OK so I don't understand, they isolate a large portion of the market by releasing exclusive and don't even add in DRM to their game. I mean thats cool and all but why not give a little love to someone like GOG then since its DRM free?

There are plenty of "EPIC" exclusives that are on Humble and other smaller stores without issue. This hits home even more knowing the base game launches without DRM :(

Borderlands 3 at least had the sense to use the heaviest hardest to crack most insane DRM thats ever existed on a game and also go exclusive lol

It has no offline installer *ergo* it has DRM... (at least for installing purposes)

In my experience downloading games from Epic, after you've downloaded the game, you can backup the files to a hard drive then copy the files to a computer with no Epic Client installed and it will run DRM-free. So besides the initial download with their client, reinstalling is just as easy as drag n' drop.

Not every game on their site is the same however. All Epic freebies save for For Honor have been DRM-free but like OP stated Borderlands 3 has DRM.

The client is also required for updating the game(s), iirc.
So... it's still DRM'ed in that sense.

Truly DRM-free = no client required for downloading the game, (un)installing the game and updating the game.

You seem to have trouble understanding what DRM is.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestión_de_derechos_digitales

which part of any definition of DRM states : "It has to be convenient"?

or is this another case of - "DRM = things I do not like!"

Yes, they are available on Humble Store in the form of an Epic key. Somehow, I don't think this would fly here.

Does it need updating?
I know all about AAA games and their day 1 patches... but even nowadays, some games are released "perfectly fine as is".

Obsidian are well-known/notorious for NEVER having released and NEVER going to release a game bug-free.
Their games ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will require multiple updates/patches.

Life is often more complicated than simple hard binary cut-offs. Eg, I own Portal 1 and Half Life 2 on Steam because being Valve games there's zero chance of them ever being sold anywhere else. They are old "finished" games that only need to be downloaded & zipped up once, and then they become "portable" and almost as easy to install as GOG. Today I regard the zip files themselves as DRM-Free. However, other games, eg, if say Divinity Original Sin had released "Steam-only but DRM-Free", you end up needing the client permanently installed for 2-3 years for 12 patches, then an EE re-release then another 6 EE patches, and have to constantly re-test to make sure of it's DRM-Freeness on every single update by uninstalling / renaming the client back & forth 20 times, etc, then re-package them 20x times over, etc, as a backup just in case the next one has DRM added, and it becomes obvious that isn't functionally anything remotely like being on par with "just downloading & zipping up once like a GOG installer" and that convenience obviously does play a big part in how much of a substitute it can be for a store-provided offline installer.

DRM-Free doesn't require convenience, however when there are many more hoops to jump through when buying from stores that go out of their way to not advertise DRM-Free titles (or guarantee they'll remain so), then it also isn't an unrelated issue either, and whilst the game can eventually become "properly" DRM-Free in the "completed" sense once the updates are finished (as in only then you can "really" uninstall the client), being forced to have a client during that 2-3 year update period certainly doesn't function like "actual" DRM-Free stores. Hence why many people hold off on calling games that need a client to download "DRM-Free", until all updates have been completed and you can actually uninstall the client (and its relationship to that game permanently ceases).

Personally, I've always found DRMs that affected the installation process to be far more annoying than the ones that affected running the game/application afterwards (for better or for worse, the later ones can be easily cracked/bypassed...)

However, you can have your own views and ideas about what a DRM is. So, if you think that a client is your friend and not a DRM, I won't try to change your mind. Sorry to have derailed the subject...

For the sake of this thread: I feel if I can buy a game, install it, and then archive it (sans redists) then its DRM free enough for me. Along with that, no internet needed to full play all single player parts of the title without restriction or invisible coded in barrier. And no need to decrypt the executable via a dll from a launcher call.

The Outer Worlds currently fulfills all this for me.

Some people here believe this, but not everyone. Even on GOG you need to use an "app" (a browser) and sign in to download the game, a patch, a DLC, whatever. There's really no difference outside of browser vs. client, which isn't much of a difference at all. In both cases you can backup the game files and never need to sign in to anything again.

The only difference is in your mind.

Okay, one thing we can all agree on is that the sequel will have DRM no matter what your definition of DRM is.

BTW it's a good game, about 5 hours into it and not a single bug so far. Obsidian are slipping.

So, I know some of you won't believe I'm not joining the "what is/what isn't" DRM debate, but I'm wondering the same as OP.

Can anyone confirm that this game can be played 100% without the client, past the initial downloading of the game? In other words, does The Outer Worlds function the same as other "DRM-free" games on there, such as Arkham City for example? Once you download The Outer Worlds, you can play it without having the client installed or ever launching?