (Unreal) that I already own, just because it was so much easier than looking for the disc :)
My little problem is about the merchandise itself. There are some good games, but right now the selection is rather limited. Publishers are careful and they are afraid to set a precedent if they publish games here, without DRM. Of course, that's what attracted me and many others here to actually use GoG, so it seems like we have a sort of stalemate situation here.
But maybe there's some common ground. I mean, we all buy games. We don't want to pirate them, otherwise we wouldn't be here. We just don't want to deal with obstructive DRM that gets in the way. So, for me at least, a little bit of "oldfashioned" DRM would be acceptable in the form of a signature that is embedded into games that I purchase and that is linked to me. Nothing that "executes", but maybe a credit card hash value embedded into a texture or something like that. That way, if a GoG game is distributed, it can be traced.
I know this isn't an effective mechanism, but neither is "normal" DRM and yet the publishers still require shops to use it so maybe, just maybe, it will be enough to attract some more.
What I would want GoG to do if they choose that route is properly communicate it. If a publisher requires such an embedded signature, please say so. Don't hide it in the ToS. Put it right on the info page... something like "The publisher of this game requires use to sign each download of this game with a unique signature that can be traced back to your account, so be sure not to put it into the wrong hands."
So, what do you (by which I mean both the GoG staff and the users) think?

eh, any extra code that doesn't enhance game play, is code i'm against.

So am I, but I still want the games :) ... and the only code would be on GoG's servers. A watermark is passive and not "run" once it has been embeded.

Not me. I do not want to deal with ANY DAMN KIND of stupid and nasty DRM at all. I want to OWN my games, I've paid for them, they are mine, forever, and no one should interfere not even the authors :P Watermark? Do not want.

I thought the whole point of this site is to be 100% free of any of that stuff, as unobtrusive as it may be. Don't get me wrong, I play a lot of games with DRM and I don't hate it that much, but I am pretty sure a large chunk of the people here like Weclock and KingofGnG are against anything even remotely similar to that.

I think that small little thing would be fine if it got more publishers onboard. Hell, it doesn't even qualify as DRM by today's standards. (background programs, install limits, online activations, etc.)

I probably should have left the term "DRM" out of my initial post.
To clarify:
Watermarks are not what is usually referred to as DRM. They don't influence the application in any way. In fact, the app is not even aware that it exists and doesn't do any checks. It just sits on your harddrive, without ever being decoded. If it was removed, the app would function just like before.
The only case when a watermark is ever decoded is if somebody who has actually access to the watermark (for example if the game appeared on a P2P network) and the database (that would be GoG.com) reads them manually. Then, and only then will it be readable.
@honourbody: I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. I play DRMed games, both on consoles (happy PS3 owner here) and PC (Sam and Max fan all the way). However, as a customer I don't like DRM in bought software. For me it's a symbol that I do not own the game but have merely aquired a temporary license that can be invalidated under certain circumstances and will eventually expire. I think of DRMed content as "rented". I accept it if there's some added value in it for me (for example, the Sam and Max episodes arrive monthly with heavy DRM until the whole season appears on disc) or isn't activation based (i.e. the game will still run and install if the servers are off, as is the case with PS3 games) or if there's a hefty price reduction for using the DRMed version (basically i I can look at it as a rental fee, so 30% of the retail price is the absolute max).
In general, I'd say that GoG is about selling/buying games, while ensuring the best customer experience. But for such an experience you need both: Service and content... after all, what is the best service worth if there aren't any good games.
P.S. took me a bit too long to post, Urb4nZ0mb13. I hadn't read your post when I did, so part of what I posted is redundant.

I think once gog proves it business model is viable and making money, that game publishers will be more willing to allow their old (dead) titles to be sold on gog.
This is due to the simple fact that the games they considered dead can once more make them money.
The hope of greater profits will drive publishers to use gog, not much else.

I really hope your right... I just think it's very difficult right now for GoG to reach that goal with it's relatively small games catalog. Few games -> Few customers -> Few sales -> Little incentive to publishers to rethink their current model -> Few games -> (...).
Since I'd really, really like to see the non-DRM (or should I say non-active-DRM) system to work I'd be willing to make this (to me) relatively small sacrifice.

System Shock 2 votes - 2880 x 9.99 = $28,771
System Shock 1 votes - 2060 x 9.99 = $20,579
Now who wouldn't enjoy at least $50,000 in sales from games they considered dead?

Publishers are like dinosaurs. It takes something extra tasty to make them turn their head. And stupid as this may sound to most of us, $50k is not nearly tasty enough for most of them.
The trick is to give them something that looks like their usual (DRMed) chow.
GoG: "Look, we have what you've always had. Nice DRMed publishing"
Big Publisher: "Mmm, yummy"
GoG: "Only the DRM is very, very mild"
Big Publisher: "Who cares, it's got DRM!"
(Publisher takes a bite)
GoG: "Actually, it's so mild one could argue if it's even there."
Big Publisher: "Huh?"
GoG: "Too late, you already ate it"

I'd still like to see some sales data on GOG so far...

Working with financial analysts, I can assure you that's exactly the kind of information a privately held company does NOT hand out willy nilly.

Hell no! DRM-free means no DRM! You don't get it, do you?

I'm sorry, but that that is a terrible idea. It's a solution looking for a problem, and the unintended consequences are pretty nasty. Buying games with annoyances attached or that can't work reliably as one thing, but a built-in legal liability I'd avoid like the plague. This is certainly not a case of "the innocent have nothing to fear". Consider that if a group of ten people buy a given game, only one or two - maybe three if they don't coordinate - will actually download it. That nothing prevents this is a major factor to GOG's appeal.