I am ashamed to say I have 476 games from GoG. That is a ludicrous amount.There is no way I could devote enough time to play them.

Even so, I guess its an addiction and I am tempted to buy the latest on sale games. This boycott has saved me wasting even more money. Thank you.

My reasons are different from yours. The main reason is their Galaxy 2.0 force down the throat attitude. I love Galaxy myself, but not the new social Galaxy 2.0 hogwash. The DRM is also a slight concern and other things that you mention and failed to mention.

Regardless, I'm near a third of the way through the year and I've actually been playing the games I have, instead of looking for the next shiny pearl.

Yes and not to mention the nigthmare to perhaps contact the owner as a consumer or as steam to the owner of the game to remove the DRM if steam does go down
Maybe the game dev has gone under or the rigts to the game have shifted hand
or other issues

https://killapenguin.com/random/gamestuff/steams-drm-removal-myth/

Alot of good points in the article except the one about backing up your games
This woudnt work with online checks games at least unless you know some hackers or looks up something on the internet
that can remove it
or have skills to do something about it on your own

Steam is directly responsible for fostering the use and normalization of online DRM, after all, they used their biggest game, Half-Life 2 as a trojan horse to get people to accept it in the first place.

Valve has no moral high-ground at all.

k :)

Sadly this is more likely a myth that has spread over time. :|

(for one thing, steam's owners/etc would likely get in a fair bit of legal trouble with their partners if they did that)

=-=-=

Or staff will lock more of them

It's your decision but it's beyond bizzare.
The boycott (one of it's points anyway) is about specificly GOG releasing the game.
Under no circumstances GOG can get more liberal treatment just because affected developer decided to self publish.

It sounds almost like you want the whole debacle to go unnoticed.
The ordeal doesn't get enough publicity? People mad. Suddenly people start talking about it intensively? People also mad.
Pick one.

You know... There is this thing called "shortening quotes to absolute neccesary minimum for the sake of readability and tidiness".
You should try it...

Really?
What kind of dictionary of yours warrants ownership == DRM-free ?
These are completely unrelated terms.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo.
I have dug inside and out of Steam software and I know FOR A FACT there is plenty of cvars doing interesting things.
Including ones that seriously bypass online requirement (at least for singleplayer games) after installing - and before you ask - no I will not share it because the moment it would go viral it would get patched (just like when depot downloading got mainstream enough Valve introduced access tokens for it). Many people other than me know about it, since Valve has nasty habit of leaving these cvars in plain sight (along with their very... cough incomplete cough developer documentation) until they get too much publicity in which case they patch it and I personally don't want that to happen.

Considering how Steam API is built, how things like Goldberg use that fact, I am highly certain "the official solution" could literally be a drop-in replacement steamapi .dll file that plugs into the existing calls (just like Goldberg which uses the whole fact of how conveniently Steam API is build to allow that) to entirely bypass any STEAM-RELATED online / client needs.
I'm not going to go into details but Goldberg even allows emulating Steam networking in such a way that you can play over LAN in certain games that normally don't have that functionality.
And OFFICIAL drop-in file would get even more functionality.

I think you are confusing some things.
Valve meant that they have a hidden way of allowing bypassing STEAM ITSELF, NOT "all DRMs put in all games BY DEVELOPERS".
Responsibility for the latter is ENTIRELY on developers and Valve has nothing to do with it.
I would like to note that Valve doesn't force any developers into putting ANY DRM in games published on Steam.
Valve provides the platform, and some toolkits, such as Steamworks, Steam stub DRM, Steam CEG DRM (seems dead and unused for years), and some others.
It's entirely up to the developers IF and WHAT they put into their games.
There is plenty of games on Steam that have literally NONE, NOT EVEN STEAM STUB, and after installing they are 100% DRM-free.
It's not Valve that puts for example Denuvo in some game. It's entirely a CHOICE of related developers and it's THE DEVELOPERS' responsibility to eventually remove it. They totally could provide DRM removal patch some years after theoretical "Steam death".
There are plenty documented cases of such patches being eventually distributed for example for SecuROM games outside of Steam.

The fact that you said this makes you look like you think you are some sort of saviour of forums talking about some unspeakable news.
It's no news at all that there have had been and still are plenty of games which contain internal call-home online checks (and subsequently refuse to start if not present) that are completely independent from Steamworks (the checks).

Oooooh, so you belong to "this TOS is imo unlawful, I HATE IT, but I'm not going to fight it" crowd?
As in: "law is a thing 'but in practise it doesn't work that way'" crowd?
The one that decides to never complain to authorities and instead to wave their hands saying "in practise law doesn't work"?
If you don't like the TOS and think it's unlawful go ahead and report it to authorities. Do something about it.
Unless, of course, it's more convenient for you to point fingers and wave hands doing nothing.
Seriously...

They may, and it really depends on a lot of factors. Such as regional laws.

The... WHAT?
Just... WHAT human right warrants ownership of games... let alone "basic" one?
Please... quote...
Prove your point about how allegedly "it's a BASIC human right to own games".
I'm waiting.

I'm pretty sure all services (for example websites, stores, etc) that have a TOS do exactly that.

I don't recall ever being presented with new Steam TOS to accept on every multiplayer game update.
Maybe you are confusing it with EULA. Which is a contract with developer/publisher and is outside of control of Valve (as evident by the fact that some games don't have it at all and all others basically have all kinds of stuff in there and every single such EULA can be different).

I never said it. Don't EVER try to put words in my mouth!

Oh, so you are not ok with "Steam unlawful TOS" but you ARE ok with proven unlawful HumbleBundle TOS?
Ok. Gotcha.

I don't know from when (I would have to make a lot of backtracking to find out, but it's been like that for at least years) but you can ACTUALLY bypass Steam DRM in almost all (I am not certain if 100% all) Valve games with a simple cvar.

I would use word "account" instead of "online" but otherwise what you said is generally correct.

It's not a myth. Valve made their API in such a way that they could very easily make this come true.
Read what I wrote in this very post.

I'll continue to drop by the forums on occasion but I'm not going to buy anything at all this entire year at the very least.

My complaints mirror the op a lot, chief among them is the debacle over devotion. I just simply will not tolerate any company that bends the knee to online complainers. This entire concept of canceling things and people just because some people whine online is heinous crime. It's disgusting. I will not support a company that acts like a spinless coward.

What I mean is how a good number across the net seem to think that means that, if that happened, that the games will all suddenly become drm free. Obviously they likely all wouldn't be.....well not unless the rights owners individually allow for such, that is.

Well then you may as well put yourself on the list in this thread.

Yes, a lot of people don't understand that.
The "official bypass" would remove just STEAM dependency, NOT things like Denuvo.

And lore will mock staff of them.

I wonder if the any/all drm filled games would even work if the steam requirement were removed....what with the folder structure and all.

(at the very least i'm guessing that it'd probably be a bit of work to get some games "sorted"/running again if steam ever closed up shop)

After seeing what B1tF1ghter had to say about my statement, I feel I should restate and clarify some things.

1. The only time GOG will be ever be seeing my business from here on in is if the game in question is exclusive to their store and currently on sale for a large discount. With Steam's huge library also dealing in classic games, this makes what used to be a once in a while situation for me into once in a blue moon with them only making half the profit they normally would have to boot. Right now there is only one game I want on here (The Kao trilogy, for the curious) and the full price is six dollars. It used to be 3, but after some research I found out one has a case of removed content (Silent Hill 4, of which I already own the PS2 version and don't care about the FPS/ widescreen situation) and the other just looked meh (M.U.L.E.). Therefore, They can likely expect a cool 3 bucks this upcoming Spring sale. Hopefully they don't spend it all in one place.

2. I never at any point wanted to give the impression that I was betraying you fine folk and I am horribly sorry if I did. As I stated on this thread, actually restated quite recently, the only part of this I wanted fulfilled before I started shopping here again was that Devotion be put back on sale as it rightfully should be. I understand it states in the terms of the boycott that it be GOG that sells the game but I'll say it again: I find the option to get it directly off the Red Candle store to be an even better outcome due to Red Candle getting all the profit and not having to give some of it to a middleman store and a nice bit of karma for GOG in the form of all the lost customers they would've gotten had they not wimped out in the first place.

Trust me when I say that I'm not putting GOG on a pillar just because we can now buy Devotion. It just means that I will rarely be popping in if the game is something that a) I really want, b) exclusive to their store and c) basically on sale for peanuts.

I wish you all the best and I HIGHLY recommend you pick up Devotion from Red Candle's store if you haven't already. It's FANTASTIC, so damn good I ain't even mad they had me make an account before I could buy it.

I got what you meant earlier, and tbh I don't think you need to explain yourself to anyone, as I think people should be ok with(or at the very least tolerate) other stances if spoken/shared civilly....even opposing ones.

(i don't know how all other goggers might feel on this, but I hope they would feel the same way)

Sure. Everyone is only accountable to their own concience or convictions. There is no 'boycott authority' that anyone has to report to. I won't shop here until GOG is DRM-free again for single-player. Others have other reasons to boycott and may have other reasons to resume buying here. It's a personal decision.