Quoting: johndoeOK, but are you allowed to use all these installations at the "same time"? This decision can only be made by the publisher and not GOG I think.

Normal publishers care about you not copying this to other people for instance, not about how you use it yourself. But they aren't putting any technical methods to restrict you. GOG can't force publishers of course, they need to agree to release with some terms first.

If you want to know details of the user agreement, you can see it here: https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-User-Agreement [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: johndoeOK. So the EULA describes how many installations (maybe also backups) you are allowed to do inhouse and how many installations you can use at the "same time", right?

No, the EULA doesn't restrict how many installations or backups you are allowed to make, as long as it's for your use. It's the point of DRM-free.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: namikoyou don't know what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself.

What was that about? Feral provided enough info about this, and it's clearly their decision to make, despite many above here blaming it on original publishers or other reasons. Those who excuse their DRM stance should ask themselves what's the point of doing it.

Quoting: namikoIdeally, the perfect DRM system only catches those who aren't legitimate buyers, but that doesn't happen. Doesn't mean I like it, but I'm sending my authentication data to Steam as permission to access my library. That's a restriction on how I can use the software, and I have to prove this to them with that email address, password and phone number, over and over, years after my initial purchase.

Only to the extent that you can't back it up first. Sure, that's an aspect of DRM in Steam. That's one of the points that DRM-free is avoiding. You can back up your DRM-free purchase (from GOG or whatever store), and then use it even if that store closes down and there is no one to authenticate with. I said it quite clearly above. DRM is a restriction after purchase.

Quoting: namikoGOG will ask you for this access, too, repeatedly if you don't have cookies saved. How else do they create a business without some restrictions on who accesses their games? You have no online business if you don't place some restrictions on your assets.
making a purchase and it isn't free (as in free beer). That's why the whole DRM argument is sort of pointless.

Very simple. Sell the game, get paid for it. No DRM garbage attached to restrict the user after that. Works pretty well for them, their store is growing.

Quoting: namikoBy the definitions I've put forth so far, there isn't ANY online storefront that is effectively DRM-Free; so long as you're making a purchase and it isn't free (as in free beer). That's why the whole DRM argument is sort of pointless.

Your definition is incorrect, I already explained to you how. Authenticating you for purchase is not DRM. Restricting your use after the purchase already is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: johndoeMay I ask you if GOG games come with an EULA?

There is user agreement with GOG, and then game can potentially provide its own agreement with the user.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: namikoMake it easier to buy than pirate and people will do it willingly, if they can afford it.

Yep, that's a common argument against DRM. Since digital stores are as well competing with pirate sources. If stores are encumbered with DRM restrictions (while pirate sources are not), it only hurts their potential user base.

It should be applicable to video too, but there is too much backwards thinking there, way worse than in the gaming industry. See here [External Link].

View this comment - View article - View full comments

You are mixing up DRM with authentication and security. There is no reason to conflate them, they are completely different things. They might appear similar because they can employ encryption, but that's where the similarity ends. Authentication is simply the method to verify that you are you. It's a perfectly fine idea for purchasing anything. When you buy something in a store, your own presence (or your id) authenticates that you are you. In digital store, authentication is using the classic login / password idea. All that should be secure and use encryption, no problem with that.

DRM is not used for authentication of your purchase, it's used for restricting your use of what you bought already. It can also use encryption and etc. but not to protect you, but to restrict you (like preventing backups and so on). Feel the difference.

TL;DR: DRM is a restriction placed on your digital goods after you already bought them. That's bad. Authenticating your purchase is completely fine, since it's needed for transaction and stuff like returns and etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: hummer010I don't know the answers, but my gut feeling says that the pirates don't readily become buyers just because it hasn't been pirated yet.

DRM is eventually broken, and most often quite quickly. Nothing stops pirates who can't break it themselves from waiting until experienced crackers will remove DRM first. The game is pirated ever since. On the other hand legitimate customers are forever stuck with DRM garbage. This in itself is actually an incentive to pirate. Same as for some the presence of DRM is an incentive to break it for sport.

Also, good games don't make profit in just a first week or so. They are profitable for way longer than that (see profits for The Witcher 3 which was released DRM-free from the start). Only some throwaway garbage becomes irrelevant after a week, but then piracy is a poor exclude for low sales, more likely bad quality is the real reason.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManThis is not the first time in this thread that you have misunderstood or misrepresented someone's point. You either need to work on your reading comprehension, or be more honest with the way you frame other people's opinions.

How else should it be understood? You said that warez community has covered the case of preserving games. No argument with that, but the reason was DRM itself. I.e. there is no other way to preserve them, but to break DRM first. That's not necessary if the game is DRM-free to begin with. So I see it as a clear point against DRM.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManThis is where I fall on this debate: If people are worried about game preservation then the warez community already has us covered.

So your suggestion to preserve it is to use pirated versions? Isn't it itself an admission how messed up DRM is?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: namikoFinally, maybe Feral didn't want to work with GOG because their own newest games don't even have a Linux port? Or their client? Even itch.io has a Linux client and I'm sure their user share is miniscule for Linux in comparison to Steam *and* GOG!

Do you see Feral games on itch.io? Feral don't release their games DRM-free anywhere, not just on GOG.

View this comment - View article - View full comments