Sure, and I don't mean to miss or gloss over the earlier context of your comments. My point is that it is better to have the file in 20 years, with a chance of it still working, than a DRMed file (or, in the case of streaming, "no file"). I hope GOG continues to work on compatibility of old games with new systems, while also maintaining compatibility as best they can with older systems (since not everyone wants to change operating system).

Yeah, did read some where about that.

And Quantom break you got a Eye patch becuse you where a pirate. =)

I prefer DRM free, becuse you feel like a consummer that aren't doing anything illegal.

i hate the feeling, with DRM Games, that it feels like you the consumer are the real thief over people that just pirate stuff.

Stadia is dead before arrival, everybody know it.

In 20 years you're more likely to play a remaster/remake/updated version for whatever the new OS of the day is, or new resolutions, or VR environment or things we can't even think of most likely. You may be *able* to still play your old game file on legacy hardware/OS, but very few people are likely to do that. What's the likelyhood many here bought digitized copies of games they already owned? Why aren't they still playing their physical games, on their old computers? Because things change, and newer hardware/software takes it's place and things become more convenient (like digitization).

I think the elephant in the room is Epic. They try as much as they can to kill the competition by throwing money around and dumping prices. So while Epic is doing this, I'm also going to increase my spending on GOG.

I think DRM is reasonable if it is only used for the opening months of a game's release, when sales are at their peak. Once sales have trailed off, DRM should be removed so that people like me can freely enjoy our games. Prey, Dragon Quest XI, and many others would have gotten my $50 if they ditched the protection after a couple of months.

Here's hoping that Mankind Divided and friends would someday justify getting $10 in a decade or three. :P

I have no doubt that as the list of OSs gets bigger in the coming decades(for gog to support) they will likely cut the most oldest of the supported OSs over time as long as said games still work on the rest of the newer OSs.

I'm not FOR it but it's only dead because of the bandwidth requirements....if it were more feasible many companies would be into it i'm guessing.

That reminds me of the south park where Cartman freezes himself in the snow for a few days to get a new game console and he goes 500 YEARS into the future to where there's only one console in a museum and NO tv/etc will run it. And he's like NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I concur.

I bought the damn game, now work —— curse you! >:[

That reminds me, when i bought Mass effect for pc to support them they only let you activate the cd key 3 times. then it was dead haha.

I remember back when the Steam DRM first came out. I was at a LAN party actually.
I knew even then what they were trying to do, and Stadia (and previous OnLive) is the proof of that.

I didn't join the Steam DRM then, and I will never accept any Online Verification or limited DRM scheme ever.

I still think the golden years were the decade between '95 and '05.
The continued use of ever more bad practices hasn't convinced me otherwise either.
Nor the mixing of consoles first and/or console ports..but that's another thing entirely.

Many good points that I agree with have already been brought up.
Ownership, history, control, etc.

The sad thing is that today's gamers grew up with the Steam DRM and such being standard.
They might very well make Always Online Streaming Games a thing in the future. That is a day I will mourn.