If you buy a vacuum cleaner online and then agree to go pick up from the store later, yes they will check whether you are really eligible to get the vacuum cleaner from them. They won't just give you a vacuum cleaner if you go there and merely claim you have paid for one.

Your GOG game installer you have on your PC isn't permanently tied to any username or password either. I have lots of GOG game installers on my PC, and they never ask for any username or password, when I either install or play them.

Also, I don't think there is really any real legal obstacle for me to sell those game installers (their licenses) to someone else, I just choose not to. It is a tricky question though, ie. how would the new owner prove he has bought licenses to those games from me, how do I pass the license to him. With retail games it is easier, it is the media itself (e.g. the DVD), unless I claimed he has stolen them from me.

What is confusing you is the GOG service, where you have an account. That is separate from the licenses you have to your GOG games. You actually get the game licenses from the game publisher (GOG is merely passing the license from a publisher to you), while the GOG.com service agreement is between you and GOG. You don't need that account at all after you have obtained the game (that's the point of DRM-free). You can't probably legally sell your GOG service account to someone else, but that still doesn't affect the games themselves.

The vacuum cleaner store could similarly offer you some additional vacuum cleaner service on top of your purchase, but restrict that only you personally are eligible for that service. After that you could still legally sell the vacuum cleaner itself to someone else, but not the additional service. Many (most?) services are not transferable to third-parties, e.g. your one-year subscription to a local gym, unless the gym specifically allows that.

Only if you consider buying a vacuum cleaner from a store as "DRM".

I'm not confused at all.

Lets try a different approach.

Imagine I have a game, any game. To run the game, I have to have an account on the companies website. When I run the game, I have to enter my username and password, the game then goes to the companies server, which verifies that my username and password match the details on an account, and that the account has the right to access the game in question. The server then sends a response that is either a yes or no. If yes, then the game runs, if no, then the game doesn't run.

I think we can all agree, that this is DRM.

Now, imagine, I've bought a game. To get the game file, I have to have an account on the companies website. When I click on the download link for the gamefile, the request goes to the companies server, which verifies that my username and password match the details on an account, and that the account has the right to access the file in question. If yes, the download starts, if no, the download doesn't start.

If the previous scenario is DRM, then so is this. In fact, it's exactly the same type of DRM check. The only difference between the two is when the check occurs. In the first scenario, the DRM check occurs at runtime. In the second scenario, the DRM check occurs at download, or if you will, delivery.

But there is a clear difference.

Getting the game file you only need to do once in your life, ideally right after purchase.

Running the game you do need to do every time in your life you want to play the game.

This is quite a big difference. So whatever is the outcome, if both should have DRM, they would have vastly different DRM.

But in case we start counting only right after download, GOG games would not have DRM while Steam games would.

So I propose we start counting right after the download while requesting that every customer of GOG downloads his games as soon as possible after purchase (or do it later but on his own account). Or shorter: a downloaded game from GOG is DRM free.

I guess for most people this is what matters most under practical circumstances.

Whenever I discuss DRM I am a bit biased towards single-player, but I've never had an issue with regarding DRM as irrelevant for a truly multi-player game, where the core gameplay requires players working with or against each other and the single-player campaign is thus non-existant or far inferior to the multiplayer experience.

When gamers buy into multi-player games with dedicated servers on the internet (as opposed to LAN play which is the only way I've ever played multiplayer games), they already know they're getting a product with a limited lifespan since once the game loses popularity, the developer won't want to have to keep incurring costs to keep the servers running. And true multi-player games are probably best sold on a subscription basis accordingly - which allows the developer to walk away when he wants to, and gamers don't end up sinking a lot of money into the game unless they're actively played it a lot.

Multiplayer is really a different kettle of fish in general though. Multiplayers probably want to play the latest games now as they're the flavour of the month and all their friends would most likely be keen to play them too.

Singleplayers like me tend to savour games and play them when they want to, not just when they're new and popular. Hence, DRM makes a huge impact to single-players like me who need their games to remain functioning for a far longer period of time.

And I'm not impressed with the tactics some developers seem to be using to try to justify unnecessary online requirements for single-player games, such as Diablo III and the latest SimCity. My conspiracy theory about why the city sizes in SimCity were so restricted was so that they didn't overload their servers, whether computationally or because of bandwidth issues. If they'd allowed the game to run fully on the user's PC, then they could probably have allowed larger city sizes.

I thought again about the vacuum cleaner example and I think it is most instructive if you take the case where you buy the vacuum cleaner online. In that case the possession/delivery of your vacuum cleaner is tied to a customer number/online account which is probably protected by a password. And until UPS stops in front of your door and delivers the cleaner it's also not really in your possession. But from then on it is.

I see no difference between buying a physical object online (a vacuum cleaner at amazon for example) or buying a game on GOG. After delivery (physical and download, respectively) they are yours and you can do whatever you like (and what is legal).

In opposition to that with Steam games you have to ask for permission to use them regularly.

So either every online purchase of any physical or non-physical product ever is DRM or you were a bit overshooting, I guess.

You still mixed up the actual game (license) to the service. They are two different things. The agreement of the license to use your (GOG) game is ultimately between you and the game publisher (e.g. Electronic Arts, Ubisoft or what have you). The agreement about the service from where you bought and obtained the game is between you and GOG.com/CDPR. Yes, in some cases the two can be the same company, but they are still two different agreements.

If GOG.com ceased to exist, you'd still have the license to use your GOG games (licenses from the publishers), even if the store/service from where you got it was defunct. With DRM-free games, you don't need the service to use the goods that have been delivered to you.

Claiming that having to identify yourself when you obtain the goods is "DRM" makes the whole definition pretty much meaningless, because then also retail games bought from brick and mortar stores would be considered DRM-games, because you can't freely pick up any game from the store and leave without paying.

The whole term "DRM" is meaningful only when talking about the situation after the transaction, ie. you have already obtained the goods. Streaming services etc. are then a whole different matter, there you don't really ever even got hold of the goods, and you don't obtain licenses for them.

rayden54 does have a point though. If I purchase a physical copy of a game (that, obviously, does not require binding to a personal account, through serial key or otherwise), it does not matter if said copy is bought from a retail store or from, say Amazon via my account, I am still perfectly in my right to trade or give that copy to someone else even if I've opened, installed, and played the game - as long as I remove the game from my computer and do not keep any copies of it. This last is an important point, as if you've purchased a game on GOG, Steam, Gamersgate, or most other download stores, and used (downloaded, installed*) the copy, you cannot simply offer your copy to someone else because the game is bound to your account.

* Gamersgate includes a simple button to make a gift copy from a game before you've downloaded or revealed a game's serial number, GOG may offer the same service if you ask before having downloaded the game, but as far as I know, no one will allow for giving away a "used" copy (perhaps except for Humble, if the key is not yet bound to your account).

Yes, it can be argued as being part of the service, yet it is a restriction, not simply a permission problem, on what you may do with the game (I cannot remove my access to my "last" copy).

In principle I think one could say the same about single player games too. With Diablo III you know they have servers and the lifespan is limited and the game will lose popularity at some point.

A major difference is probably that single player games are less expected to really technically require a significant server portion, while for multi player gamers easier accept that. But there are cases where the server is only used for matchmaking which could technically easily be done without a server too if they really wanted or there are other cases where the server programm is freely available and gamers can have their own servers, staying completely independent of the availability and therefore being able to determine the lifespan completely independent.

I would actually agree that subscription basis would seem more fair, only from my experience one always ends up paying much more. Somehow with monthly fees it's much easier to take advantage of the gamers and I don't like that aspect. Monthly fees are simply too high, for WoW you even paid for the game and the expansions and for the subscription.

Here my experience is actually different. I was a big fan of Civilization III, played it for years (probably 8-10 years after release) and at first mostly single player and at the end mostly multi player. What is that? Well because it is a very good game both for single and for multi player but at some point I had played the single player so much I was feed up with it. Then I discovered that multi player is more interesting, especially when exchanging real text diplomatic messages. I played the game considerably longer on multi player (and was able to find others who did) than single player.

So, especially strategy games can be attractive for multi player even longer than for single player and from a technical point of view it is often doubtful if the server part is necessary. To me the question remains whether a special programming style should be seen as DRM (intentionally requiring a server and a service when it is not strictly necessary). But then maybe DRM is just a name.

If we assume that server/subscription based gaming takes over the world one day, we will surely get online authentification and DRM for everything and my guess is that at this point GOG will just redefine their stance on DRM free and will define it away. They won't just stop operating because everyone uses a server and ask for subscription.

So the biggest danger to DRM free is maybe not DRM but distributed services and subscriptions. We should pay more attention to these and discuss the dangers that lie within them.

What exactly does it mean if one says "the game is bound to an account"? This is already not a common phrase and needs some interpretation what it means. Sure I could still download it, and the other guy cannot download it, but maybe I just don't do it anymore and I give a copy of the installer to the other guy, so he has one too. Is the game then really tied?

Just because GOG offers me to download the game doesn't mean I have to do it or that someone else cannot do it (he just may download it from me instead).

The framework of GOG is not exactly friendly to transferring of games but you can workaround it. Also it is understandable because they explicitly forbid you reselling anyway, so they don't really have to make their service designed so that it makes something easy that is illegal. It would however still be possible. Just do it, if you want to.

And the reason for all that is that GOG games work without any access to the GOG account. That's probably the crucial point.

As an example what I think one could do: Everyone who wants to resell a game, please send me the installer of the game and a signed contract that you give the game to me and a copy of the proof of purchase (email and screenshot of gog library is sufficient for me). Please note, you may also have to uninstall and delete all copies of the installer from your computer(s) and you may not download it anymore from GOG. As a convenience we might want to ask GOG to transfer the download possibility from one account to another but if they refuse - their fault.

I think they made that distinction a while ago already. GOG's definition of DRM-Free seems to revolve around the single player being DRM-Free.

Particularly considering GOG themselves is offering a service based multiplayer for games.

Sorry about that.

"Bound to account", in this case, is not intended to mean "cannot be used without the account", but rather "cannot be removed from the account". It was perfectly clear in my head, I prefer to use more descriptive phrases rather than PR words ("DRM", in this case) that can mean several things and have become so confused so as to effectively mean nothing.

In the same vein as "I am perfectly allowed to make multiple copies of a disc for my personal use, but if I give away the game (and thereby transfer the license) to a friend, I must destroy the copies I made (or, at the very least, make sure all of them are in said friend's possession)", I cannot legally give a copy of a GOG game to my friend while still having access to the installer on my account - access to the installer should be removed from me and added to him as I transfer the license to my friend.

I am permitted to have possession of the media (installer, disc, movie files... whatever) as long as I have possession of the license - if I break that (say, by copying the installer off someone else, or making a copy of a disc before giving away the original as a gift/trade), I am committing a crime, regardless of whether or not I actually use the copy I have on hand. As long as the installer is accessible to my account, I have only effectively given away a copy, not the actual license. If I could, say, make it into a gift code and give that away, I would not keep access, and the license would transfer to whoever I give it to. If everyone could download everything off GOG but only be allowed to use the games they've actually purchased, it would be a rather different situation, everyone would be in charge for keeping to the license terms and not use a game they do not have the license to. The closest download analogy to retail stores, as far as I know, is Humble Bundle, where binding to an account (see start of post for meaning) is optional -- you can choose to keep your Humble Key as just a key and specific URL you need to go to in order to access the files, so that you can give that away, remove anything you've downloaded, and delete the email you got so that you no longer have access (you have given away everything to your friend).

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the crucial point - GOG has the final say, and unless they will move the game from my account to yours, the license is still mine regardless of what you and I have agreed to.

And yes, the games work without access to the account, but the license is bound to my account.

If you sell the license to your GOG game to another person, you wouldn't have right to re-download and use the game anymore from the GOG service, even if it is available on the account. I don't think it really blocks you (legally) from selling your GOG game license to someone else. You'd just have to make sure you don't use that game anymore after that, because you don't own the license anymore.

As said, there are two different things: your agreement with GOG about the GOG-service, and the license from the game publisher to use the said game.


Not legally. Wasn't there already a court case where this was clarified? There was a lot of discussion about that in this forum maybe one or two years ago.

I, instead, argue that I cannot transfer my license to someone else, as my proof-of-ownership is the fact that the game is on my GOG shelf (disregarding the fact that the shelf I buggy and removes Fallout from peoples' shelves every so often).

I don't really understand what this discussion is up to. Reselling is anyway forbidden. But if it would be required by law or if GOG would introduce it, they surely would make transfer of a game possible.

How can something be the crucial point that is anyway not what people currently complain about?

Is being able to resell really so important for you? If so, maybe we should specifically discuss how GOG could implement it and why gamers need it. I'm sure if GOG would be required by law to make game able to resell they would make it possible to transfer a game from one account to another.

However reselling would surely diminish the profits of the publishers and the prices for video games are already very low, especially some time after release. So while it is not allowed currently, they also do not support it. I'm fully okay with it and would not really see it as any significant kind of DRM. For me the most important point is that the GOG games work completely without the account. The account is more like a bonus to me - I know which games I bought and I know where to download them should GOG ever get into problems.
Here my stance would be that one cannot transfer the license but just because one is not allowed to. If one would be legally allowed to, GOG would implement a function to transfer games by themselves, because it would be in their best interest to do so.

Can reselling be restricted without DRM? Yes, just write it into the contract. Is this then DRM?