It's this, actually. The GOG forums once had a field day with this page.

It's marketing talk, of course, but it does have a point. Steam is conceptually much different from "classic" DRM. But it still is DRM in the sense the abbreviation is used these days.

Even if not dropping Steam DRM, it makes it especially funny that Valve allows third-party DRM on top of the Steam DRM. They have no spine, yet they act in interviews as if they do. You can't say you are against DRM, and still say that you don't want to restrict too much if the publisher decides to use extra DRM (like Gabe says in the interview).

If GOG was like Steam, GOG would still advertise itself as a DRM-free service, yet allow the game publishers (EA, Ubisoft etc.) to include third-party DRM into "DRM-free" GOG games. "It is not us doing it, it is the game publishers!". But, GOG shows spine by simply refusing to selling anything with any kind of DRM, even if that severely restricts their business and potential income.

Another point in the interview when Gabe dismisses the "a Steam user was banned from all his Steam games" by simply saying that Valve would never do anything to hurt its customers, as that is bad business.

Sounds good on paper, but why do we see these reports then, with no forewarnings of breaking the TOS, and no feedback what exactly the banned user had done wrong? Of course we now hear only one side of the story, which would be that much more important for Steam to react to those reports and give explanations.

Also, I think Gabe meant that they don't want to hurt the feelings of their most productive, and potential (future), customers. Ie., people who will buy lots of games from them also in the future. Just because you already have hundreds of Steam games does not necessarily mean you are still an important customer to them, if you are e.g. in a Steam game buying hiatus, or have migrated to other services (like EA Origin, Windows Store etc.) but still liked to keep your old Steam games available for yourself.

But this is actually addressed in the interview: It's not a conflict or a lack of spine, just a different philosophy. GOG has a very strong position: DRM free or bust, take it or leave it. Steam is DRM agnostic: use our CEG/DRM (or don't), but otherwise do whatever the hell you want; we'll just politely point out you're being daft if you do so.

Talk is always cheap. I was referring to that very same part.

GOG could claim the same (if they started selling DRM games): "See, we try to always convince them not to include DRM, but they still always do! Oh well, can't help it. We are still the good guys, remember?"

Also, I would think that the game publishers are not blissfully ignorant about how DRM affects sales (positively or negatively), as Gabe likes to claim. The publishers have the very same goal as Steam: to sell as many games as possible, in the least amount of time and biggest margins/profits.

Except they don't, because they feel strongly about DRM. Steam obviously doesn't feel strongly about DRM, that's all there is to it.

I'm just pointing out there's a difference between "lacking a spine" and "just not giving a toss".

"Lacking a spine" comes from trying to make it look like as if Valve did give a toss (in interviews like this, or the empty "Steam doesn't have DRM" claims), when you don't.

So, I think Valve should just show some spine saying "Look, we know DRM (Steam or third-party) may annoy some of our potential customers, but we have already closely evaluated the DRM with the publishers for each of our games, so stop complaining about any DRM in any of our games. We don't give a toss.

Same goes to those of you who got banned from all their Steam games without explanation, gee, tough."

That's a good point. I pity most the small stores with people who seemed to be there for ages which people who really knew about books and this stuff. They die out because they can hardly compete with Amazon.

We have a wonderful board game store in town with people who explain you every game and who let you try it out and who give you valuable advice. Once they told me: "You don't want this game, you want that other game." They were right.

Of course they are more expensive than amazon, but they deserve it to survive.

On the other hand - how can you compete with this multinational, online based, providing detailed information, search system and customer reviews, company, that is so terribly efficient? Except for the atmosphere and the personal contact, all the advantages are on amazons side/site. And the question is how much people are willing to pay more for it?

When did I call him biased? My reply to orcishgamer was a joke referring to the fact that he didn't ask 'difficult' questions. I didn't call him biased, your head called him biased. ;)

Which, incidentally, is why I don't think GOG can ever play with the big boys. Lots of the goodwill it has comes precisely from this elusive "corner shop" feeling.