DRM in any form is not good. It has no ultimate purpose other than restricting the people who actually pay for the game.
Why after months or years after a game is out does it still need DEM on it?
Not to mention that why should I have a program install on my computer without my knowledge or approval?
Yes, DRM in any form is bad, and Stardock only cares about the bottom line, period. You bet if DRM would make them more money it would be there and although the Stardock supporters will not agree, Impulse is a form of DRM.
you cannot update your legally purchased game without installing it and running it to obtain any update or patch. I think this is one reason why Brad and Stardock altered their original Gamers Bill of Rights to what you see today, so they can say they are not breaking it (which they already did).

I don't recall Stardock's stance on DRM ever being ideological (someone correct me if I'm mistaken), but rather a purely practical one. Basically the line of reasoning was that 1) DRM was mostly ineffective 2) it had associated costs in terms of implementation, support, and potential customers that are put off by it 3) people intent on pirating a game aren't potential customers to begin with, so even if you're able to prevent them from pirating a game it doesn't translate into any additional sales, and sales are the metric that's important. Based on these factors, they took the position that it was simply a better business decision to do without DRM. Now, with Goo it seems they've re-evaluated what's most practical- possibly they see value in the lock-in that such DRM provides.
But it's important to understand that Stardock (or any other company) is not, never has been, and never will be on our "side", but will always be looking out for their own bottom line, and this is perfectly natural and to be expected. What matters is whether the tactics a company chooses to take to make money happen to align with our own interests as customers. In the past, Stardock's tactics did align with our interests... now, perhaps not so much. If their current endeavors don't prove as profitable as expected then they might revert to their previous no-DRM stance. In the meantime, us gamers simply have to individually evaluate whether a company's offerings have sufficient overall value to us, and adjust our purchases choices accordingly.

Quoting they famous bill of rights :
- Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
Unless goo is widespread, which is ludicrously optimistic, you can forget that. Same story as before. Like Frogboy believe that competition between various distributors can make it real, I rather believe that as they're already a publisher they've almost no chances to get most of the others to adopt their own solution, because of competition.
# Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. (Obnoxious copy protection methods punish honest, paying gamers.)
- What's the purpose of DRMs then ? I know these arguments have been heard thousand times but... pirating games is really easy once you know how to, bypassing security systems always possible. That's a whole pointless waste of resources and a naive tough you can actually control/correct people behaviours with technology. They should rather put efforts in development and quality to make people actually feel guilty not buying these cool games and supporting their creators at release by acting like reasonable consume-actors rather than impulsive consumers.
If they want to put out some DRM for 4-6 years to give the hackers some challenge, then do it, but after they'll do not make any benefits of it or sell it at miserable prices, so what's the point of annoying people further ? CD-Project and even Firaxis had shown good examples when they released patches that remove copy protections and I think it is the best compromise.
Don't think I'm a Stardock hater, I rented all their recently released games and even pre-ordered their next one, but I know that I'll not posses them fully like I do with games from GOG and some from gamersgate. I've no problem about renting but I still I hope that it will become actual buying if I may be wrong about Goo's future.

What digital distributors need to do is put publishers and developers on a hot iron. Tell them that if they want their product on the service, and it has DRM, it will be clearly marked as such. If you don't like that, we won't carry your game. End of story. The only problem is that digital distributors aren't willing to do that for fear of losing the developer/publisher. They need to man up and realize that those companies are more dependent on services like Steam and Impulse than ever and that they have more power over what companies do with their games than they know exist.

I'd love to see that, too. But for that to happen, digital distro services need to see some evidence from the average consumer that they want to know this. Right now, too many people simply don't care.

Umm, I'm going to have to strongly disagree that any publisher is dependent upon any digital distribution method at all. Most of their sales still come from retail boxes.
DRM is needed, the key is DRM that isn't intrusive upon the users experience. I know, I know, people are going to sit here and yell and scream about how it doesn't work and what not, and I agree. But, you know as well as I do that you can't convince the publishers of this fact. So meet in the middle. DRM that protects their IP but at the same time doesn't treat their customers like criminals.
I personally think that Stardock's Goo meets that middle ground. Once you install the game (yes I'm going to use the term game, but it can work for any software) and activate it for the first time, your account information is then encrypted into the exe. What this means is that you can then backup the software and restore it on any system. You don't need to activate it again, you don't even need internet access, because the account information is now built into the exe itself.
Company goes out of business? Who cares? You have a copy that no longer needs to be activated.
Yes you have to use impulse to update the game, so you have to be online to update the game. But you have to have a system online in order to get the updates anyways. (Yea yea, someone is going to throw out that fringe example that's literally less than 1 in 100,000. Hate to break it to you, any business is going to be willing to lose that few sales, they just don't care that much about anyone that far outside of the norm).
DRM is here, and it's here to stay. The publishers believe they need it, and their investors are requiring it of them as well. What we should be pushing for is DRM that doesn't treat us like criminals, but still protects the publishers.
Finally as for GOG, wake up already. You know that the ONLY reason they're able to get away with no DRM at all, is because the games are so old that the publishers don't care if they're pirated. They know that they couldn't make enough off of them to warrant the DRM licensing fees.

True, the reason third-party DRM is listed on Steam is because the users joined together and complained that it wasn't listed.
And now it is.

You might also want to try to find some water that isn't wet while you're at it. The only thing DRM is capable of doing is interfering with the experience of people who have bought the game. The degree to which it causes annoyances certainly varies quite a bit, but any DRM that doesn't in some way interfere with how people use the product they bought is DRM that is non-existent.
Yes, it's here to stay in the sense that there will always be publishers who decide to use it, but there will also always be companies that decide that DRM just isn't worth it; the situation will remain in dynamic equilibrium just as it has for the past two decades. What we as customers need to continue to communicate to publishers is not that some level of DRM is just fine, but that as customers we are looking to buy a certain product from them (their games), and anything that interferes with our ability to use that product (read: any DRM) decreases the overall value of the product. Let me state that plainly and clearly: DRM makes games worth less. And if as a result of that drop in value a game is no longer worth the asking price to a potential customer, then guess what, that person isn't going to be buying that game. And all I'm doing here is putting into words what people have been saying with their wallets for quite some time, and as the gaming market is only becoming more competitive what is being said is only going to become louder.

We look to be heading in this direction. Paradox Plaza have hidden their support forum, only available to registered owners. One can waffle at how it interferes with the gaming experience, but really, it is a damn reasonable way to ensure their support is customer focused.

With a well made, bug free game, you shouldn't need a support forum anyway.
Besides, all you get in fan-made forums.

Not to mention even if they want to go this route they still do not need DRM on their game. They could have a Customer Support Key Code that must be given via internet or mail when you want to sign up on the forums.
Also, to the person that says Steam lists DRM's now; they are like Gamers Gate in that it is inconsistent and not always there. Look at East India Company or Heats of Iron III, there is nothing listed where it should say Goo.
EDIT: Also, take a look at how companies treat people on the forums if they talk about DRM. It is many times not allowed at all, or relegated to some obscure "Off Topic" (*cough Bioware *cough) forum.

Relevance? Whether or not it's use is widespread doesn't change the fact that Goo doesn't go against Stardock's logical stance on DRM - it's a product of that stance.
The purpose of DRM varies. Some publishers just want security measures to protect their games. Believe it or not, modest security measures do actually deter pirates. Leaving a game wide open means that people don't have to take a chance with downloading illegal files and subsequently are all the more likely to lend it to friends who can then make a 'free' copy.
Other publishers simply want to restrict the rights of their paying customers. They want to destroy the second hand market and turn the game into rentware. A prime example of this is EA whose DRM never even came close to stopping piracy. It was never meant to. Their only goal was to restrict paying customers and blame it all on piracy.
Some security measures are very tough and cracking them gives pirates an incomplete experience at best. These can help sales, just so long as the measures don't too adversely affect those who legally buy a copy.
Removing DRM after a certain period (depending on sales) is certainly a good idea. If only because it won't harm sales and may actually bring in more customers who are looking for hassle-free gaming.
I don't know about Goo, but Valve made it clear that in the worst case scenario, they would either remove the necessity of Steam from the titles or hand Steam over to another party with a strict contract protecting gamer's rights. Not that I see that happening. We all know that Steam is by far Valve's biggest earner.
I own Sins of a Solar Empire and a couple of other games bought through Impulse - I've never once needed to load Impulse to play the games insert a disc or worry about install limits. I don't see how that makes their games invasive rentware.

what is wrong with stardock? they have no DRM on their products, made the gamers bill of rights, and actually make their patches WORTH IT.

Your last statement is the most telling. they make their patches WORTH IT. That is it is worth having to install Impulse run it to get your patch and then patch your game and then archive your file and then remove Impulse to run your game hassle free.
I think they know the vast majority of people will never uninstall Impulse because it is their lifeline to get patches or any other DLC. They may make it seem all warm and fuzzy but it is anything but. Impulse is a form of DRM as it restricts your rights to use the best version of the game if you do not want to use it.
I too have Sins (although uninstalled long ago never to be installed again), but Stardock waited until the biggest, best, and most far reaching patch for the game to "introduce" Impulse and force uses to download and run it to get the patch.
I am one that has never gotten that patch because of the Impulse demand on users. Stardock is no white or shining knight looking out for the gamer. That is simply the face they want to portray. With Impulse I have removed and will never install, or purchase their games again.
Back on topic is that I wish game companies would list all forms of DRM and the limits with the DRM of the games they sell. To say a game has Securom doe snot tell if it requires an internet connection or has limited installs and if so, how many.

game publishers should read this thread.
there is some intelligent shit being tossed around. i'm going to save this conversation.