You and many others want games banned from sale on GoG because DRM is unacceptable and wrong. You say you're boycotting GoG on the basis it has what you admit might have some use. And then you get mad at me for saying "hold on, let's not just lump everything into one term, let's make a distinction for the periods it's valuable" You demand DRM is so unacceptable that GoG should remove it forever, and then you refuse to even consider altering your definition and adding a new distinctive noun to ensure MMO and other multiplayer frameworks that require validation aren't hurt.
We do not have to see things the same exact way. We're all entitled to our own opinions.
[Section moved to later]
Me and GOG might not agree on say what "DRM" is; it's possible and probably. It's probably one of the reasons the whole Hitman 1: GOTY thing took off here, as GOG say might be fine w/ the Campaign being played offline is fine and enough for them - and wasn't even caring about say the progression stuff. I don't agree w/ this, as there's a lot of stuff (Disguises, Equipment, Progression, Equipment, Exits, etc) locked behind online-only server non-sense in what still here is essentially a single-player game, at heart.
I think you missed the point by a country mile. If you want to define DRM the way you have in your statement, that's not the problem. The reason I do not wish to join you in using that definition, is that it's too neutral. there's nothing wrong with preventing a network client from running altered code when connecting to a server. The problem is in the application. Putting it in terms of Hitman, why not have the highscore listing only available online so hackers can rush their way to the top. Then you can modify single player all you'd like and be free to play. It's probably easier to just have it all be offline, but that's a matter of pragmatism at that point. The point is, nothing about that definition is a problem.
No, the problem isn't a difference in term. The problem comes when you use a this neutral definition, this description of nothing more than software architecture, and then apply it as an insult, when you demand it can only possible be negative and need be removed entirely. I see over and over again "Hitman had DRM, that itself is wrong an unacceptable." I see, and agree, with people saying IO should be ashamed of itself for attempting this deception attempt to release a payed overpriced demo which locked an attached game behind an online subscription.
I want to make clear that what IO did was deceptive and made Hitman non-functional by ensuring it remains enshrined in a purely negative term. Since everyone is already using DRM as a universal negative, I want to, and will, separate out the difference between a login requirement for an MMO and a DRM login requirement for Minecraft. If you want to declare them the same, fine, but when you can't use it as a class negative and demand the term alone is a basis for removal. You can't have it both ways. Either DRM is unconscionable it should be removed outright from the store and we as customer are right to enforce it's removal with no holds barred or consideration, -or- we accept that DRM isn't a wholly negative term and treat it as such. You can't treat DRM as an absolute negative and then just lump anything and everything you want onto it as is convenient and still use it like an insult. Warframe, Gwent, Team Fortress 2, Warcraft 3 multiplayer, are all not capable of using direct lan to any satisfaction due to their design. Online requirements are required in those games. If you want to call that DRM fine, but then you can't use DRM as an insult and act like insisting there never be DRM of any kind is reasonable, while you put those games in the same lineup with what is attached to Hitman.
I am not going to defend the argument "DRM is acceptable under some circumstances," but I also don't want to surrender the term DRM as a purely negative affectation. so I break off the neutral aspects from the term which offer no harm and may even be necessary to the game's operation. That way snakes like IO are left with only an insult and no possible excuse to try and make their actions look defensible. I do not understand why that isn't clear or why this is such a problem for people, You have to pick, do you want a neutral term which has no basis to demand removal on face so you can keep your definition, or do you want to have a completely negative term which you can wave as universally unacceptable design? You can't have both, they are mutual exclusive. THAT is the issue.
I started this particular back and forth because I was baffled when someone went so far into giving DRM a positive definition. He said anti-hacking functions(the programing term) is in the same class of thing as the Hitman DRM, while simultaneously demanding it's something that has no logical place in any game or any software to such a degree it should be barred from sale on this store. Either he's changing definitions halfway through his statement, or he honestly thinks it should be seen as a negative to have anti-hacking functions in network client software. So yes, I am baffled by this, and by his insistence that "This is what DRM means, stop saying I was ever illogical or foolish to call it universally bad."
Small sidenote: There's linguistic issues to define the acronym here by it's original terminology, which I won't touch beyond this. Suffice to say the initial definition of "rights" and "management" by the guys who first coined DRM, which were it's original programmers, is hardly a useful measure.
I do believe DRM should be removed from games, once it hits GOG. This is literally in GOG's mission statement: that DRM is NOT allowed here. Even though, sometimes I think they're running into murky waters here w/ having things like Galaxy, goodies locked behind Galaxy like Cyberpunk does; some of the past issue they've had w/ DLC's not working when offline in the past (DS3, before it got fixed); a lot of SP-style content locked behind Galaxy in No Man's Sky (that got fixed); multiplayer games on here (especially if there's no TP/ICP support); etc etc.
I separated this out for later for a reason. It is not ethical to hold someone to a promise you know is impossible for self-destructive. We even have that enshrined in law. You don't have to follow a contract that causes you harmed or traps you into committing illegal activity. The same is applied here: If GoG did define DRM the way you do, then them saying "No DRM ever" is a naive and foolish impossibility that ensures the store can never have any game which heavily uses online server functionality. It is wrong to hold GoG to such a promise. On the other hand, if they define it using very specific basis such as "you may not lock single player content behind any online subscription or login," among others, GoG can keep it's promise without losing the actual draw the promise implies. It's the harder choice for sure, but not a wrong one. With that I'm doing something else for the day, this took way too long.
The rest of this is nothing but personal discussion for a short second, so feel free to skip if you're not interested in the man to man.
I will say this once and only once to you because I'm getting sick and tired of this bullshit. [...]
[...] Dry your eyes, put your anger issue aside and start dealing with reality that no-one has to "respect" your tunnel vision definitions any more than you are respecting anyone here you disagree with without spewing out f*** bombs or "I demand, I demand, I demand"
every 5 seconds like a 6 year old child stamping his feet...
Brian, you have no ides what my emotional state as I write this is. You are on the internet, you can only guess my emotional state at best. The exaggerated use of fuck and other swears as an adverb and/or adjective on occasion for cheap emphasis gives you little to work on. I thank you for pointing out I was using cheap vocabulary and should not be repeating the same adverbs, if I ever need them, but you have no basis to assume my emotions. If I was screaming and angry to the point of absurdity, I would hope you wouldn't start insulting a man who's already escalated to emotional fighting rather than logical argument. I would hope you'd attempt to de-escalate or just walk away rather than return with a series of insults. I'd at least hope you wouldn't act like your being the good guy here. And I would additionally hope you wouldn't insinuate that being angry is something worth insulting. Being angry is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is being sorrowful. Both crying and raising your voice are fine things to do, so long as you don't lose your head. Given how long my posts are I think it's safe to say emotion isnt the basis behind my posts. Even if they were, insulting me for having those emotions instead of my arguments, attacking the emotional verve in which my covabulary is couched, it still an asshole move.