He's right, DRM is DRM is DRM. You buy it, you perpetuate it. DRM would not exist tomorrow if every gamer said they wouldn't pay for games with it, so ultimately the fault rests on gamers.

Could be worse... Microsoft could have pushed forward with their DRM for their XBone, everyone loves it, PS4 adopts it, then Valve pushes it more, Disney pushes for it more, Hollywood pushes for it more...

But like forcing a company to change, the entire industry would need to see the effects of refusal from everyone (or at least 90% of everyone) for a long period, perhaps as long as a year. A sudden change where no-one buys anything from EA, Microsoft, Steam/Valve, etc that has any type of DRM. This moves includes movies (Blueray and DVD) and music (iTunes). Within a year they would all change their tune if everyone unanimously refused it.

Too bad so many people consider their freedom are less important than playing their games...

Bad / lazy programmers can make DRM be more awful than it needs to be:

The problem with DRM is that it depends on programmers being good at their jobs

I'm not arguing how intrusive/annoying (or not) any types of DRM are, of course Steamworks is better than StarForce. I've simply saying that DRM isn't just the copy protection itself, it's also the principle it sets for "games as a service", and not games as products and personal property of the buyer.

Selling their own games on their own service is a cash grab now? Oh please.

Yes. unfortunately the whole software industry is trying to get people to buy software as a service. It's not only games but office (MS Office 360), taxes (Intuit), image processing (Adobe) software and possibly other types that I do not follow.
Even this approach is made to be more awful than it needs to be. There are software as a service offerings that don't cut you off from using the software after the sub expires, you just don't get the latest, greatest version but all previous versions continue to work, even if unsupported.

Yes, buying that stuff helps these companies think that DRM is the way to go, on the other hand some platforms *cough* Linux *cough* have been starved of any sort of commercial software. So... when Civ 5 makes it on to my platform I bought it (well I bought one of the DLCs because I had the main game for free and because I wanted to support the company that made the port).

So, my buying priority as a Linux user is: Humble (if it's DRM free) -> Steam -> GoG. This is going to change once GoG supports my platform.
If they undercut, it can be viewed as EA dicking their partners, yes.

"Homosexuals" LOL

Never said otherwise. What I said was: don't name-call people who disagree it's important.

EA have the right to sell their games on their client, that much is clear. We should remember that GOG is moving into their territory (as well as the territory of others) too through the release of new games and the creation of their own client. If a business sees a reasonable opportunity, they will take it. Calling them 'Good Old Games' though seems to be a bit cheeky, however as GOG have encouraged the abandonment of the 'Good Old Games' name in favour of the abbreviated version I'm not sure if there are grounds for legal recourse.

Though EA can sell older games on their site, I would imagine that the market for them on Origin is quite limited given the typical customer that uses their client. As explained by others in previous posts, GOG still offers the better value offer in terms of price and it may also offer a number of bonus items that the EA versions don't have. It also offers a customer base largely orientated towards such releases. As such it would surprise me if EA pulls anything from GOG now or in future; few here will use their client if exclusivity to Origin is granted to their games. That being said, that follows a logical argument and we know things like logic are foreign concepts for companies like EA.

On a wider note, it's interesting to see so many companies trying to get on terms with GOG in terms of price and releases now. Whether it does anything to make GOG lose customers or to helping those companies retain their own customers is another matter.

It also appears to be available on Gamersgate now. I wonder if it's available outside of USA.

http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-AMRCC/alice-madness-returns-the-complete-collection

This sounds as if the market is so clearly divided and rationed out to certain companies that other companies entering it overstep some virtual but well established boundaries.
I really don't understand the thought process behind this.

Perhaps my use of the word 'territory' was wrong (I guess it implies ownership and mutually understood division) and instead the use of the word 'market' would have been more appropriate. My point was trying to assert the opposite of your suggestion to those who commented on here saying that it's not right for EA's Origin to move into selling its own older games. Indeed, there have been few boundaries in digital distribution retail for years, and those which did exist were mainly companies who themselves had chosen to limit the markets (or subsections of a market) they catered for. No business in an industry as competitive as digital distribution retail is safe or closed off from competition, and Steam and Origin's moves into older games and GOG's move into newer games strongly suggests that any remaining self imposed boundaries are rapidly diminishing.

OK, this actually makes sense now, and expresses my own view of things.

Cheers.

But they don't undercut it. Everything is more expensive there with a European IP and even with an American one, only some games are a tad cheaper, while in other cases, games that are sold here for $6 as a pack (Ultima, Wing Commander, Starflight) are sold there separately each for 5 bucks. Even the freebie Ultima 4 is sold for 5 bucks there.
It isn't. I can see the page, but no price and no option to buy it.