I would pay the extra dollar. And I get your point. Whether or not I choose full price and DRM-free over crazy Steam sale depends on the price difference and my interest level.

If I want to future proof the purchase, I choose DRM-free, of course. If I don't care or don't even like the game and I'm just trying it because everybody else is doing it (World of Warcraft, for example) I'll wait for a sale, be it vendor-locked or not.

You know what is funny people are considering extras as free stuff(yeah wallpapers/avatars/icons can be considered as free) ,but let's say if you want to have Hitman series soundtrack by Jesper Kyd you need to go buy them from iTunes or pirate them... and people will do that ... And when GOG add a soundtrack to AC1 that no other seller have... they considered as free.... See the funny point here...

Me alone...not heavily interested on sales on Steam. Yes I got Civ 5 for 5$ but the only reason for that is cause Civ 5 is $ 29.99(US)/$ 39.19(EU) and if you buy all the DLC's.... Some games just deserve to be droped in price like that.

Depends on the game. I can't assign a fixed proportion for one and all, but giving some specific examples, say New Vegas Ultimate Edition, I'd pay $10 more to get rid of Steamworks, and for Arkham Asylum, about the same too. For Bioshock, I wouldn't pay a single cent more because I don't like the game anyway.

But that is purely from the perspective of having a higher marginal willingness to pay. Like what stonebro said, I don't like the idea of removing DRM being a premium service, but in a hypothetical situation, if New Vegas had cost $10 more on GOG than on Steam, I'd gladly buy it here. So I guess it also depends on the context in which I'm faced with this decision.

I'd rather ask the question:

"How much less are you willing to pay for a game that has DRM?"

It depends on the game, and DRM. Some single-player games I might not buy at all due to draconian DRM. For another game, DRM might just mean I don't want to buy it to my backlog (but when I actually play it).

Ps. I find it funny so many say "I don't care about DRM (unless it is something ridiculous like installation caps or always-online)". Well, DUH! That's like saying "I don't care how my food tastes, unless it tastes quite bad." :D

Also suggesting that DRM doesn't matter because it can (usually) be cracked suggests that the person indeed cares about DRM. Otherwise he wouldn't try to get rid of it with cracks. I personally dislike cracks as a "solution" to DRM because they are lots of hassle (including finding the correct crack for the updated version you play), they can be a malware threat, and in the future it will become harder and harder to access cracks and pirate material anyway, so I wouldn't bet on them as an universal solution for the future.

For those who really feel they don't care about DRM at all, remember to check the great deals at OnLive. They even have a service where you pay a mere $9.99 a month to play as many games as you want from their increasing selection of games. Especially great for those who never replay their games but just finish and forget. And you don't have to buy a spanking new PC anymore either just for games.

Ps. I personally don't really care about the bonus content, unless they somehow enhance the actual gameplay. Give me the game installer, and a manual if it is needed, and I'm fine.

Well, I'd pay 60$ for a DRM free game if I could buy it for 40$ on Steam.

If it is one of those DRM that limits the number of installs (and never gets removed, so you need to contact support for a reset) or one of those that require Sign In for offline games, (And then the company is bought by some other company or goes out of business) yeah I could shed a few extra quid for not having the hassle, but for regular DRM, it can have DRM inside the DRM (DRMception) and I don't mind, really.

I dont mind that mate, it means that when I buy the game, its mine, I dont have to go online to "activate" it. I will never have to worry that if the devs go bust, I wont be able to play the game. I dont mind DRM on PC's, like a code printed on the manual, the game is still a self contained unit, but online activation is what galls me.

i stopped worrying about drm , a few years back . lets face it drm and dlc will be there in most games so , i rather enjoy the single player of the game as well as co-op or multi with friends

I would be prepared to pay 10% extra for DRM free. But having said that I virtully buy no games these days. I only buy old games with no online DRM or from GoG. I will never buy anything from steam etc. If you ever read some of the user agreements that you would click yes too for these distributors it gives them a lot of legal access to your PC that most commercial places that I have worked for would never agree to.

One thing I do not like as well is if you have any problems with your steam account you can loose all your library. At the school my children go to there are many cases of families loosing access to the game libraries. Often it has been the fault of the children but there is no way of solving the problem and you loose all you have.

But support is not all rosy at GoG either. I have about 20 game through GoG so far. Three of which I can not get to work on a dual core chip. The help tickets I have sent have never been replied to. But considering the prices they cost I do not mind. Unlike steam if something goes wrong I still have access to them, even if they do not work for me.

I just hope GoG gets better and better.

Regards MarkL

I don't really care unless the game is unplayable.

I know I would pay the extra dollar, but it is messed up backwards.

I've been running into a bit of a problem with my Xbox. I've risked the future access issues and gone for a few "arcade" titles that it has exposed me to on occasion. If it turns out I really like the game I start to regret the possible short term nature of the purchase. Recently Defense Grid went DRM-free so I rebought it for PC just so I know I would have it long term. I also know that if Ubisoft puts out PC DRM-free version of Outland I would buy that. So I've effectively payed more in that way.

Not much more, maybe 10% or up to 5$ to support the idea, but probably not 10$ or more. I mostly don't buy at all if a game is only available with DRM for a reasonable price.

It's something I expect - why should I pay more for it? Integrating DRM in their games is even more effort for them. So making a game without DRM should cost less. Why should I pay more then?

Some people here keep mentioning it costs more to put in DRM so why pay more?

I don't really think that's the point here. In fact, it's probably true for most games these days still that DRM is already a given, and most games the OP's question is aimed at are basically games that have had the DRM that was already in, stripped out.

In other words, it's an 'extra effort'. (often already done by the developer though)

Unless the DRM version was unplayable nothing more really.

I have never found DRM that much of an issue with any game even those with the GFLW never caused issues for me.

I have been using Steam for years without any problems and found their prices and services to be very good.

I mostly joined GOG for the classics such as Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment etc. These were games that I couldn't source elsewhere on digital downloads.

That's why I liked GOG it offered older classics that weren't available on Steam but now it seems more and more games are from the Steam catalogue.

As GOG is now doing newer games if I already own them on Steam I will not purchase them again as in my opinion that would be stupid. However if the game is available on both and I haven't already got it I would choose the GOG version.

Up to 150-200% from price.
I don't buy games with DRM at all (with rare exceptions).