I guess it should. Just imagine amazon sends you a n invoice but forgets it ever sended you the product. Now the product get defynct and you want them to repair it. Even if they could not find you in your computer system, by presenting your invoice they would probably feel compelled to assume that there was an error in their computer system (or that you forged the invoice).

For all legal matters the invoice should be the only necessary document of ownership, shouldn't it?

Just for example, if Fallout continues to disappear from my GOG library and does not come back the email invoice or my credit card is the only chance I have to get the game back, have I?
One way to make DRM on Steam visible easily is trying to let a game run in offline mode. I had some very funny episodes with it and frankly the game quite often refused to start without having phoned home. Nothing really explains DRM better than this experience.

So if people want to experience the DRM of Steam I often recommend pulling out the network cable and seeing for themselves.

I used to be concerned about this, but I think it will ultimately hurt game studios more that us. At the moment, I have bought more PC games than I could ever hope to play... not that I'm admitting defeat to my backlog as I see it towering over me - and that's just the retail games :(

But with distributed services, since I can only play one game at a time and I have no means of preserving the game, I'm only going to pay for what I'm actually playing at the time... and since my internet is slow and expensive, that would be zero at this point.

On the plus side, I'd no longer have a backlog in this new world where everything is streamed.

On the negative side, I'd no longer be able to get any enjoyment from retail therapy - i.e. where I reward myself by buying a game to compensate for getting though a rough patch of long hours at work, deluding myself that I'll eventually find the time to play it.

*Woof* *woof*... I mean, yes, this! ^^^

The main problem is that most people just don't care, unless they see it impact them in some way. Its not just with technology.
- Was this made with child slave labour? But it's $17 cheaper! I don't mind, as long as it is cheaper.
- Smaller environmental impact? But it looks ugly!
- Why should I pay taxes if I get nothing in return?

There have been some DRM problems in the past. Maybe it requires something in a larger scale -- like some hacker group bringing down Steam's authentication central for a day -- for people to take notice.
Until then, maybe most people are right, and will never have an issue with DRM. Maybe they will never have to care. Maybe we are like those guys who stockpiled supplies into a bunker below their house in case a nuclear conflict would break out during the Cold War.

I see DRM, Free Software, on-line privacy and other subjects as classified under the interception of Philosophy and Politics. Subjects that most people find boring, even if they don't have to be.
Few people are moved by principles. That is the problem.

Then you into a debate about good and bad DRM.
Matrix Games, for instance, had a 16 figure code you need to type in after you have downloaded a game to install it.
But as long as you have the code and a copy of the game,you can install the game as often as you want, and if you burn the game install program and a copy of the code a DVD, it's yours forever. I consider that to be non intrusive DRM.

No confusion to me at all.

If I turn on my machine, click on an icon, and my game plays, likely no drm.

If I do the above, and it doesn't, likely drm which will not be around to bother me the next time.

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I believe this to be true. I also think for the most part that even principles are often largely born out of experience. I feel like the majority of GOG's userbase has some sort of negative experience with DRM or some similar type of experience or usage scenario that has caused us to seek out DRM-free media, even though it sometimes takes a lot of work or extra cost.

However, this is the main point of this thread -- to seek ways of helping people to have some sort of common knowledge or predisposed position about these sorts of things before they have to experience the negative consequences of their ignorance. Instead of aiming for principles, the DRM-free media movement needs to aim for something more like a majority thinking of "well of course smoking is bad for your health" as opposed to the way people thought about it 60 years ago which was "meh, smoking's probably bad but whatever, everyone's doing it and it feels good, and I don't know anyone who has lung cancer... yet".

The massive success of Netflix, Spotify, and other streaming platforms is a pretty clear indication to me that most people don't really care that much about ownership. At least not when the alternative is paying much higher prices (I don't think getting year-old AAA games for under $20 would be a very common occurrence if not for Steam). I myself am bummed that shows like Bob's Burgers and Happy Endings don't get respectable DVD releases because people would rather just stream them at some indefinite future time, but I guess that's probably just inevitably the way things are going. At least until, as you say, Steam tanks in some way.

But it is DRM, that's the whole point. If you don't have a GoG account, or if you haven't purchased a game from GoG, you can't download that game. It's managing your rights to the digital content... DRM.

No one is saying it's the same as draconian DRM like securom, but it's still very much a form of DRM, however unobtrusive it might be. If we start changing the definition of DRM to whatever makes us feel comfortable, then it's pointless to try and promote DRM-free to a layman. CD keys are DRM. If you can't install and play that game without inputting a CD key, that's managing your rights to that digital content. That's DRM.

Yeah, Norton and McAfee have that market on lock. It's disturbing how many OEMs just load up their computers with them and pass them on to their customers.

It's not on the transmission of the bits and bytes, it's because in order to download (ie: delivery to your computer) the game, you have to have A) a GoG account, and B) have purchased said game from GoG, tying it's license to your GoG account.

... *facepalm*

And you people wonder why no one cares about DRM-free. You can't even agree among yourselves what is and isn't DRM, how do you expect anyone else to grok it?

Sure... if you want to constantly be buying larger and larger hard drives (or more and more discs and optical burners) to store all your game installers on and keep them backed up on at least a second hard drive (or more and more discs because discs don't last forever) in order to account for drive failures, if not yet another off-site backup in order to account for catastrophic events like your house burning down.

I saw the folly in that approach ages ago when games started growing past a handful of floppies into full CDs, then several CDs, then DVDs, and then several DVDs... now we're even starting to blow past BDs. Sure, most of the games on offer here aren't in that category, but I know there are quite a lot in the 3-15GB range, and Witcher 3 I'd bet is going to be at least a 20GB download, and around 40GB to install (yes I've seen the specs)... that's 60GB if you're holding onto the installer. For a single game. And that's not even including the expansions if you get those. Even if you keep your installers/downloads on a separate drive from the game installs, you're still needing that space whether you contain it to one drive or two (or more).

I'll take the more pragmatic approach, follow gaming press and keep up on the status of GoG and CDPR, and until I start catching a whiff of potential closure, I'll be fine to keep my downloads/installers on GoGs servers until I need them.

Except for the DRM-free games on Steam, of course.

Except for the DRM-free games on Steam, of course.

You know, the progressive part of me is kind of glad to see that there is a bit of a shift away from the notion of "ownership", and that perhaps gradual escalation of this thinking pattern might one day see "ownership" of "intellectual property" give way simply to something like truly free, unrestricted, open exchange of information and ideas. We are a long way from that being practical, though, and I don't think it's something I'll ever see in my lifetime or even in my children's children's lifetime. Even if the public at large is starting to ease up on the notion of ownership, those in power seem to be only further strengthening their ability to own us.

As distribution of media trends further towards non-physical, DRM'd means, it's basically the mega-corporations that will take ownership of the ability to grant people access to the things they think they own, but which they in fact do not. This, to me, is the greatest philanthropic threat of mass apathy towards DRM in the digital age -- the ability for a non-democratic entity to legally control what, where, and how you are allowed to access media.

Do you mean the license agreement (EULA) from the game publisher, or the TOS for GOG.com service?

I think many retail games at least used to state in their EULA that selling the license is not allowed, but usually such restrictions are meaningless.

But as I recall, there was already a court case of this. IIRC, some company was selling pre-owned licenses for some digitally delivered software packages (ie. basically "used digital software"), and they won the case. By the court, it seemed to be regarded similarly as if they had been selling used computer software on retail media.

At the same time, the court indicated that if the IP rights holder is afraid of misuse (like many people using the software with the same license), they are free to implement technical restrictions on that (=DRM).

This was the earlier GOG discussion I was referring to. I hope I could find it so that I am not remembering the case wrong.

I believe so too. At least, you can't demand that the service provider transfers the service contract to the new user. They might even be eligible to terminate the service (account) at that point, for breaking the TOS. But the license for the game (from the game publisher) would most probably still be valid, even if the publisher would want to terminate it as well.

I won't, because I'm actually against it (and I wish it was really illegal at least for DRM-free software). Then again, I also don't worry too much about it because the GOG service (that the new owner of the license wouldn't have on top of his game) is a big plus, and good enough reason for people to choose to buy from the official service.

If GOG found out, it might be their terminate the service for that game/user. I think it would be up to the game IP rights holder (publisher) to sue for license infringement, or whatever they feel went wrong there.

True, DRM would allow this, but I guess there is very little reason for Valve to pursue something like this, especially if the game publishers are against it.

Didn't GreenManGaming used to have some system like this for the "Capsule"-games, ie. people could sell and buy pre-owned digital games through them, with game publishers' blessing? I guess it wasn't that successful after all. Maybe most people don't see the point there that much, as digital games can be obtained so cheaply anyway, with deep discounts and such.

Not at all.

Until someone purchases the game, there are no "digital rights" to be "managed" in respect to a particular person.

That's what DRM is about - controlling the after-sale "rights" to someones "purchase" (i.e., lease to be allowed to use the software).

Having a storefront from which a purchase need first be made does not count as DRM. It's what happens after the sale that counts.

IMO, calling out that you must go to a "store" and "buy" something as DRM is a pedantic exercise playing with definitions. All JMO ofc.

The game license is not tied to your GOG account. Only the store and delivery service offered by GOG.com is.

If your game license was tied to your GOG account (ie. one can't exist without the other), that would mean that in case GOG.com service went down permanently, you wouldn't have a license (=right to use) to any of your purchased GOG games, that you have downloaded and installed to your PC. That doesn't sound right, does it?

Once again:

1. The license to use the game is between you and the game publisher. Not between you and GOG.com.

2. The agreement (TOS) to use the GOG service is between you and GOG.com. GOG offers the service to sell and deliver the game to you, and also offer support for the game. Publisher might offer support directly too, but I guess it is usually channeled through the GOG service to the end-users.

That's the beauty of it: everyone can choose their preferred way. No one has to rely on the existence of GOG servers, but one can choose to do so. For many it may be a bit of both, e.g. I consider both GOG servers _and_ my hard drives backup places for my GOG games.

If one wants to keep their games in the cloud, then those people are probably more reluctant to have accounts on several services, or even buying their games directly from the developers (who don't offer e.g. Steam keys, but you download the game from them directly). For instance, I have an online account on Frictional Games' home page because I bought and downloaded games directly from them, but I rather keep those game installers on my own hard drive, than try to track how long Frictional Games' own store will be available. I haven't visited them ever since I bought and downloaded the games from them, I got my DRM-free games from them, and I'm fine thank you.

Just so that you know, there at least have been digital game stores with limited downloads. At least Strategy First's own store used to be like that. The DRM-free game bundle I bought from them a couple years ago didn't include a service to download the installers "unlimited" times. So, I downloaded all the purchased games from them right after purchase, and have kept them on my hard drives ever since. Fine by me, as long as I knew that before making the purchase.

What?!? Do you really mean you can download the games from Steam without a valid username and password to the Steam service? After all, you've been arguing that's part of the definition of the games being "DRM-free". :)

Big thing at least for me is that on GOG.com the games are officially treated and supported as DRM-free releases. On Steam it is more like some games just happen to be DRM-free, usually up to the users to find out to what degree. Some partially, like base game being DRM-free, but the DLCs requiring the client.

Not to mention how Skyrim was originally DRM-free, but that was fixed pretty fast by adding DRM. :)

Because it seems people who extend the meaning to everything from purchasing to delivery to actually using the end-product, do it just to dilute the term. They are usually the folks who try to convince that e.g. GOG isn't any more DRM-free than e.g. Steam. "GOG demands an username and password to use their store => GOG has DRM! Same as Steam!".

When you buy something with a credit card, is that also considered "DRM"? Do we ever hear about "credit card DRM"?

I tend to agree with what Martek said. DRM is a meaningful term only after what happens with the product after you have purchased and obtained the product (which includes downloading it to yourself). The fact that you have to present your subscription card to a local gym before you can enter there has nothing to do with it, or DRM in general.

But that particular download URL is connected to your purchase (credit card or Paypal purchase), hence it is identifiable. The URL itself is the ownership check. Sharing it around the world wouldn't be different from sharing your GOG account username/password to the whole world so that anyone can download the games from the same account. Humble Bundle could similarly cancel that download URL if they suspect misuse.

It is not like HB offers a generic download link for everyone to use, whether or not they have purchased anything from them. They offer only a personal link, which can be considered to be your (temporary) account, unless you decide to link it with your real HB account.

Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension. I've never said that GOG is the same as steam with regard to DRM. Ever. What I said was they both have DRM on delivery. This is not an insult to GOG, pretty much every digital retailer has DRM on delivery.

And really, we all like that they do. They could provide us temporary link, we download our file once and that's it. There wouldn't need to be any DRM, but we would have to download the file at time of purchase, and we could not download it again.

That's the beauty of digital product, and one of the reasons it cannot be directly compared to physical products. If my house burns down, and my computer is destroyed, I can't go to Dell and say "my computer was destroyed, can you give me an exact copy for free?"

I am not a lawyer, so this is written from a practical viewpoint.

Also, I don't specifically mention DLC or expansions, but for the purpose of this discussion, I'm regarding them as being treated the same as the base game.


DRM-Free:
GOG falls into this category as far as singleplayer gaming is concerned, and I've never received spam as a consequence of registering with GOG :)

- You can uninstall/re-install/play/ignore the game as and when and how you please. You have the game installer, whether a download or on physical media, and you're free to copy (using standard software) that installer to any other media. You can install the game using your original installer or a copy of the installer, without needing an internet connection or having to manually enter a serial key. You can play the game without needing the physical installation media, dongles or an internet connection. You can access patches for the game in the same way you accessed the original installer, and these patches can be treated in exactly the same way as the original installer.


DRM-Free with absolutely no privacy/security issues*:
This is where you put on a cap and sunglasses and walk into a store and pay cash for a physical game. It's exactly like DRM-Free discussed above except no-one will ever know who you are as you walk off mysteriously into the deepest darkest night. In all seriousness though, privacy and security are not issues to be regarded lightly. I think some caution is required. For example, I have two GOG accounts, one for buying games and this one for posting. I admit that I use a less secure connection and/or computer for posting than I do for buying games where I have to supply my credit card details. So if you ever see me start posting things such as "DRM is the saviour of PC Gaming!", you'll know my account was hacked ;) But privacy can also be a bit of an illusion. In South Africa we have the RICA act which means that even if I post on GOG as an "anonymous" user, my internet connection is personally identifiable and my government thus knows who I am and everything I do on the internet. But since I'm not a criminal or a politian, I don't feel I need to resort to using annonymous proxy servers.

*So long as you don't think walking around with wads of cash on you isn't risky!


DRM-Lite:

- Exactly as discussed under "DRM-Free", except you need to manually enter a serial key that you need to obtain online from the webpage when purchasing the game, and/or via an email sent to you after you purchase the game, and/or by logging onto an account to view it. However, once you have the key, you never need to go online again [unless you misplace the key]. If I have to choose a version of DRM that's a compromise, this would be it as it gives the developer some way of identifying their users, whilst still allowing their users to have full control over their game once they have the serial key. Of course, I'm saying I'm OK with this form of DRM so long as I don't start receiving spam.


DRM-Lite with absolutely no privacy concerns:

- Playing the game requires a CD check - The game requires the disk in the drive, but the CD or DVD was created in a standard way so that you can just copy it using standard CD/DVD copy programs, and therafter use the backup media to install and play the game. Software developers may not like us keeping the original media safe because they may want it to deteriorate over time like other physical goods so that if we resell the game, it has less value. But they need to bear in mind we pay a premium for physical software (although it's difficult to find physical media for new games that doesn't require some form of online connectivity these days), so their selling price already takes resale into account.

- You need to manually enter a serial key that was supplied in a retail box. There are risks to this. At least one retail game I've bought, Star Trek Elite Force, came without the serial key. Maybe it was a manufacturer fault, or the store I bought it from sold me a 2nd-hand copy as new after they shrink-wrapped it again themselves. However, I didn't need the key to play the single-player campaign so I didn't return it to the store.


DRM:
Since this is already a wall of text, I'm trying to keep it to simple points as I think most people will know exactly what I'm talking about. The critical point that distinguishes DRM from DRM-Lite is that you may lose the ability to reinstall your game in the future if your physical installation media are damaged or if the online activation system ceases to operate because the vendor has closed shop permanently.

- Once-off internet activation.

- Challenge and response (similar to needing to enter a serial key, but in this case you need to obtain a new activation key everytime you reinstall the game since you need to submit a file that takes a snapshot of your current computer configuration before you get sent a activation key that will unlock the game only on that specifically configured computer.

- Any form of copy protection on the physical installation media.


Draconian-DRM:
I'm only drawing a line in the sand here because I think this kind of DRM is really, really, really nasty.

- Always online requirement.

- An online check is required every time you start the game.

- The original version of the game is DRM-free but any patches to the game are not.

- A dongle is required, e.g. an iLock

- And anything else not mentioned above ;)



Yes, I haven't mentioned multiplayer anywhere, but since I'm not a multiplayer gamer, I'm not qualified to speak about a practical definition of DRM as far as multiplayer gaming is concerned.