Quoting separately to increase the chances of the thread maintainer noticing. (AKA, I agree, too.)

Thanks. Changed the order.

A test yielded, that the Saintsrow 3 problem still can't be circumvented without Galaxy and GOG hasn't bothered fixing this 'bug' for four months. Even though they said they would 'look into it'. So I'll add Saintsrow 3 to the list.

I play mostly offline. With the download offline installer and all. (Trophies are lost but I don't mind) so...
I like GOG for its DRM-free policy though I understand the industry road to hell on this issue is quite hard to stop and some games end being unsaveble. A shame. I wish somehow things unscalate because DRM sucks. I will be vigilant on this discussion to know more about it. Thanks for the list

So if GOG is going more and more into that "every other company out there" territory... what is the worth of GOG again?
I'd rather have my Steam account as Steam is not going anywhere, they are way too well established. GOG at this point is a wild card. Who knows what they'll gonna do next. That's why I don't trust Epic Games Store, Uplay and EA store (whatever its name is nowadays). You never know if your games will be rendered unavailable or if the company won't change their politics and screw you over.


I thought GOG is different but it turned out it's just the same. I was already thinking about voting with my wallet after Cyberpunk 2077 fiasco. Now I'm even more inclined to switch fully back to Steam.


My GOG account goes back all the way to 2012 and I was always trying to support the store as much as I could. With those new developments I feel like I was betting on a wrong horse in the first place.

I'm late in checking this, probably, but

What the fuck, Ubisoft

(okay let's be fair, ubisoft locks a lot more than that)

Well hold on, half of the things on this list are glitches and some of them I wouldn't even count as DRM. The synthetik thing, when i think about it, isn't DRM if you can prove those starting weapons are just minor extras. It's like saying you can't play Payday 2 or Stellaris without the DLC, to which I highly disagree. And, comparing it to steam, in which basically every game wont even turn on without steam, is just disingenuous. I think this "hide things behind online accounts" is scummy and I'd elect not to take part, but that extra 2 shotguns in payday 2 isn't stopping the other 8 shotguns from being available. The line need be drawn with things like Hitman, where large subsets of the game like level unlocks, every single new weapon, and more, are online locked does make the game borderline unplayable. But that I do understand why that line would slip past GoG's radar, since you need to dig a bit to actually see why it makes the game unplayable. A random manager likely wouldn't notice.

Please stop using this entirely fallacious argument. The size, shape, type, quality, or quantity of the locked content has nothing to do with whether or not it is locked behind online activation and DRM.
The ONLY place where a line can be drawn with any amount of consistency, logic, reason, rationale (etc), is at absolutely no DRM. No arguing [as in the rhetorical sense] can be used to define where the line can or should be once you cross from "absolutely none" to "some DRM is allowed".

Once you allow any DRM, anything goes. As we see with Hitman.

EDIT: Typos.

I don't think it's fallacious. DRM, digial rights management, is an online lockoff the the software. Having cosmetics and/or some minor sidegrade weapons locked off is predatory and scummy, but not game-destroying. Any game that does it gets a negative, but saying it's DRM, is like saying Stellaris is outright unplayable without it's DLCs. I think "major concepts that make the game's design function," does make the game break, like with Hitman locking almost every advancement in the whole game behind an online lockout. that goes into the game being outright unplayable, or at least broken to the point of significant harm. If the idea is that any inclusion of an online lockout for absolutely anything no matter the reason and no matter how minor is DRM, is too extreme, even for me, a man who just turned down even looking at a game I was looking forward to purely because it is on steam.

If you consider any lockoff of any kind for any reason to any degree, to be DRM then fine. But "we added a user-creation system for maps, but it must be online for obvious reasons. If you sign up to do that, you get an extra cosmetic because cool," is not DRM. It's scummy to include from day 1 absolutely, but if that's what you call DRM, then no playing purist isn't going to be practical. If it's only "the game is non-functional or broken to the point it doesn't play as advertised" -that- can be a hard line not a chance in hell, but only that.

Once again, just because you don't consider it to be DRM does not mean it's not. And once again, just because you don't consider it to have a meaningful impact on the game does not mean it doesn't [for others].

Do you not realize that there are entities out there using EXACTLY this VERY SAME excuse to say that the DRM in Hitman is absolutely fine?

Let's try this exercise:

0: (start)
1: Select a random not-already-locked-behind-DRM item that exists in Cyberpunk 2077.
2: Remove that item from the game and add to the MYREWARDS program.
3: Is this too much DRM for you?
4: Branch: If no, go to 0. If yes, go to 5.
5: Become upset and post as others were when it was "only" a few items.

So either you're perfectly content with the entire product being hidden behind DRM, perfectly content with NONE of that feature existing (at which point it's an entirely different game), or you eventually break out. Where people break out is different, and there's NO WAY to come to a formula to predict or understand the evaluation check at step 3 outside of "gut feeling" or "emotional response". No logic can apply there.

Which is why the 'line' belongs at zero items and features locked behind DRM.
Separate post. "Obvious reasons"? user creation systems existed long before DRM (online or otherwise) was around, and continue to exist without being locked or gated. "simple" systems like appears to be the case in Hitman (where you're placing items on an existing map and toggling states of doors) could be a simple copy-and-paste share string that numerous games have.

Here you're trying to excuse and rationalize away DRM. Which is the very reason developers implement this features: to get people to buy into their locked-down, restricted systems with arbitrary online features that were added only to bring this lock-down to the product.

I agree, but the same goes to you. Just because you see absolutely anything locked being an online login does not mean that whole thing it bust. this is why I said, if you define DRM as "any form of online requirements for ANYTHINg in the game" then that discussion need be had. I think Hitman breaks that line quite hard, I debate if Synthetik does. It isn't this black and white no online ever, unless you think Spore need be barred from GoG forever because it uses online subsystems for its creature sharing.

Locking items that already exist would indeed be wrong, but only because it's maliciously removing parts of the product. DRM doesn't even need to come into question there. The scenario your using isn't even about DRM, it's about actively stealing from customers. If they advertise a live service with new updates and dedicated services, but say anything outside of base game will require an always online, then I will call false advertising. DRM doesn't even come into the picture here, they aren't providing the advertised services.

In addition, there is a way to break in step 3, discussion. I argue that Stellaris, unlike Crusader Kings 2, is not a DLC trap. Stellaris base is an excellent game and much of each DLCs development is applied for free to the regular game. Meaning some of the money you spend on the DLC is development given to everyone. But, the latest DLC, nemesis, hits to DLC trap. The new spy system is now mandatory even if you don't have the DLC, and make strategic decisions leagues harder for no real reason. Much of the mechanics to slowly increase your maximum information on people is locked behind the said DLC, as is the ability to keep the information after your spy leaves. This makes the system effectively break to the point of non-function, and means a critical part of the game is no longer functional. and there, I have, entirely logically, broken out of step 3.

A copy-paste sharing requires it to be hosted on a third party site, unless you think people making fan pages on gamefaqs or things like The Hive whatever for Warcraft 3 maps to be "integrated user-creation systems." Someone had to pay for that site, it wasn't some free thing handled by the company. If the company is spending network and money making a website, it becomes more secure, easier to manage, and has more options like a custom UI if integrated, to the point you'd be stupid not to. There are times when the only viable option is to just integrate it rather than try have a separate development team for a website.


To repeat, and for the last time since I once again do not wish to turn this into a personal argument thread, you and mean do not share the same definition for DRM. And even when I do play your term where it lies, it becomes obvious as some level we can't just declare all online lockoffs of anything to be in the same realm as what steam does. It's disingenuous at best, and a complete lie at worst.

mqstout is correct, you are making a fallacious argument. DRM is *how* content is accessed, not whether you personally "like" the content enough to care about whether it's DRM'd or not. Having to go online again to obtain access to content after the game is installed is obviously DRM. Being unimportant / minor / "but it's only cosmetic" or whether people want or like that minor content personally doesn't change that lack of offline accessibility. I think a lot of people have been so bombarded by this crap they've stop seeing things for what they are, quite possibly the long term "game plan" in watering down GOG's "DRM-Free = complete single-player games" to "DRM-Free = now only some core content in single-player games" stance via "death of 1,000 cuts".

To help you understand where you're going wrong, rather than focus on the endless stream of new GOG games with issues, let's instead pick one done right - QUBE 2 is a First Person Physics puzzler where you manipulate the world with gloves. The design of the gloves is slightly different in QUBE 2 vs the original QUBE, but the developers gave people the option of restoring the original look with an "but it's only cosmetic" optional skin. They made this available to everyone via a small 6MB sized offline installer named setup_q.u.b.e._2_classic_q.u.b.e._glove_skin_1.8_(64bit)_(33108).exe. No online gating, no client, "but it's only cosmetic" just works for everyone equally, 100% offline and probably took one person less than 10mins to do.

^ That's a DRM-Free game with "but it's only cosmetic" content done right, and there's zero reason why developers of other single games cannot do the same. The "push" by GOG and developers (and some 'useful idiots' here) to try and normalize the false belief that "online locks for optional / cosmetic content is normal, it's not 'real' DRM and it's always been this way" is complete and utter nonsense.

What, Fallacy. Name the fallacy please. So far as I can tell we just disagree on terms. We agree DRM is wrong but disagree on what constitutes DRM. That is not a fallacy it is a difference in terms. I consider DRM to be a special kind of offline lockoff which applies to the entire game, be it literally, or just through making the game borderline unplayable. I do not consider ALL offline lockoffs, for any reason and to any degree, to be DRM, let alone the same kind of thing that steamworks does as some people have been equating. Which actually is a fallacy, false equivalence.

If you disagree we can have that discussion, the strengths, weaknesses, etc of allowing cosmetic offline lockouts, But I do not see that as DRM and want to make the distinction clear. If you want the whole game from top to bottom to be entirely offline including every, single, solitary, aspect, then cool, but I don't see that as DRM; I'll give you the linguistic benefit to call it a negative term, an offline lockout of content, rather than the more positive term of subscription features, because I don't want to encourage anyone to rush toward that line. But again, it is not a fallacy to make the distinction.

Edit: Sorry for cutting you down a lot but I did try to focus on the base argument. The example you provided is a shining virtue of what should be. These people deserve praise. But, they deserve praise they went above and beyond into the outright impractical to serve their customer the product as was promised. Praise only comes from going above and beyond, and, sometimes, it comes without praise. Good on the developers of Qube 2, I will look into their future products now.

The fallacy you have that something doesn't exist if you don't care about it. That isn't remotely how DRM is classified at all. It's the process of managing access control of said content, not your "feelings" about base vs DLC content that determines the DRM.

And your personal definition is debunked by the plenty of examples on Epic & Steam where a base game can be DRM-Free but DLC / other content can be DRM'd. This isn't Steam or Epic though, this is GOG, a DRM-Free store that specifically boasts "DRM FREE. No activation or online connection required to play" and "We don't believe in controlling you and your games. Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming.", it's pretty obvious what the 100% DRM-Free context is, dumb word redefinition games aside.

Oh I see! So I'm granted a 'linguistic benefit' to be 'permitted' by you to be happy and grateful about more DRM in GOG games by relabelling online DRM'd content a glorious "positive subscription feature", eh? LOL. I think you're on the wrong website. This is GOG, not Steam. There are no "subscribers" here. That's the whole point of the site and the archivable offline / backup installers. Honestly, you come across as a full on troll with that gem (and post ratings to match) and I'm done with this mindless waffle...

LMAO. "Please sir, can I have some of that 'positive subscription feature' called online DRM sir. It's exactly why I buy games for the OFFLINE INSTALLERS on GOG, sir". Get out of here troll...