As far as I know there is no mandatory DRM on Steam either, so if a publisher wants to they can just make their game be portable and not require Steam to even be installed. Pretty sure all the re-releases that use DOSBox or ScummVM are like this, for example.
Yeah there are loads of DRM free games on steam (mostly indies of course). Steam just offers a very basic (and easily bypassable if you know how) DRM to devs/publishers but they absolutely don’t need to use it.
It’s literally in the title that GOG does exactly that. Why would Steam’s hands be legally tied if GOG’s aren’t?
No, that isn’t what GOG is doing.
GOG is still only licencing games to you. They do offer you the opportunity to download an offline installer though.
As far as I know there is no mandatory DRM on Steam either, so if a publisher wants to they can just make their game be portable and not require Steam to even be installed. Pretty sure all the re-releases that use DOSBox or ScummVM are like this, for example.
Yeah there are loads of DRM free games on steam (mostly indies of course). Steam just offers a very basic (and easily bypassable if you know how) DRM to devs/publishers but they absolutely don’t need to use it.
How is having an offline installer that can’t be taken away, not the same thing as owning?
Because you are still only licensed the game
So, “licensed” is a legal term. Explain to me how being able to keep something forever, isn’t the same as owning?
I’m speaking in a legal sense. Please reread my original comment.
But why couldn’t Steam “legally” offer offline installers the way gog does?