I'd hazard a guess that there are some other options available as well, but won't explicitly suggest anything for what I hope are obvious reasons. Rather ironic how incidents like this sometimes end up playing out.

Agreed.

If it weren't for the fact that the publisher's own DRM is infused in the game from Gamersgate, I would have said it was a close contender to GOG.

Got a response saying "I have given you a new serial," though it still doesn't seem to appear on the My Games page. I've sent him a screenshot and pointed out the missing download button too, hopefully they can get this sorted.

I guess it depends on what we mean by DRM though. Serial key? Hidden software installed for verification? Logging into an online account to play?
Maybe I just don't care enough because it affects my enjoyment of the actual game practically next to nil.

Then why, pray, do you insist on posting in this thread?

Yes it is. DRM exists and does so with excellent reults in the private sectors, where millions can be lost, if their DRM was not up to the task, to people who could use that information. DRM also exists to protect security nad medical related stuff, what you're referring to is badly executed DRM for games. Different small brush.

Aren't you confusing encryption with Digital (Rights)/Restriction Management?
But I now see you're point, although you're rather straying away from the path, since this post started out as a vehicle for people to post their software/hardware related horror stories caused by DRM in games.

As Zhirek also mentioned you seem to be confusing encryption with DRM. Although DRM can be considered a type of encryption a key difference between it and most encryption is that while most encryption exists to protect information from an outside attacker while allowing access to authorized users, with DRM the potential attacker and the authorized users are the same people.

Not really. In the private sector various forms of DRM are used to deter copying. However, his line of reasoning is about as specious as the "I don't know about it, so it doesn't exist" argument he countered earlier. The reason is simply this: demand. I assure you that if downloading the latest military simulator software or hospital database software were all the rage, then the pirates would crack that shit in 0.5 seconds and then the DRM would be about as effective as it is for consumer level software. Which is to say, it's not at all effective. But hey, since I've not seen any private sector software available on TPB or whatever the kids are using these days it clearly has uncrackable DRM... right?
I work for a company that writes private sector software as a means to keep a roof over my head. We certainly don't include any DRM in our stuff because we charge a ridiculous amount and we tailor our software to the needs of our clients so it would be pretty useless for anyone else. Regardless of that I do understand that there's a need to protect the work that we (the software developer community) do at times. But really, there's a point where the ROI becomes nil and that's the issue with consumer grade DRM. Look at the bullshit about limited activations. This doesn't affect people who pirate the software, but it affects those who buy it by restricting the use of the software. This is what's known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
What's the alternative? I personally like Steam (even as a DRM), but some hate it. You'll never find a solution that pleases all the people all the time. Some say get rid of DRM, that's a valid answer too, but you need to give people an incentive to buy or human nature will take over.
Why? Simple: fungoo is just a troll. He doesn't care about your view, he just wants to pick a fight.

Much the same reason why mac users seem convinced that their systems are more secure than windows ones. There's less successful attacks but there's a lot less total attacks because the return simply isn't worth it. Why piss off 5-10% of the market with your childish 5kr1ptkiddi3 bullshit when you could piss off 80-85%?

I'm aware that there have been numerous cases of DRM used in highly specialized private sector software, but I'd still question whether preventing piracy was still a rational reason for the use of such DRM. My understanding is that worries about BSA audits and lawsuits over license violations are far more of a concern than DRM which most competent IT departments could bypass without too much trouble. It's also my impression that the inclusion of DRM is often a dealbreaker for the purchase of specialized software unless a PHB is involved. I will readily admit, however, that my understanding of these things stems mostly from Slashdot discussions of such issues (not exactly an unbiased group), and as you seem to have infinitely more first-hand experience surrounding this specific area than I do, if you come back and say that DRM is actually a meaningful deterrent to the piracy of specialized business software then I'll take your word for it.

I don't think I'm an authority on the subject, I can only draw from personal experience when dealing with the business side of software development.
I can't say definitively that DRM is working as a deterrent towards piracy of specialized software and I can't say definitively that it isn't (I just don't have the numbers to back it up either way and just like the consumer level software stats - no one really has accurate numbers). But I'll say that they 'think' it's a deterrent, and because you don't see much piracy from the private sector they 'think' it's working. Again I feel that's specious reasoning. For my company, DRM is unnecessary and unwelcome - just another thing to test and just another thing that gets in our way.
I can't say if I've ever heard of the inclusion of DRM being a deal breaker for private software, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's happened before.
Audits of licenses and the like are definitely a concern (and a far better deterrent than DRM let me tell you) and the groups doing the auditing don't care whether you call it a license violation, piracy or software usage efficiency, to them it's grounds for a massive lawsuit. This isn't just devastating financially, but it can destroy that company just from bad PR. It's funny, if I call Microsoft and say my neighbour is pirating Windows, they'll probably say "fuck off, we're busy" - well, ok, maybe not, but they won't likely do much about it. However, if I called Microsoft and said, "my company has only 2 licenses for windows and it's installed on 10 machines", you can bet your ass they'll be beating down the door with lawyers. Of course, Windows is commercial grade stuff, but it's used by private and public sectors alike and how Microsoft treats the abuse of its products can vary depending on the context. But notice I didn't mention anything about DRM, that's because it's not a factor, it can often be bypassed easily enough.
Frankly in the private sector fear is the motivator against piracy more so than DRM (I know it is for us - we license EVERYTHING, no matter how small and unenforcable it -might- be). This is especially true if you're a larger company and have a lot to lose. This is why I don't think it's a valid in the argument for or against DRM. The world of private software tends to operate differently on many levels.
Regardless, this is moving outside of the intended topic of discussion for the thread. No one here is dealing with private sector software that installs drivers that forces CD/DVD drives to read outside of their physical parameters... they're dealing with badly designed commercial grade DRM. Although, I'd love to see someone pop up and say: "FUCKING HOSPITAL DATABASE DRM JUST FUCKED MY DVD DRIVE!!!" (and be serious)
A facepalm moment for sure.

TapeWorm I am interested in your thoughts on the Apple/Psystar case and Apple claiming that when a person buys Mac OSX retail, off the shelves, that person is licensing their software, and thus ownership cannot be transfered..
If this is true, this will cause many implications in the used PC market, meaning you can't resell your macintosh.
Can a license actually supersede the law?

Honestly that's a question for the lawyers (I'm obviously not one) and courts to bang out. I think we're entering a grey area quagmire when it comes to resale. On a personal level I think this is just corporate greed pure and simple and if these companies (EA, Apple, anyone who's against resale) get their way then it's going against the spirit of capitalism and will do some major damage in the retail sector because of the precident that it will set. Can you imagine GAP suing you because you resold some old clothes and didn't give them a cut?
At this point, no, a license shouldn't be able to supersede law. That's why in EULAs you see lines like " LEGAL EFFECT. This agreement describes certain legal rights. You may have other rights under the laws of your state or country. You may also have rights with respect to the party from whom you acquired the software. This agreement does not change your rights under the laws of your state or country if the laws of your state or country do not permit it to do so." Natually this is all depending on the country you're in and all that jazz.