yeah, right. Day after day, with your support, DRM will get nastier, that's for sure. Because you allow this by buying it.
you can't "drm protect" and satisfy customers at the same time. see drm fiasco.
like I said, we were 1 bilion people on the planet one hundred year ago and now there's 7 bilion. Clearly we're talking about a great increase in quantity and not in quality. yeah, the majority is sheep-dumb. you can see it everyday, easily.
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
You probably did't read the (this) news here on gog: 1-3 year newer games will be released here on gog, drm-free, flat-priced and with free goodies, in the good old fashion way of gog doing business.
Yep, it's gonna happen.
You RENT games on ... big difference.
DRM cannot be benign, in your case you just pick the lesser evil. But it's evil nontheless.
yes, drm schemes ARE designed to fight the real customers!!! can't you see it?
Yes, I buy a product, I own it. Simple as that. And if I own it, I got to with it what the hell I want: giving it to a friend, resell it, install it in all MY computers, etc.
Just because you've been brainwashed by the big corporates doesn't mean everybody think this (sick) way.

Holy crap, man. Chill! :P

I believe GOG is referring to Indie developers when they wrote "1-3 year newer games will be released here on gog, drm-free, flat-priced and with free goodies, in the good old fashion way of gog doing business."

There's simply no way they're getting the big publishers (i.e. EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Activision, etc) to release new AAA games without any DRM. If these companies could be convinced that easily, we wouldn't be dealing with DRM at all.

No, you don't "own" the game and it's not "yours to do with as you please." You own a license to use it and that's it. You apparently don't understand the concept of intellectual property or copyright law.

I believe you're forgetting something, too. You see DRM as fattening the wallets of corporate executives (and to some degree, that's true), but that's only one small part of the picture.

There are tons of non-wealthy people who work on these games: artists, writers, coders, etc. By sharing games with friends, you're making that company lose a sale. When this happens on a large scale, you have numerous lost sales. While that may seem okay to you, these sales mean the difference between "Joe Average" keeping his animation job or filing for unemployment.

I'm 19 and my first game was Monkey Island 2 (original and loved it) .... Does that give you slight hope about others :P ?

In the news that gog posted the word "indie" does not appear. Just newer games.
We'll see in 2012 what's going to happen, at first probably there'll be some underrated newer games but as time go by i'm pretty confident that we'll see here newer aaa games also.
Just remember: with any drm-ed purchase you make you allow this shit to happen!
and with any drm-free buy you make you contribute to the death of drm and a reinstate in our core rights.
it's simple.
we're dealing with drm because so many people think that drm it's "benign" and "unobtrusive" etc and therefore buy drm'ed products!
Do you think that if nobody buys drmed products anymore the gaming industry disappears? no, the gaming industry will change to what customers want, games sans drm.
it's simple also.
No, you don't understand a simple concept like your core right. Drm violates this.
You also don't understand that when a law it's bad you don't take it like a sheep, you fight for it, you fight for your rights, and you make it better.
Do you think laws are given by some impartial martians who are perfect beeings?
No, the laws are given by imperfect people like you and me, and they make mistakes and they also are the servant of money and corporate power/lobby that impose their unjust laws through them. Good laws for them and bad laws for us the consumers.
When a law is unjust you are compelled to fight it and make it just. Not obey it like a sheep. And this "you don't own a game, you own a licence" it's just bullshit and should insult even the inteligence of a baby.
When I share my car does that mean the company lose a sale?
When I share my tennis racquet ....
When I share my dvd ...
When i share my skis ...
etc
etc
Doesn't that mean that those companies lose sale?
Do you see other products drm-ed? NO!

But people are brainwashed into thinking that the game industry is "different", "this time is different".
Newsflash. Is not different at all.

You say artists? how about a writer/poet? I buy their book and share it with friends? Lost sale?
musicians? I buy cd/mp3 and easily share with friends? of course, no problem.

This all drm fiasco is for grossly violating our citizen rights and you don't even know/see it!

That's why I keep saying "wake up people!"

Great news, great idea. Why lag behind a few years if you can also manage to get some new releases drm-free. Especially indie games would be a great fit. Go GOG!

To those afraid this will hurt the community: it probably will. Internet communities scale really badly. Still, I think this has less to do with the kind of games GOG offers (that reeks of a superiority complex, guys! And the few games that do have a `bad' main audience seem unlikely to be released drm-free before their next iteration is released) and more with GOG's overall popularity.

True. Technically speaking, all we've ever really done with games is 'rent' them. But until Steam et al appeared, there was no way to realistically enforce it. Technically, there's still no way to enforce it, as everything is cracked and ready in almost no time at all, but even so.

Of course, the distinction is hard to maintain when publishers and so on talk about selling games, or about people buying games. Such terminology suggests actual goods, which suggests the ownership of something.

So long as they keep using that language, I'm going to assume ownership of what I buy. You can use every technicality you like, but I have a few hundred games that - barring damage - I can guarantee I will be able to play so long as I have a PC and electricity. As unlikely as it may be, people with a few hundred games on Steam cannot guarantee that they will be able to play them tomorrow, let alone in a few years time.

Exactly, e.g. I'm right now looking at e.g. the Steam "About" page which plainly states:

"Over 1,100 games are available to purchase, download, and play from any computer."

Yes, it suggests I'm purchasing the games, not renting them or purchasing only a license that can be revoked any time. The EULA has more information on that though and is contradicting the "About" page.

About the cases (both in Origin and Steam) where someone is banned and thus he can't access the game(s) anymore with no refunds whatsoever: to me this does not make sense in a service where you are making a one time payment for playing a game. It would be more understandable if these were really services for which you pay something every month in order to use it, just like you pay to your ISP, cable TV company or mobile operator.

So if Steam and Origin really were services where you pay e.g. $10-30 a month to play those 1100 games and that's it (no initial payments, or having to pay in order to activate yet another game), then I would be quite fine in case they cancel your account and refuse to let you access the games anymore. In that case I don't see it any different in case e.g. Spotify Premium or cable TV company decided to cancel your subscription for any reason.

At the moment, these gaming services offer the worst of both worlds to the end-customer, something that wouldn't fly on other non-gaming related services.

Well, for all the bitching out there GOG has answered in pcgamer:
GOG director explains the distributor’s new direction, how “good old” principles still apply

We can't own a game itsef (the source code), but we can own a copy of its compiled source code. And in steam, you just own the license to play :/

Violating our "core rights?" Give me a break! None of us have the "right" to video games. Games are a privilege, just like any piece of entertainment.

The reason I think GOG is aiming for Indie developers is because they don't have the same corporate mentality. Their aim is to get their game(s) noticed by as many as possible and that means any avenue they can use to sell it.

The big game publishers, which produce AAA titles, aren't anywhere near as desperate. They can pick and choose how they want to sell their games and given Steam's larger user base and market exposure (plus the addition of Steam's own DRM or the fact they can add their own) is incentive enough to stay away from making a low-priced no-DRM deal with GOG.

You seem to think that if we said "we're not going to buy your DRM PC games" the game companies would have a panic attack and change their ways. Not so. You see, PC gaming is nowhere near as profitable as console gaming. As is, video game companies spend most of their time, effort and money there. If they saw PC gaming becoming even less worthwhile, many publishers would drop it all together.

Still not understanding the whole "you only own a license to use it" thing? Well, have you ever read a EULA? It's that annoying page of legalize that pops up when installing a game that most people don't even glance at as they click "next" or "yes" to continue the installation. Try reading it. You'll see what you own and don't own.

Even early non-DRM games specified that you only had a license to use it on ONE computer at a time and didn't want you sharing. Of course, companies couldn't enforce it back then and now they can. I suppose that's the major difference.

Sharing your car or a movie isn't necessarily piracy. Why? Because it's expected that you'll have passengers in your car or invite people over to watch a movie with you. The same is true of video games that have local multiplayer(co-op or versus).

However, single player games are designed for one person and the only way to really share that experience is to loan/give/sell your copy of the game to them. In doing so, you've also given that individual the ability to make a copy of your game, because without DRM, there's nothing to stop them from doing it.

So now they've gotten a copy for themselves, free of charge, which does in fact mean a lost sale for the developer and publisher. Magnify this by thousands upon thousands of people and you'll see a serious loss of revenue, all of which means lower budgets in the future and/or job cuts.

Anyway... I'm done trying to argue this point. We're just going around in circles and neither one of us is going to see eye-to-eye.

I see there's hope yet for mankind. ;o)

I don't know if I really like the idea of Gog.com getting some more of the latest games. I like it the way it is, it makes older games feel like their new again. Makes it feel more right to buy and own them, unlike on Steam where it feels like its useless to get old games like Doom, Quake, and so on.
I hope the idea changes. :s
I can be fine with maybe a few, maybe some indie games, like MineCraft for example.
But if you do end up getting latest games, don't make them those annoy big titles, we've all seen them enough already.. -.-

But god, don't make it look useless to own old games.

I've said many times to my friends that GOG is perfectly positioned to handle many of the newer Indi-games (like The Book of Unwritten Tales, Gemini Rue, etc) because they often embody the same spirit of classic gameplay of yesteryear, but with the added benefit of actually running on modern systems without the need for DOS emulation.

Instead you have the right to drm. go figure.

another bullshit. and you keep it in sight like it's an honorable thing.
you forget that this shity eula appears AFTER i buy the initial game, violating and changing the previous contract. When I buy a game from store there's eventually an receipt or proof of purchase, AND NO EULA. eula it's when installing, so it changes the previous agreement, so it's nuissance.

man, you got a good and real brainwash.