Hope you feel better soon. :)

Yeah it's a copout, because GOG has shown it's a competitor for Valve, current publishers are absolutely flocking to their DRM free store... oh wait. Valve tries that and pretty soon we'll all be using Origin, or whatever store the publishers decide to use.

As for region restrictions, no, the same doesn't go. That's got nothing at all to do with publishers. As much as I hate it hey would be breaking the law if they offered refused classification or uncut games here. Valve tries that and pretty soon none of us Aussies will be using Steam without a VPN.

Doesn't make it any less of a cop-out, and all the more reason to commend GOG for its higher principles, even if they mean they can't sell many types of games that many other stores can. Sure, GOG could also sell much more games in their store, if they e.g. started selling (only) Steam keys here, or allowed TAGES and SecuROM DRM in all their games (plus regional pricing and region-restricted games, which many publishers seem to have a hard-on as well). But that would also be a cop-out, and the blame would be on GOG for allowing it in their store. The very same applies to Steam when they allow (even 3rd party) DRM in their own service.

And you did read the part of my message suggesting that at the very least Valve could require the publishers to limit the DRM only on Steam DRM? But of course they wouldn't do that because they've always liked the extra money from TAGES/SecuROM/GFWL sales as well, regardless of how the potential customers feel when they find out about the undocumented 3rd party DRMs afterwards. The only case where Valve goes head-to-head with the publishers is when Valve's own interests are at stake, like the earlier Valve vs. EA arguments.

By the way, I find it funny how many Steam proponents flock into this discussion in order to lecture the OP about him not finding any negatives on GOG's actions, and positives on Valve's actions... yet at the same time they are clearly themselves unable to see anything negative in any of Valve's actions. Like, pretending that Valve can't be blamed for allowing (even 3rd party) DRM on Steam games on their own service.

Except Steam never went with the whole "anti-DRM" stance, so there's nothing to cop-out on. anti-DRM is your principle, it's GOGs principle, not Valves.

And yes, Valves attempt to push EA around on "their principles" resulted in EA flinging them the middle finger and moving everything on to Origin. It's not in Valves interests to push something they don't even belive in that will only result in them losing money,

And finally the opposite is also true for GOGs own Steam hatesquad, who can't see a single positive in Steam at all.

You seem overly confused, so pay attention now.

I originally replied to a message which suggested that it is the publishers to be blamed for having DRM in (Steam) games, not Valve. I pointed out that yes, the blame is also on Valve for allowing (even 3rd party) DRM on the games on their own service.

Your "point" is hence completely irrelevant, but I guess you needed to react if anyone says anything negative about Valve/Steam.

Again there's not a single positive from you, they're guilty just by association. There's no confusion here, your baseless hatred is clear as day.

What's the problem there? Steam is DRM-agnostic, it doesn't force publishers to use DRM (as proven by the DRM-free games available there, there's even a thread about it here) and it doesn't force them to remove DRM either.

Valve has never been anti-DRM like GOG to begin with. So, what's the problem?
Blame Valve for what? DRM-free has never been a principle for Valve.

I have noticed in my years here that there are two types of anti-DRM proponents. There are those that are genuinely politically or morally against it, they have my respect even if I'm much more relaxed about the whole thing personally. Then there's the other type that are in it for narcissistic reasons. It takes a special skill to wind a community up that otherwise has a lot in common.

Ok, an analogy to make it easier for you to comprehend. Let's say a company starts making products that are designed to get broken right after the warranty period is over (and there have actually been companies which have done things like this). So is your point now that they can't be blamed for anything because they simply didn't have a principle of making products that would last beyond the warranty period?

Suddenly we are all immune to any kind of blames. I stole your car? Well, maybe I never had a principle of not stealing your car. "But it is against the law!". Maybe I didn't have a principle of obeying the law? Still can't blame me for anything, I guess..

Also, in case you didn't notice, the original message to which I replied suggested that yes someone could be blamed for (also 3rd party) DRM, but it should be the publishers rather than the service allowing it that should be blamed. Using your logic, the publishers can't be blamed either, as they simply didn't have a principle of using DRM. So all those Steam users blaming Ubisoft for using 3rd party DRM with strict installation caps, or requiring UPlay account on top of the Steam account, were wrong after all? Nothing to blame Ubisoft for.

Games with DRM are just as much fault of Valve as they are of any brick and mortar store. If you stand by the belief that even brick and mortar stores are somehow guilty for DRM, well... At least you're consistent I guess.

Then there are the third type who are against it for pragmatic reasons, for example me.

As for the Steam-proponents, I've noticed a few who seem to here just to stir trouble (that's why I call the trolls). They don't even seem to ever buy any GOG games (at least they never mention it, while they do always mention here what they have bought from other services), all they ever seem to do here on GOG forums is to complain about GOG, about GOG being DRM-free, and promoting other stores (mainly Steam of course).

I never quite figured out what keeps them in these forums they seem to hate so much, but maybe it is, as you said, for narcissistic reasons.

EDIT: Also about the "a lot in common" part, I think different people are on GOG for different reasons. Some (of those who actually buy games from GOG) are here for older games and possibly don't care about DRM, some (like me) are more interested in DRM-free part, and maybe even wish to see more new games on the GOG service, etc. (while many in the first group are maybe even against the newer releases appearing on GOG). And so on and so forth. So no, I don't personally see this as a monolithic "community".

If e.g. a brick and mortar store, which is in a dominant market position, sells products that are designed to break down after the warranty period, and even knows about it (ie. willingly allowing it, even if not really advertising such feature either), then yes I am blaming also the store for the practice, by being the enablers.

I guess you don't? You know, just so that you are fully consistent?

And the reason I specifically used the word "service" for Steam is because they have to enable certain features in order for publishers to use them (like Steam DRM). It is easier to believe that some brick and mortar store sold a product with questionable features, without necessarily knowing about it. Unless you think Valve is completely unaware of e.g. the 3rd party DRMs that the publishers may be using in Valve's service.

I'm not commenting one way or the other as today I'm not in the mood to get attacked, ridiculed or get my words twisted, thank you very much. Just wanted to clear it up.

Thank you for that analogy. Before I thought it was simple - Valve do not force DRM free on publishers as they do not care about DRM or the DRM free principle, but let it be up to the various developers to decide for themselves. And I thought it was that simple.

Now I realise it was because they want to steal cars and sell you things that break down after warranty expires. Thank you very much for making it much clearer and ensuring that no one is ever going to muddle the waters again. What would we have done without these analogies. I would have been very confused.

I now need an analogy to explain this post, I hope you can help.

Sometimes the problem is not at the other end, but in your own argument. After all, you demanded me to elaborate my view, but then decided not to clear up your on view on whether a service provider can be blamed for allowing questionable products or practices on their service (especially when doing it knowingly).

The first problem seems to be that you don't know what the term analogy means. That's why you apparently thought I had claimed Valve is stealing cars or making things break after warranty. I hadn't.

After you have checked Wikipedia what the term means, next you could try to explain why you feel they are flawed analogies, in case you still disagree with them.

Also, I have hard time believing that Valve is not aware e.g. what 3rd party DRM different publishers are using in their games on Valve's own service, in case that is what you were suggesting. After all, Valve has earlier made a heart-breaking article on how it tries to persuade the publishers not to e.g. use 3rd party DRM on their Steam games (I'll have to see if I still have a link to that article). Whether that was just cheap talk or not, I don't know, but I guess many would have preferred if Valve had been more strict about it (e.g. those Steam users who say they refuse to buy Steam games that have 3rd party DRM with installation caps and such, and are miffed when finding out about it only after purchase).

Anyway, if what you say is true and Valve doesn't care about DRM, then I guess they have stopped trying to convince publishers not to use 3rd party DRM on top of Steam DRM. If they ever really did that to begin with.