You know, there is a point after which interpretative acrobatics starts coming across as grasping at straws. And you're far behind it.

If Steam isn't even in the picture (your words) for a Steam exclusive game, that implies it's not freaking DRM. End of story. Steamworks can be used as DRM, and in the vast majority of cases is used as DRM, but it need not be.

I'm not grasping at straws at all and please don't accuse me of such when one can easily think the same thing about what you've said. :)

"Steam exclusive" simply means that it is only sold only through Steam's store and downloaded by their software. So what? DRM doesn't refer to the purchase or distribution aspect.

Since the game itself can be run without Steam's software, once the game is downloaded, Steam no longer has to be in the picture and doesn't matter.

If DoD required Steam to be running, then that would mean that it is using the Steam software as DRM and could not be labeled "DRM free".

Valve did well to call everything "Steam" thereby making the term ambiguous. :)

Thanks for letting me know that DoD is DRM free. I might move my copy onto another machine that doesn't have Steam.

Que in everyone exploiting the logo, irrelevant of it actually being appropriate.

"Well, it doesn't have activation limits, so we don't consider it DRM" and similar shit.

Again: you yourself admit that DoD, purchased and downloaded through Steam, is DRM-free. Yet at the same time, you claim Steam is DRM. Those two facts are absolutely incompatible with each other. At this point, your desire to prove me wrong totally overshadows any logic.
It didn't. You just consistently fail to differentiate between Steam and Steamworks.

Fixed that for you.

There is a store called "Steam" and software called "Steam", which has an API called "Steamworks" which developers can use if they want their game to have several nice things in addition to Steam's DRM.

My original post referred to "Steam, the software" and it being used as DRM. Does that clear things up? I get the feeling that we are arguing against each other with two versions of the same thing...

Again, wrong. The CEG/DRM is just another part of the Steamworks toolset. And its implementation is optional, just like the implementation of achievements, leaderboards, multiplayer network code and whatnot. This is what I've been trying to tell you this whole time.

Steam, as in "the software named Steam", is not DRM. The CEG component of Steamworks, as in "the API which may be used by products sold on Steam", is DRM. Is the difference clear now?

Actually, you just said the same thing I said.

Requiring the Steam software whether you want to be specific and that it's due to the CEG component or what, is what turns the Steam software into a DRM and all games that do this would not be able to declare themselves as "DRM free".

Like I said, we're saying two versions of the same thing.

I would make it easier. Everybody can use it but has to face the shit storm once users think it's not really DRM-free. It will still not be perfect but the most bad examples will probably vanish because of bad PR. Deciding on what DRM is beforehand is so complex that people hardly will come to one opinion on all the cases.

----

Out of curiosity: Anybody seriously thinking that the majority of games on Steam are DRM-free?

GG "DRM free" marketing is based on the fact that they expect the users to break their own rules. And the people buy it. Therefore I don't expect a shitstorm. Only if a company that is perceived as "evil" anyway would release a genuinely DRM free game, than people would bitch.

No. Should I put up a Venn diagram or something? I honestly don't know how else to explain it.

You say: Cakes contain nuts.
I say: No. There are many cakes which do, but there are also some that do not. Therefore, your statement is not true.
You say: But cakes may contain nuts, therefore cakes do contain nuts.
To which I raise my hands in the air and leave the discussion.
Probably a handful of idiots, yes. On the other hand, there are also people seriously thinking Benedict XVI is Satan himself in disguise.

From what you've written, you've demonstrated that you don't understand what I'm saying.

I will assume that I've not been explaining myself clearly enough and leave it at that because I think we're saying the same thing.

Maybe I should try this, too:

I say: Cakes using nuts from Walmart have nuts.
You say: No. There are many cakes which do, but there are also some that do not. Therefore, your statement is not true.
I say: ???

I think the entire DRM-free movement needs to be regulated by some governing body. Without some restrictions and actual consequences for misuse, the DRM-free logo will become a gimick for any company to use. As it stands now, we must rely on the honesty of the game publishers to police themselves. Even the introduction of this logo does nothing to change this.

There is no rules mandating that a product that displays the DRM-free logo is actually DRM-free. Nothing stops a large coporation from doing this in order to gain favour from their clients and boosts their saies (of course, if they get caught, they could have some pretty strong backlash from their customers.) I don't think there is any legally binding statement that prevents them from doing this.

That being said, after looking into "defective by design", I found out they are acutally associated with the "Free Software Foundation (FSF)" who claims to be a world wide organization. What the DRM-free movement would need is for an organization (much like the FSF to back this logo with strict requirements
(i.e. the logo belongs to FSF and is licensed under a copyright; in order for a product to display this logo, the company would have to prove to the satisfaction of FSF that their product is free of all DRM. Without this said permission, FSF would be free to pursue legal action against the company.)

This idea is not without it's many flaws (I thought up of at least three major holes while typing this up) but I think it would be a much bolder start than a freely distributed logo. It's like DRM on the logo!! HAHAHA! :)

You have a point, but whenever these things come up, it's the trademark holder (which is how this gets enforced, I know you know, but for the edification of others) that will decide. If they can't get any adoption they're likely to be loose with their definition, if they can then they will likely be far more stringent.

We'll have to decide after implementation if this thing has any teeth to it.