So the difference here is that you say it can be re-implemented - so why can you not then re-implement online as well?

You argument means that the 'gamer' need to have the understanding of how the API works, then the skills and the software / hardware to be able to do so. If we are at this stage, then many (if not all) online prerequsits can be also be re-implemented by virtual / local servers, tricking the packages to think it is online, or any other way.

and edit- most data stored on online servers can be hacked and downloaded. This is why, for example, we have illigal WoW servers - this is done already. if you wanted, you can play WoW offline

As I said previously, since it's online, and you can't ever get a copy of it to examine, it is lost the moment the developers take it offline. And the point here is that all of this doesn't have to be unnecessarily hard unless the game developers choose to do it this way - because there are game devs that still include things like LAN multi-player and completely offline single-player in their games.

I can't but feel that we're arguing just for the sake of arguing now, and I already feel bad about derailing this thread, so I'm sorry, but I won't push this any further. I do feel like I've said all I could say.

It's fine to hold your ground, of course, just as long as you feel it's justified. Though I have to say that as a person who has the technical knowledge to know how these things operate, it's hard to see where you are coming from or what you are trying to suggest...

I hope I don't have to explain why waiting for something shady to happen so you can play a game you purchased is not exactly... how should I put this... normal.

That's fine, and i am still not convinced. I am not arguing for the sake of it, I just do not see that much of a difference.

In any case, I do hope you see why I object to online=DRM, it all need to dpend on what is happening. If it is just the case that it may break, then I do not think the term applies, it needs something else. But then again, one of the main problems here is that there is not really any definition of what DRM realy means.

And in this spirit, I remember when SimCIty 4 first came out, and it was hacked very fast. If I remember correctly, the packaged it sent out to the server was intercepted, and returned with a local dummy cpackage. But it is just another curiocity.

Ok, there are some very simple answers to these points. Let me try to explain:

Things like Direct X are open APIs. The interfaces are widely and publicly documented, which means they can be recreated/re-implemented, if need be. In fact, this has been done in many cases, such as in Wine/DXVK, which have already been mentioned. Online game servers run by private companies are completely closed. No-one has access to their interfaces/code, so it is not possible (at least, very very difficult) to re-implement them.

No, this is totally obtuse. The suggestion that individual gamers need to personally re-code API libraries to play games is ridiculous. That work is done by teams of experts as part of projects like Wine, Proton, DXVK (looking at things from a Linux point-of-view). They are then published so that the whole gaming community can freely access and use them, per the free/open-source software model.

Perhaps. I'm sure there are people trying to hack and recreate proprietary game servers. I wish them luck and I hope their efforts will be fruitful. But, it is still better for games not to rely on those proprietary servers in the first place, as it would remove that hurdle and save those people all the effort of having to hack them.

That argument is similar to saying: "I'm ok if someone takes away my car and locks it in a building I have no access to, because I can always find a way to break into it anyway."

DirectX was just an example, There are other closed, propriotory dependcies out there as well. Replace DirectX with any of those

*shrugh* if they can download that solution, they can download the solution to trick online components as well, no difference here. No one are saying that a team of experts can not work on this also.

This was just a proof of concepts - i.e. it is possible. Nothing more.

bad analogies will always be bad. This do not need an analogy, it is self explanatory

One thing I will agree with you on is that it would be helpful if GOG were to provide a clear definition of what they consider to be 'DRM'.

In the absence of that though, there are good definitions on Wikipedia and defectivebydesign.org (www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management). The wikipedia article talks about 'persistent online authentication' and the Defective By Design site mentions: "When a program is designed to prevent you from copying or sharing a song, reading an ebook on another device, or playing a single-player game without an Internet connection, you are being restricted by DRM".

So, there are quite well-accepted definitions of DRM that include mandating a persistent internet connection to play single player games. However, I am sure you will remain unconvinced.

(what is the problem with posting links on this f-ing forum?)

I never liked that one.... it is extremly biased, the name itself tells you everything you need to know.

Fun fact - myself I do not like that single player content needs online what-ever. However, I think of it as bad design or bad implementation - not as DRM... and this is what I think of when I envisage "defective by design", not DRM.

I think they always used the same definition since their beginning basically that after download you can copy and play the single player part of a game on any computer you own without ever needing any online activation. That's a pretty basic definition and I think it's the definition most people still uses.

Then we're basically just having a semantic argument, which seems a bit silly.

I'm going to sign off now from this debate. Multiple people now have debunked your arguments and provided some solid references, all of which you have dismissed or ignored.

Is that clearly stated anywhere?

It was mentioned by mods / employees multiple times years ago (because even then there was already big discussion on the subject) when they were still active on the forum I don't remember if it was written in the FAQ though, would have to look in way back machine.

no, it is not. I may be a bit anal, but I think it is important to be correct and precise to communicate and understand eachother. Especially if you are fighting a cause, then you need to know what the cause is. If you are anti-DRM, then I would expect that you would know what DRM actually is, not just lump everything together. I think that one of the main problems with anti-DRM is that many often comes of as.... what to say.... crazed fanatics? and part of this image is just this lack of clarity and rather attacking everything randomly.

edit - for exmple, while I may not like online comonents for some SP games, I have never really been that against DRM, so no, we have not eally had only semantic difference
I have not simissed anything (I hope) but replied to everything with a counter-argument (which a discussion should be, I also think that everything should be questioned and tried, I am a great fan of Karl Popper), and I do not feel that any argument have been debunked.

because he can't play part of it.

My interpretation of the R in DRM apart from being Retarded is also Restriction.

unfortunatly, it is not you who decide what the abrivation stands for. if you want to use your own language, go ahead, I prefer to use (very badly) English.... and don't expect people to understand you when you do

Ok. So, not really 'clearly-stated' then, if it is buried in forum threads that are years old.

Honestly it was kind of the accepted definition at the time, and still mostly is nowadays, it rather recently (i.e. a couple of years ago) that peoples have started the whole "I cannot change the color of the game icon therefore it's DRM" thing.