I mean if you bought 2K Games on GOG you never had to use the Launcher

However, in many cases you may not be able to use any feature as they may not bother to make those features "launcher free".

We humans often have different opinions. People often jokingly say, ask 3 people from the "X" profession and you'll get 4 opinions. :-)

I personally see this topic as follows:

1. Offline installer DRM-free

2. Client installer, DRM-free after installation

3. Client installer with DRM

For me, 2. is also DRM, but actually DRM that I can live with, because a file archive with the data allows me to play without a client. Is that optimal? No, not for me, I prefer offline-installers, but as already mentioned, I can live with it and then at least have a way of archiving such a game.

Just my personal opinion.

that is the original launcher, not 2k launcher...

Oh yeah a post derailed by the big "games that must be downloaded from a launcher but don't need it to run are DRM-free" kind of points, ignoring the nuances of what having you download the game from a launcher, like the fact you weren't guaranteed or sold DRM-free, or that the game can be updated at any moment's notice and you'd be tough out of luck if you weren't diligent enough.

Put simply, well, it's nice for games you're already subscribed to on steam/epic, but it's very stupid to subscribe to games on steam/epic because a community maintained list said it's "DRM-free". Buy them on GOG or co. instead.
Oh I definitely love asking my friends who are subscribed to a game on steam to get me mods from the Workshop because I purchased that game on, I dunno, itch.io instead. It's kind of silly that even mods have their own walled garden and nobody's complaining?

I may have misunderstood what they wrote. It said they have two launchers, one original for old mods compatibility and one for the new launch mode which isn't compatible with old mods.

Number 2 is basically "GOG Galaxy" or simply any other client install without Offline installer.

According to your specs, the only truly DRM free game is a "offline installer"; which is GOG only.

However, it is possible creating a offline installer using a "install", because a installer is basically just a package of files with a certain system setup. Some pirates are actually doing it by making a "repack". Additionally most GOG installers use a MD5 redundancy check, which is not the most accurate possible but usually sufficient for detecting issues... especially on huge files.

Of course, i enjoy "Offline installers" the most but Number 2 is DRM free already... just without a valuable installer.

And Humble Bundle.
And itch.io.
And Zoom.
And Fireflower Games.
And probably many other small stores…

Fallacies about DRM: It's not really DRM if it's only for the initial download.

Well, at least you people take "DRM" serious... very serious even.
Ah yes, you can play Civ 6 using LAN... this is VERY rare nowadays... so i do value it.

On Steam it is hilarious how much trash so many people are spitting out in front of the net regarding the DRM issue.
For example: I was trying to find out if "Remnant 2" was EVER DRM free in any condition and it is just totally impossible to find it out by reading those comments. Some say yes, some say no... some say yes and no... in the end it is totally useless the things they say.

Ultimately. i had to test it out myself and my findings was not nice: I was checking every single version on the entire "rollback archive" including the newest one and ALL of them was DRMed... without any doubt (basically Number 3. Client Installer with DRM).

Yet, still... so many users said "it is DRM free" or "it WAS DRM free" or "it used to be DRM free"... i dunno why people spread so much junk and the most valuable is to be as accurate as possible with your claim! So, give out every little detail related to your claim, so it can be tracked down very easy and effective for everyone interested.

It is sometimes a lot of work for me, because the people just cant communicate properly or got a totally different opinion what it actually means.

I spent the last ten years actively fighting against DRMed distribution of video games, even writing software to fight against it, so "serious" might even be an understatement ;)

The more the common definition of "DRM" amongst players becomes lax, the more I become strict on the original definition. Because otherwise the common definition would drift enough to finally become meaningless.

Obviously it comes at the cost of sometimes sounding a bit pedantic (well, let’s be honest, at the cost of actually being pedantic), but this is a cost I am willing to pay. This topic is too important for me to give it up, especially when it is constantly under assault by game distributors trying to kill the notion of DRM-free.

Sorry if it sounds sometime agressive, I try to always fight notions and not people but written media is not always the best to pass over that kind of nuance.

I got no issue with your very strict definition... yet i still am happy i can play Civ 6 without the disturbing "account demand". Although, according to you... as long as i do need any client for downloading it (EGS client in this case) you already are considering it DRM.

Well, its true... in theory all you need... in the most strict way... is a website-account and you may enjoy a installer... both possible on GOG.

EGS and Steam got a website as well but the entire game-management is done by using a additional client-launcher, this is true so far.

The client-launcher is comparable to GOG-Galaxy with the difference of the Galaxy-launcher to be optional in most (but not every) case.

It is DRM but most people seem to love this DRM, thats the issue here. Apparently it makes their gaming life so much easier.

Looking at this i still may have many doubts... but it is hilarious how much of acceptance many users are handing out toward DRM. For example, in the most extreme case, some user is criticizing his "lack of access"... and he is getting this answer:


User with a serious DRM issue:

"This product cannot be activated right now, please try again later

There are workarounds, but why should I have to 'work around' some ridiculous activation check for a game I already own?"

Answer from the ones causing it:

"Hey [User with a DRM issue]! Activation problems like the one you're describing[www.ubisoft.com] typically occur either if a player is trying to launch a title or DLC with an account that does not have the license or if there is an account-linking conflict. Check this FAQ[www.ubisoft.com] first and see if it answers your questions, but if not, I want to try a few quick things to hopefully sort this out for you right away.

Start by trying any alternate login info you may have used in the past (email addresses, usernames, etc.) to see if those work instead. If not, let's log in to the Ubisoft website[www.ubisoft.com] and confirm that your accounts are linked correctly for good measure. Once we have confirmed that, log out of Ubisoft Connect, close the app, then restart Steam with admin[www.ubisoft.com] privileges.

Those basic steps should do the trick, but if not, we can tackle these to cover all of our bases:

- Verify the game files
- Delete contents of the Ownership folder >> C:\Program Files (x86)\Ubisoft\Ubisoft Game Launcher\cache\ownership
Note: If your Ubisoft Connect client is set to offline mode, you will need to launch the Ubisoft Connect client and game while connected in online mode for those files to be repopulated. You can then close the game and re-enable offline mode in Ubisoft Connect if you so desire.

Once we've gotten through everything listed above, if this problem STILL shows up, please log in to our website and create a new support case[www.ubisoft.com] so we can follow up with you directly. To save time, you can also attach your launcher log file to your support case in advance[www.ubisoft.com] and after an agent from our support team has reviewed everything, they will contact you to proceed further."

Comments are disabled for this review.

It always makes me laugh when folk claim this.

A browser with a builtin downloader is also a client, if a bare bones variant.
We don't tend to call it a client, but it essentially is one without all the bells & whistles and extras.
You still have to login with a username and password to the site you are wanting to download from.

And some of the third party downloaders out there for GOG or Epic etc are also a type of client. Steam has two types of client, GUI or CLI with SteamCMD.

Sure the Steam and Epic clients don't just download, they also install as part of the deal, but their CLI versions give you a little more control. For many GOG customers, Galaxy does the same.

Many of the non browser clients, offer benefits over downloading via your browser ... speed, resume, one click, etc.

But please don't mistake me, I am not defending them, just being realistic. I imminently prefer the GOG model of Offline Installers or that by Itch.io or ZOOM Platform, Humble, etc, that you can if you want, just download directly with your browser.

So the issue really, is what type of client.

These days I use a combo of gogcli.exe and curl.exe and Free Download Manager 5 and sometimes aria2.exe with my own purpose built GUI that works with their command-lines. I don't use Galaxy to get the Offline Installers. I want no bloat and full control.

It is of course much better than a mandatory ownership check on each launch, even if not enough to pass my "DRM test" ;)

This is a good sum up, I agree with everything here.

And this is my big problem. People liking it is already problematic, but to each their own, I won’t judge them on that.

What really disturbs me is that people do not want to see things they like be called "DRM", so they then try to warp the definition so things they like would be excluded from the DRM label.

The truth is very relative and most people make use of every little bit of relativity in order to "deform" the reality toward their personal advantage.

So, we do need a exact definition and try to be stick to it... else we will never be "on the same topic".

This is why I started this "Fallacies about DRM" website, so I can easily share where I am talking from.

People are allowed to disagree with this definition, obviously, but then it means we are not talking about the same thing when writing "DRM". So no meaningful exchange has any chance to happen.