What about places other than those? Moreover, why put any trust in the political class, which includes Courts, to do what they say they'll do? Let me guess...because "it's duh best system we've got"...don't pay any mind to my snickering over here. But I digress.

Even if all of what you posted there is accurate and is carried out in such fashion, how does that account for the distinction between a "good" and, let's call it, a "working good"? Can't someone just argue that yes, the digital game is a good, but it simply no longer works? In other words, "you own it, just so happens it's useless now".

I havent said that the current system is the best we have
Earlier in the thread i even complained that consumer rigths and human rigths have slipped in general and i wasnt really pleased with this.
But i now commented on the comment about steam being honest and fair to the consumers
wich i disproved
They woudnt have lost those cases if they spoke the truth
but they havent

And whetever an item has physical pressence
shoud not matter in a case of ownership
Theres no one that protest that bonds or stocks arent owned by somone
And im not just talking about games not just working on steam either
Thers also cases where Steam have been down a couple of days

Besides
Im talking from a consumerss perspective
Not Valve
or any other store owner

Also if a item just stops working not because of something the consumer can be faulted fot
that also falls under some laws
in basics theres something called conaumer protection
You woudnt be ok if the car you bougth just suddenly stops working long before the gaurenteee wenr out by something out of your control

Fair enough :) I was intending to speak more generally with that but I understand and apologize for any confusion.


Sure, I am just trying to figure out why on their side they wouldn't just try to make that distinction as a defense. E.g., "sure, I sold you that car. It's not my fault it's not working now. You bought a car, not a guarantee to a working car". Does that clarify my point?

Most likly because
if a item just stops working not because of something the consumer can be faulted for
that also falls under some laws
in basics theres something called consumer protection
You woudnt be ok if the car you bougth just suddenly stops working long before the gaurenteee went out by something out of your control.

For a car thats about 10 years
and even if it does expires you can still get it worrking by replacing parts in it
otherwise there woudnt be veteran cars
or in the case of games the woudnt be still working old Games or remastered ones, reboots or enchanced old games

I think its 5 years for games
Not sure here, migth be mistaken
Also

-If the seller have no responsobilltys after he sold you a product
the act of offering refunds does loook really strange in ligth of this
Steam is bassicly acknowlegding that they do have some responsobilty
so a defense regarding that point will just turn back at them or it will seams wery strange in court

correcting myself
regarding consumer laws
according to eu laws at least
its 2 years

When you sell a good or a service to a consumer online or via other means of distance communication (by telephone, mail order) or outside a shop (from a door-to-door salesperson), the consumer has the right to return the item or cancel the service within 14 days. This is sometimes referred to as the cooling-off period or the withdrawal period. No reason or justification has to be given by the consumer.

EU law also stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised. In some countries national law may require you to provide longer guarantees.

Sorry going too offtopic here
I just felt i had to comment about the claim thaty steam was seen as the nice/good guys
Im not saying steam are evil or something like that
but they arent consumers friends and will do in whats their best interest is
in what makes them money
and are just as bad as any other store when it comes to consumer practices

best thing about online DRM when a story makes headlines at a prefect time
``Crash Bandicoot 4, a game with no online features, was unplayable when Blizzard's login servers went down``
https://www.pcgamer.com/crash-bandicoot-4-a-game-with-no-online-features-was-unplayable-when-blizzards-login-servers-went-down

if the login servers ever go down then it means you can't play your game that you bought since it needs a authentication from a server to play it

Imagine
If the same had happened to newly bougth car
that the car stopped working because of something outside of the buyers control
People woud be up in arms about it
and that car manufacterer had probably been sued to oblivion
or getting wery angry letters from buyers requesting their money back and a compensation for wasting their time with a product thats not working as intended

The game has been cracked and now the pirates have a better game and service that the poor souls that paid for that thing!

I didn't mean to imply that Steam is 100% honest and trustworthy in all cases. My point was that, regarding DRM specifically, they are relatively clear and open about what is DRMed and what isn't and they are not putting up some pretense of being 'champions of DRM-free', in the way that GOG is.

The intention of my comments was not to try to promote Steam or imply they are the good guys. They are not and I don't buy from them because I am opposed to the DRMed games they sell. But my point was that, the way GOG is going, they will soon be little better than Steam. They are losing the moral high ground they once proudly occupied.

As for the rest of your post: sorry, but TL;DR. It seems like a wall of text that reads like a lecture on intellectual property and I'm not sure how it relates to the points I was making (or the topic of the thread).

The car would also "update" it's exterior color on occasion and prevent you from playing your own music in the stereo. So you'd end up with a car wrapped with some weekly sponsored ad (Brawndo?) that can only play shit like Drake (or whatever Spotify and Apple music data have decided are the top 50 current songs).

I'm not boycotting GOG but... since yesterday I had to solve frigging CAPTCHA in order to log into GOG website. It's driving me nuts! DRM is bad yes, but CAPTCHA is a deadly sin in my book. What's the point of that? There is password and a authorization code if logged from different IP address, how exactly is clicking on those pictures making life better?!?

It's yet another example of just how clueless GOG are now, they seem to be obsessed with trying to 'modernize' everything about themselves... to the detriment of the service.

Yes, Absolver is definitely not DRM-free. But GOG is OK with that. Apparently, the game isn't affected "in a major way", according to their lax definition. As mrkgnao pointed out, GOG's new rule states that it is OK if games are moderately restricted by DRM. Only major restrictions are still not OK.

Isn't Absolver functionally crippled without internet connectivity? Then there's also the existance of Gwent.

I think GOG has already dipped its toes into 'major restrictons' enough that one can't trust where things will end.

Oh, I think it's quite possible to see where things will end: it will end with GOG being a fully DRM-agnostic store, where publishers can publish whatever they want. Only, other than other DRM-agnostic store, GOG will not tell it's customers whether a game has DRM or not.