Again, you've ignored what I stated was my point and attacked something that I stated I wasn't arguing for.

Let's assume that it was my poorly worded posts causing the trouble (very often the case). I shall attempt to restate my point as fully and clearly as possible. If this doesn't work then we'll just assume I'm terrible at explaining myself. Here goes:

1. DRM is bad. In short, because it restricts the freedoms people have with software they have paid for (number of installs, required internet connection etc).

2. Steam performs this function for many games (restricting use), and consequently may rightly be called DRM. The copy of Duke Nukem Forever I bought today is a good example of this, as I can only play the game through my Steam account.

3. Some companies allow optional use of Steam with their games, in addition to a DRM-free download (see Amnesia example in earlier post).

4. In this situation, it is nonsensical to argue that the game has DRM, since the use of Steam is optional. To clarify: "Opional DRM" is an oxymoron, if a person has freely chosen something then they are not having their freedoms restricted (within this context at least).

5. Consequently, if I choose to add Amnesia to my Steam account, Steam is not functioning as DRM, because my use of the game is not at all restricted. Rather, I am choosing to use Steam for the various benefits it offers me. Others are free not to use it if the negatives outweigh the benefits. In this context "Steam is not DRM, it's a very helpful tool that makes life easier."

6. And the concluding point: If gog had a similar system, it would provide a useful service for people like me, at no cost to anyone who doesn't want to use Steam. A win/win scenario for everyone.

There. That's the best I can do. None of this equates to: "Steam isn't DRM because I like it."

Sorry, but choosing to use Steam does not make it any less DRM than being forced to use it. You are rationalizing your argument from a false premise.

I see where you're coming from, but I would still say that Steam is functioning as DRM in your example. Steam is optional in as much as you can choose the DRM-free version or the Steam version, but the Steam version still very much has DRM on it. The version you download from Steam is subject to the restrictions Steam places upon it and therefore Steam is still DRM.

I still agree with you that it's a win/win situation though.

In order for "optional DRM" not to be an oxymoron, that requires you to accept a definition of "DRM" than doesn't entail the things that people normally oppose about DRM (restrictions etc). The trouble with that definition is that it allows for entirely benign DRM, which I think undermines the point of opposing DRM in principle.

In any case, which definition you choose doesn't change my argument that optional use of Steam doesn't require people to accept any of the negatives that are normally associated with DRM (restrictions etc). Whether or not you want to actually call this "benign DRM" or "no DRM" is just semantics.

My point still stands: "If gog had a similar system, it would provide a useful service for people like me, at no cost to anyone who doesn't want to use Steam. A win/win scenario for everyone."

EDIT: Ok. I guess we basically agree then. It's just a case of "benign DRM" vs "no DRM".