It provides a storefront, authentication, distribution and an updater, at least. That is valuable to a lot of games.

That is service. Not DRM.

GoG doesn't have a DRM-free policy. DRM is allowed. Has been for quite a while.

When I hear this complaint it usually refers to games that provide certain features, multiplayer, rewards like skins, etc., only through the use of an online account.

I’m not saying those things aren’t worth complaining about, but frankly, they aren’t what come to mind when I think of problematic DRM in video games. What comes to mind is the inability to install and play a game without an internet connection. GOG still provides real installers, and remains the most prominent platform committed to it.

To get a sense of what people are referring to as DRM on GOG, I reference this thread: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singlep...

> GOG still provides real installers, and remains the most prominent platform committed to it.

Is steam's backup/restore game files option much different in practice?

My understanding is those are DRMed: you can’t play a restored game without connecting online to your Steam account at least once.

You don't think multiplayer counts as playing the game?

I think having an online account for multiplayer is a categorically different kind of requirement than having an online account for single player.

Until there’s a storefront that only sells games that include multiplayer servers that can be self‐hosted on your LAN, I think GOG’s explicit policy of no‐DRM installers is worth praising.

> Until there’s a storefront that only sells games that include multiplayer servers that can be self‐hosted on your LAN

IIRC from a discussion in their official Discord (by one of the people who work there) that is basically Zoom Platform[0]'s approach - if a game has a multiplayer component it has to allow you to run your own server.

[0] https://www.zoom-platform.com/

They didn't have a problem releasing Northgard without the ability to play single-player offline.

There was enough complaining about that that it got fixed, I believe, but that's how they released it.

Yes, that was mentioned in the thread I linked. According to the thread, both GOG and the game developer claimed it was a bug, and fixed it. This does not convince me of your statement that GOG has de facto eliminated its no‐DRM policy. A more plausible explanation is that GOG, not rolling in money like Steam, is subject to a certain amount of jank including high‐impact bugs that take longer than they should to get fixed. And GOG’s jankiness is a common complaint throughout these HN comments. I don’t think anyone contests that Valve provides a generally slick experience in comparison to its competitors.

GoG galaxy is not must like Steam.

Galaxy also has an SDK that devs can choose to require for their game; if they don't it's for lack of adoption.

Their docs do admittedly ask devs to make integration optional for the user, but their definition of optional includes "no multiplayer" as well.

> but their definition of optional includes "no multiplayer" as well.

I don't think this is ideal by any means, but I do think it's a reasonable compromise.

For better or worse, many/most modern multiplayer games are architected to use a centralized, company-run software. The server software is not built to be deployed by end-users, and getting it to that state would involve very significant engineering effort. It's just not a reasonable ask.

Steam also allows DRM free games, it's probably just not very popular with game developers.

One advantage of GoG is that they seem to actually care that old games on their store are actually working on new Windows versions, while on Steam it's more or less a gamble (at least you can return broken games though).

In some ways I think we've reached a point where it's easier to run old Windows games on Linux via Wine/Proton, than on the latest version of Windows.

That depends what you're trying to do.