Didn't say it did... I said it doesn't matter now, any claim by the developers/publisher of Tomb Raider against GOG and/or DRM free would be a moot point now. That is all I meant. ;)

Ah, well I agree with you on that front then. I think the publishers have some different metrics they use on these matters that the rest of us neither see nor are concerned about though normally. One thing I've heard some industry folk say is that while DRM doesn't outright prevent piracy, it does reduce the amount of piracy occurring in certain timeframes and result in higher sales. I haven't seen factual data to back those claims up personally so there may or may not be any truth to them, but I understand their premise at least. They're essentially saying that for example if they were to release their game DRM-free on day 1 everywhere they'd get a lot more pirates from the start and lost sales, whereas the DRM throws a wrench into the works for some subset of pirates, people who want to avoid malware that often comes with the "cracks" etc. and this translates into higher sales from people who do pirate potentially but can also afford to buy the games in question. If the person's desire to play the game is higher than their patience waiting for a working cracked version, they're more likely to buy it.

I imagine that happens to some degree out the start gate as high excitement for a title occurs at release so people will make more whimsical OMG, "I just gotta have it I can't wait for 3DM" decisions. There will always be pirates either way of course, but I think they see DRM as a way to partially offset some SUBSET of the piracy going on and for limited time periods where they consider it much more effective.

Where I think the flaw in their logic is, is that I don't beileve the effectiveness of the strategy is actually that reliably measureable, and it doesn't take into account the loss of sales BECAUSE the title contains DRM. For example, I am a huge Tomb Raider franchise fan personally and own almost every title except the latest release of the game and the Temple of Osiris spinoff and some of the DLC for the last few games. I absolutely straight up wont buy the latest version of these games at any price period ever with draconian DRM on them. I use my own definition of what I consider that means also. I know I'm not alone, so they lose sales from us people for sure.

So on terms that matter to folks like you and I, yeah - they're nuts and they're in a losing battle ultimately. The legitimate consumer continues to be punished while the pirates end up getting a free show anyway. I'm caught in the middle because I want to play the games and would buy them but don't want draconian DRM. I'm neutral on the concept of piracy in general, however I personally tend to avoid it not on moral or ethical grounds but on security grounds because game cracks/keygens and other pirated goods tend to be loaded with all kinds of malware that the release group ensures people are "false positives" which are in fact not. That, and the fact that on average malware has 10 months of float time in the wild before modern anti-malware software can detect and eliminate it (study from a few years ago, sorry no source URL handy), so a new game release with a first day crack could be infected with malware for 10+ months before any antivirus can even detect it, so a positive scan result is not proof something isn't infected. With a legitimate game library of around 1000 games that I haven't gotten to try all of yet and which contain many rather exciting untapped titles that do not contain malware, I find it hard to justify obtaining a brand new pirated copy of a game enthusiastically and putting the security of my systems at risk for short term benefit (usually with various hassles too). So I find the best solution for myself is being a legitimate game consumer and simply avoiding the worst DRM crap as best as possible. Fortunately there are a lot of choices out there still even if it means I wont end up playing some of the latest and greatest titles coming out.

Back on point though, I hope that more and more game companies start to make the same business realizations that CDPR did concerning piracy and DRM. IMHO they'd end up making better games, releasing them with better terms and conditions and better prices and they'd be rewarded in increased sales volume and higher levels of enthusiastic loyal fans ultimately. They probably think people who think like this are digital hippies though. :)

It's a serviceable match-3 game.

When it gets right down to it, SquareEnix will always have their games with DRM; just look at the Final Fantasy series 1-9, they're so old, but they do not intend to let go of DRM. Even if there are keygens or cracks for it, they'll always depend on the market that will play their games with DRM.

Any chance we might see Starflight on sale next week for its 30th anniversary? It came out August 15, 1986.

ah now i understand ... thanks for the reply...

As for the future ... if the time should come and i will still be fit to be gaming ( i mean that i wont be senile or so)
and the drm of whatever would become too much for me... i would just stop buying games... i have tons to play till my 80 or so :D

Limiting gameplay by having to use a launcher that launches your games cause the game is not a standalone exe
which would not be able to run itself without the launcher (these protections do exist) is drm to me.

Games that phone home or retrieve some missing 'bytes' (which will be deleted after you shut down the game and have to be downloaded online again and again) is DRM

Gaming is imho:

Look for a game, buy the game, download the game and install it and run it on any computer you have without need of a third party tool, be it clients , launchers (bigfish) (its obvious you need to have the min req os ofcourse)
thats the real gaming way not being restricted in any way.

If these games aresold at 49 cent , then they can DRM the hell out of it, but games loaded with DRM are being sold digital only at ridiculous prices, 89 euros for a drm protected digital only? thats a big waste of good money imho.

loaded with evil Drm ? thats okay , but cut down the price, make it either free or sell it at a max price of 1 dollar or 1 euro.... anything higher is a waste of precious hard earned money.

I decided to give 99 Levels to Hell a try. Honestly, it's pretty bad. I have no idea how it got through GOG's curation system.

No offense, but I don't understand why some people here try to use GOG 'curation' as an indicator of quality. There are dozens/hundreds of sources (websites, YouTube, etc) that could better inform you about a game. Even a quick visit to or [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/264280]Steam would have alerted you to its mixed reception.

I don't personally use it as an indicator of quality, but it's still intended to serve as one to some extent. Knowing that some good games have been rejected by GOG for the sake of curation, it bothers me when I see a genuinely bad game on here.

I understand the feeling. The situation highlights the problem with curation: tinyE loves it, but you think it's so bad it probably shouldn't be on GOG. How can curation possibly resolve highly-subjective player preferences without frequently disappointing users? Light curation to bar broken games is more-or-less acceptable, but heavy-handed curation is worse than no curation.