Considering how insane the Steam deals get, it would not surprise me if in a year or so, Portal 2 actually reached that price point.

I'm not talking about Steamworks at all, the Steam client itself is DRM. You cannot run your games without it, regardless of whether or not they include Steamworks (except in the case of DOSBox games), that makes it DRM. It's still adding DRM to GOG games, which is totally and completely against GOG's philosophy. Their goal is to show that these games, and pretty much all games in general, do not need DRM if you offer something that people will want t buy. Why would they then allow their games to be tied to a DRM client, even if they also still offer a secondary DRM-free download? Besides, as I mentioned, you can already get "the best of both world" by simply creating a shortcut within Steam to your GOG game. Everybody has already won.

There are some non-DOSBox games that will run without Steam.

I think one is VVVVVV. Some of the Humble Bundle games will work fine, too - like Samorost 2.

Simply adding a shortcut into the Steam client would not get me any of the benefits of having the game on my Steam account.

How could it be called DRM if it was entirely optional? You may not understand why anyone would choose to add a game to their Steam account, and that's fine. But try to understand that for some people (i.e. me), Steam is not DRM, it's a very helpful tool that makes life easier. You don't have to agree, you just have to appreciate that we live different lives and maybe I stand to gain something from Steam that you don't. We can agree to disagree without it harming either of us.

This was just a hypothetical example of a system that would benefit a few at absolutely no cost to anyone else. It would not affect you or anyone else who dislikes Steam in the slightest. The only reason I can see for opposing such a system is to spite either Valve or the people who benefit from using Steam.

In any case, it hardly matters since it's pretty much guaranteed never to happen.

I don't have a problem with Steam, I own 40+ games through it. I was just making the point that regardless of how you or anyone else feels about Steam, the simple fact is, it is DRM, which is completely against GOG's philosophy, hence why GOG would never consider it as an option.
Those are simply Flash-based browser games and yes, like the DOSBox ones, they can be played outside Steam. However, those games are the clear exception, not the rule, when it comes to games on Steam.

i think gog drm free concept merits over anything steam has to offer

No.

This.

Just as liking smoking doesn't make it not bad for you, liking Steam doesn't magically make it not DRM.

That's not the greatest analogy since steam isn't bad for you like smoking.

Just list the facts:

Steam requires login to play (offline mode you're still logged in)
The ability to play any game is dependant on whether your account is in good standing which is some major drm right there. It's rare it will be banned if you don't do anything stupid, but the small chance is still there such as a payment glitch or your bank or card auto-refuse payment.

If GOG ever does this I'll send them a mail bomb.

This.
It's really convenient to have all your games in one client without any work. Steam purchased games have a nice icon in the client which can give warm fuzzies similar to GOG's bookshelf. Installerless install. Copy steam folder to backup. Etc...

I never argued anything like that. That's an out of context quote and I suspect you probably realise that.

My point was simply that making it optional for people that do want it would not negatively impact anyone that doesn't, and that such a system already exists for many games. Though, as I keep pointing out to no avail, I sincerely doubt that will ever happen on gog.

You're right, it's not a great analogy. I was just trying to make the point that liking something is fine, but it doesn't change the facts. Which you listed. :P


I just tried to think of a better analogy but everything I came up with was in some way negative (e.g. liking butter doesn't make it not full of fat, fat being bad for you and therefore negative).

Just now I've realised there's a reason they're all negative. The only reason anyone would have for pretending something isn't something it is, is that they don't like whatever it is they're pretending it's not. They like Steam but they don't like DRM and they have trouble reconciling the two feelings.

This means that it's actually fair that the analogy is negative because DRM is accepted as being a negative thing by both the person making the analogy and the person the analogy was directed at.

Sorry... I got a bit lost in my head there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

More context doesn't make you less wrong. Here's the full sentence: Sorry no. Liking Steam doesn't make it not DRM.

EDIT: To clarify, the only thing you said that I had a problem with is asserting that Steam isn't DRM.
I do like it when otherwise DRM-free indie games allow you to activate on Steam.

I see you mentioned SpaceChem. I'm thinking of buying that, but can you tell me if the main download from the dev's site is DRM-free or not?

I'll answer that. Yes it's drm-free. It was mentioned somewhere. Also note they sell a Linux and Mac version which can't be authenticated. It would be crazy that one version would have authentication and the other two wouldn't.

That's all ?

Well you already took "friend list, ingame chat, steamcloud ,steamplay" off the table. ;p You could add autopatching, populated forums, achievements, free weekends, expansive library of recent games, and decent sales (for some regions at least).

I think all that in one place is enough to see why a person might prefer to stick to that single service. It makes life simple. That they're becoming a monopoly and have a huge amount of power over your gaming is easy to turn a blind eye to.