Since developer and publisher are the same in this case your example does not really fit but in theory I am sure that most would rather have the finished/polished product and STILL complaining about the completelty unnecessary DRM.

It's kind of like the (much more relevant) question: Which would you prefer, an outdated buggy version of a game on GOG or an up-to-date better debugged version of the same game on steam? Based on your byline, you would probably prefer the buggy former, wouldn't you?

Since it seems like I can't post anything against DRM without having a member of The DRM Fan Club telling me that I'm wrong for having DRM....

Let's play devil's advocate against DRM because GOG does sell games while they are In Development.

You know. Where you purchase a game before it is actually released and get to play development builds to provide feedback to the developers. Yes, the GOG builds tend to lag behind the Steam builds. However the fact remains that if you purchase something while it is still In Development, you do expect that you're going to receive a release copy on whatever platform you purchased the game on. Nobody wants to be told, "Okay. Here's a Steam Key for you" for the release version if they didn't purchase the game on Steam in the first place.

There really is no reason that anyone should be forced into settling for DRM just to have a game that is fully functional. If you are one of those people who really does believe that DRM enhances gameplay, great for you. I think you're on the wrong website though.


Also my backlog is far too big for me to be pressured into feeling like I'm missing out because some game on the wishlist section of my excel spreadsheet is Steam exclusive with DRM. I'm also on a laptop so whatever DRM infested AAA game you're going to tell me is the greatest thing ever and a must buy probably isn't even going to run on my computer.

If a game developer were saying they need more funds to be able to complete the game properly, then I would still reject the option of including locked (DRMed) cosmetic extras and would rather pay a 'DRM-free' tax instead. I.e. I would pay a higher price (than Steam) for a fully-functional, up-to-date, 100% DRM-free version of the game.

I will personally not compromise with DRM. Not now, not ever.

Of course we would complain about it, I am just pointing out that in the modern gaming industry one can't just automatically assume that the money they paid for a game entitles them to get all the "free" extras with no strings attached, as without those strings the extras might never have been created in the first place.

Developers who have clearly stopped caring about maintaining even a somewhat delayed update parity between GOG and Steam tend to find it near impossible to sell any of their later games to me unless they first rectify their massive breach of trust in my eyes.

Only someone with an almost totally black and white worldview could ever mistake me as being in favor of DRM, as there is no such thing as a single player game so great that I could allow myself to play it despite having not yet been able to future-proof it properly, because the more I would want to play it, the more pressing I would feel the need to be able to ensure first that I can always replay that game as long as I can build a compatible system for it and can still provide the power needed to run that system.

The only reason I am not as strict with multiplayer support is that no matter how well I could future-proof the technical aspect of that, the people I would agree to play with are going to grow old, change their taste for games and fill their calendars with so many other hobbies and responsibilities that my already rare multiplayer opportunities with them don't need any more obstacles than my refusal to create a Steam account, pay monthly fees or install any online only game that doesn't allow me to play it for free.

Except in my scenario the developer would not have been saying that to us or giving us any choice, as things had already happened and also it would have been the publisher holding the power to even consider offering us the option to buy a DRM-free DLC with those extras that they funded in order to convince more gamers to use their client, so either you missed that or you really don't want to get out of your black and white comfort zone.

Perfect is the enemy of good, especially when it comes to DRM, as far too many people try to use that acronym for almost everything they personally don't like about digital entertainment, making it really difficult to have any nuanced discussion about things like how with multiplayer design a lot of early design choices can easily turn the multiplayer support DRM-free incompatible in a lot more fundamental ways than any actual DRM could ever prevent a single player game from later becoming DRM-free.

Terminally ill multiplayer support would require a miracle to become DRM-free compatible, as the redesign could easily cost more than could be offset by even many years of sales here, so it would be better to focus on finding cases where the multiplayer support could be turned DRM-free compatible with a lot more reasonable minor changes to the design and demand those changes to be made rather than wasting any effort on demanding the terminally ill multiplayer support to be removed, as who knows if the miracle we need is a future GOG customer who would need to have access to the unmodified game?

Not all games are better debugged version just because there updated. You know this. I know games that have got worse with updates.

You are right. I also know of games that got worse by adding rewards to them.

Good point I can't disagree with that.

In the scenario you describe, I would not purchase said game from that developer/publisher, because I would consider them to have introduced DRM into their game. To me, the situation is very clear and simple: they made a bad design choice to include DRM in their game. If they want me to purchase it, they would need to correct their mistake.

The point that they made a poor initial design choice that is difficult/costly to undo changes nothing.

I don't think I missed anything. However, some things are black and white, and DRM is one of those things. DRM is a mechanism that is built into a game to lock/control a portion of the content. Either such a mechanism is present in the game, or it isn't. There is no grey area there. In a similar way to how a castle either contains a lock or it doesn't.

I agree with you on the portion I have highlighted. Whether we call it 'DRM' or not (which is really a semantic discussion), multiplayer that relies on an external server to function is worse for ownership/preservation than content that is built into the game being locked. Because, the MP server application is effectively a part of the game - it is required for an entire mode of the game to function - and it has been entirely withheld from the player base by the developer.

Sadly, I consider such MP games to be defective by design; the initial design decisions made by the developers to be deeply flawed; and I would never consider purchasing them.

(although, I suspect in many of those cases the 'DRM' issue could be resolved quite simply by the developer providing the server application to the user base)

Me too. And the same goes for developers who have clearly stopped caring about maintaining a parity between galaxy and offline installers.

I am not going to argue whether or not it makes any sense to consider the clearly coerced cosmetic extras as a vital part of the overall design because it is a matter of personal opinion and may vary on a case by case basis for most people, but I must wonder what made you sneak in the word "initial" to the above sentence when it would have been highly improbable that the extra money was offered before it was clear that the developer would run out of money before reaching the previously agreed level of quality?

To make this even more interesting DRM analogue of a trolley problem, what if there were all kinds of nasty contractual obligations that would only allow the developer to hold on to their IP or not get absorbed as yet another internal studio of the publisher if they accepted the extra money and time?

Funny that you go for that analogy, because I consider any actual DRM comparable to a lock on the front door, as removing the lock doesn't in any way affect how the rest of the building was designed and built, not to mention that it would not be unreasonable to haggle a house dealer to remove that lock for you free of charge, whereas all other things many like to call as DRM could be more analogous to various design choices an architect is free to make if for example the client forgot to set an easy wheelchair accessibility as a mandatory requirement.

Unfortunately most modern multiplayer gamers would likely say the same about any DRM-free compatible multiplayer support as they may actually prefer 24/7 automated player rank based matchmaking over the ability to host their own servers, or think that running through a selection of maps and then starting from scratch again is just as archaic as having to schedule a board gaming weekend with a few friends compared to spending every evening with your faction the outer sectors in your territory or trying to expand it by conquering nearby sectors from other factions.

It might not be so simple as you suspect, because for example if a developer hadn't already scaled their server application to run on home grade hardware and/or designed it to not require an IT professional to operate before they or their publisher sit down with GOG to discuss the terms of releasing their game here, the costs for the additional work hours needed to get the player hosted server support in working condition can't exceed what little profit they hope to gain from that deal.

Update parity would not really be an issue if enough gamers would actually hold publishers and developers accountable for their misdeeds on any platforms rather than not care if it doesn't affect them at all or worse, reward them for their bad behavior by blaming GOG for it and then buying again the affected games from Steam.

On the other hand, I have no problem if developers use Galaxy users as test subjects for their short lived hot fixes as long as any time there is a brief pause in the update cycle, they do submit the latest patch to GOG's offline installer team, even better if that would leave GOG more time to request the missing change logs or start adding any older installers as unsupported extras whenever new installers break any existing older OS compatibility.

It boggles my mind that GOG has still not made it one of their main features to preserve those last older OS compatible versions of games as an unsupported extras, despite most of their competitors nowadays also selling old games, so older versions of them still capable of running with older versions of Windows could at least keep GOG more relevant with the retro gaming scene.

I'll summarize my position on DRM - I think it's really quite clear and straightforward:

The only question that matters to me is: "does X game contain a DRM locking mechanism, or not?" where, for single-player games I define a 'DRM locking mechanism' to mean an active programmatic mechanism that is built into the game with the intention of locking off a portion of the content or allowing some sort of remote control over how the user can access or use the content. That question is black or white, yes or no - either such a mechanism is present in the game, or it isn't.

You keep coming back to several points that I don't consider relevant to that question of whether a DRM locking mechanism is present:

The amount of content that may be locked --> not relevant.

The intentions of the developers/whether they may have been coerced by someone else to include the DRM --> not relevant.

At which stage of development the DRM lock may have been added --> not relevant.

It's not that I think these points are invalid, but they are not relevant to where I draw the line, in terms of what I consider to be 'DRM' and what sorts of games I would spend my money on.

Your opinion may differ, in terms of what you consider DRM and what you are willing to accept. That's fine - you're entitled to your opinion and to disagree.

Tbh, I don't think I can spell it out much clearer than that. I'm not going to reply and keep going round on the same points any more in this thread, as I don't want to distract further from its purpose, but I'll be happy to discuss further via a pm.

Sure, so you pretty much label almost anything you don't like as DRM no matter how insignificant portion of the game is affected by it, while to me almost anything that isn't an online authenticated lock on the front door is at worst DRM-free incompatible design which has to be evaluated on a case by case basis on whether or not that makes me not wish to play a game at all or before it has become abandonware.

No point in discussing with DRM trolley problems with you then, but hopefully I got at least a few people to put some more thought on these matters before their minds get permanently set to whatever stance they end up taking.

I don't think so either and I personally can totally agree with your definition and really enjoyed reading it.

Thumbs up :)

Hope not, since it'd imply potentially increasing the acceptability of DRM even among the already pretty small crowd that cares about DRM-free...