ncameron: When you authenticate on GOG (or yes, even steam
where you are logging in just the store/your games, not from running a game!) it is the first definition - the games are there waiting for you. Who owns these games? You authenticate, then GOG/steam says "Ah, there you are, here are the games you own."
When you have to start steam and authenticate when running a game, it's saying "You're trying to run this game, but I don't trust that you haven't stolen this - I need to check that you own it before I'll let you run it."
I feel you are just playing with the words there. Both are indeed validation checks whether you are eligible to do something with the said game: either download it, or install, or run it. (For now I separate these three, even though in Steam and Galaxy it may be harder to distinguish between downloading and installing, because they happen at the same time).
Let's say you are a bad casual pirate whose intention is to share your bought game with 50 of your friends so that they can all play it for free. The validation check during download is there to restrict that the original purchaser only can download the said game; the validation check when running game is to restrict that the original purchaser only can run the said game.
So it isn't about whether you are treated as a potential criminal or just "Ah yes sir, there you are, here are your lovely games, good day sir, do you want lemon with your tea sir?". They are both treating you the same way ("potential criminal"), it just happens at a different time. The first happens when you try to get the game delivered to yourself, while the other happens when you try to run it.
Also to note, this is in no way related to which kind of client you are made to use that validation. I really fail to see the logic in claiming that the "delivery time validation" is DRM with a store-specific client, but not with a web browser. Especially if one also thinks that in the "running time validation" the used client doesn't matter but it is always DRM there regardless of the client. It is incoherent to suggest that the used client matters to the DRM definition during the delivery, but not during the running of the game.
The reason why I feel discussion about the validation (DRM?) during the delivery is fruitless is because it can be considered as a one time occurence, usually happening at the very beginning of the process. Yes the store checks that I don't walk out of the store with an unpaid game, but that's fine because it will in no way affect my ability to use the game after that, ever. (Someone might argue that in order to get support, like updates, hints or refunds from the store, you will have to validate yourself again that you had really bought the original game from them, but that doesn't change it. Support can be considered as an extra service on top of your purchased product,)
I concentrate on discussing DRM only when I have the game in my possession, meaning that I've walked out of the store with the game, or downloaded it to my PC (external hard drive).
ncameron: With DRM,
intent matters. Why do you have to login? On GOG, it's simply that it has to distinguish between individuals in order to provide games for the reasons I provided in my first post.
With steam, if you're forced to log in to be able to play a game, that's clearly DRM. Right, but when people talk about "DRM-free Steam games", they specifically mean those Steam games which can be run without the online validation and even the client, after you have transferred the game to your PCs from Steam servers. So basically you can zip those downloaded game files into a compressed file, move it to another PC which is not connected to internet and never had Steam installed, and play the game there.
I consider such Steam games DRM-free, but at the same time:
- They are not officially supported as DRM-free and Steam-free, so if you run into problems with them, you are on your own, no refunds or support from Valve nor the publisher (on the basis that they don't run satisfactorily without a validation and the Steam client).
- To me it is not as convenient as the DRM-free offline installers on GOG (to archive them into an external hard drive etc.), also because I have several different ways (clients) to download them, like any web browser, Galaxy, GOG Downloader, gogrepo, lgogdownloader. So those different download options are about convenience, not about whether I consider download-time validation DRM or not.
ncameron: Incidentally, that's why there's confusion about multiplayer and online and whether having to be logged in online is DRM or not. Once again,
intent matters. Is it to ensure that you own the game/control your usage of it, or is it simply the game's way to distinguish between all the people who are playing (as it obviously has to.) Yes, there are other ways to do that without logging in, and having to log in is problematic in the long run when the authentication servers disappear, but it's not actually DRM - it just acts similarly. It still should be argued against because of the long term implications, there are other ways to distinguish between people. But the fact is that they're not purposely trying to control people, just provide basic recognition functionality.
I am ready to call "multiplayer DRM" as DRM and yes it is about controlling the players, but as I've said before, overall I consider it even beneficial to me as an end-user, something that single-player DRM never is. Mainly because it is the way to ban cheaters and other unwanted players (not only those who try to play a pirated copy), which will affect my enjoyment of the game.
Also, I personally don't consider the "but can I play this game in 20 years when the official validation servers are down?" as important with online multiplayer games because there are other factors as well, like do I even find other people who are interested in playing the game in 20 years? I can't play it alone (except against bots, but then it is basically a single-player game anyway, and I hate playing multiplayer games against bots...).
ncameron: It may be less confusing that way, but the fact is that when you pay for a product, you own that product. Anything which purposely tries to restrict your usage after that, even in the delivery, is DRM by definition.
So why then don't you consider it DRM when GOG restricts who can download it from their servers?
ncameron: What if a retail store refused to hand over the product you had just paid for, and said it would send it to you via its own means. You're not in possession then, but I think you would be complaining, as I certainly would be,
about not being in control of the product you had just bought. Yes I would have bought a license to use the product and even have a proof of purchase, but I would still not be in a possession of that product. When I say being in possession, it is no legal mumbo jumbo like "do I have a legal right to play that game?". It simply means I really have the product in my hands, I'm out of the store (or downloaded the game (installer) to my PC), and even if the store changed their minds and wouldn't want me to have the game anymore, they basically can do nothing about it anymore because they already handed it over to me. They can't delete the game from my hard drive, or snatch it from my shelf at my home.
ncameron: Really, GOG isn't actually required to keep your games here for you, as long as you have already been given the chance to download and store it for future use yourself. It's simply an extra service it provides. One that many people would complain about if it ceased happening, but nonetheless, it's not one that (to my knowledge) it's legally obligated to provide.
I don't disagree with that, and I am unsure what it has to do with what I said. Yes, the ability to redownload your games many times from GOG servers is an extra free service provided on top of your purchases. Strategy First's digital store at least used to be different, IIRC they let you download your DRM-free game installer only a few times, and that's it, so you were really supposed to archive and keep your purchased games on your own hard drive. There was no service provided that you can redownload your games as many times as you want, that was not part of the deal. (They may have changed that later as nowadays that is a normal expectation on all digital stores, unlimited downloads.)
In theory it would be similar if a brick and mortar store would offer you an option to get your physical game replaced if it got broken (GameStop stores here at least used to offer such a service, if you paid a little bit extra for your game).