Except it doesn't make class actions more expensive, because it removes the step of invalidating the arbitration clause.
Footing the bill for arbitration was pro-consumer. They abandoned the whole thing because of bad faith frivolous lawsuit spam trying to extort settlements, not for any other reason.
Why do you need an installer? Most of the games we're talking about you can just run the executable and be fine, because those are the games actually willing to publish on GOG. The ones that are substantial enough to need an installer are the same ones I talk about in B, that don't get basic patches and bug fixes, because GOG's customer base isn't worth the effort and GOG wouldn't have the games at all if they required update parity.
But again, it's completely irrelevant, because GOG and Galaxy don't offer any of the features to manage a library I need. If Steam didn't exist, I would abandon PC gaming entirely. No other platform on PC is anywhere near acceptable.
Nvidia isn't going to be holding any bag. They're selling through what they make, and LLMs are just one of many uses for the massively parallel math they're at the forefront of. At most they have to bring pricing down, but they don't own the fab, so if demand did drop (which isn't really all that likely), their costs will go down too. They have contracts in terms of volume and price, but they're not near long term enough to do them more than a blip, and all their investment in developing architecture/tooling has value well outside of LLM nonsense.
In the legal sense that having DRM-free software does not mean that you're legally entitled to use it, sure.
But checking for a license before running is literally the entire definition of what DRM is. They aren't "bypassing" anything. They didn't create technology. They simply refused to allow software that has any type of license check (DRM).
They haven't created anything.
They just don't allow games that use DRM (any kind of license check as a prerequisite to run software) on their store. Packaging a game with DRM is an extra step.
A disclaimer absolutely doesn't make it not trademark infringement. It doesn't even make a dent.
What upsides?
A. Many games that are DRM free on GOG are also DRM free on Steam.
B. Most of the games that are only DRM free on GOG are old, out of date builds that don't get bug fixes and updates.
C. Even if both of those weren't true, DRM free isn't worth a terrible UX and no features. If GOG had feature parity for everything Steam does except big picture mode, big picture mode alone would outweigh the outrageously small chance that Steam somehow removes access to my games.
But they're not just not at feature parity. They're like 2 out of 10 software. Better than Epic's 0 of 10, but still really bad.
No, it's not. They're literally advertising the performance of their altered code.
You keep parroting nominative use and ignoring that your definition of nominative use is "as the trademark owner uses it", and that there's no legitimate reading of any of that material that doesn't very blatantly imply endorsement, which is always trademark infringement.
No, there isn't. You're just repeating incorrect information.
The second you change how a project works in any way in any context, it is no longer the same product and you are not entitled to use their trademark to reference it.
Functionally, any scenario where there's any room at all for brand confusion or implied endorsement is trademark infringement. But even if you buy the outrageous lie that what they were doing was somehow ambiguous, as soon as they were contacted and told that their use was unacceptable, that ambiguity goes away.
Heroic is just as terrible. None of the alternative ways to manage game libraries support any of the large list of features that Steam does that I rely upon to make PC gaming a comfortable experience, and that list was far from comprehensive.
Until there's an open game library management tool in any way comparable to Steam, DRM free has no value to me. I'm willing to (and want to, for the things I haven't yet) self host movies, ebooks, audiobooks, TV shows, etc, because you can get a functional experience with them. I am not willing to do so with games because you cannot.
Their software. I don't want to go to a site and download a game to find an actual functional launcher (and file management, etc) somewhere else. GOG galaxy is terrible on windows and doesn't support Linux, despite the overlap between their philosophy and Linux users.
Steam isn't just a store. It manages my large library with no work on my part, including reasonably high quality tags to make it easier to find games for whatever mood I'm in. It completely seamlessly handles Linux support on almost all of my games, while giving me all the freedom I need to make changes in the rare cases their out of the box setup has issues. It has an exceptionally high quality input mapping tool that is done per game and has a large catalogue of user generated control schemes. It handles simple modding for a lot of games that don't need anything too crazy. It handles cloud saves so invisibly between devices that I almost never have to think about it.
I will (and have) pay for a game on Steam when I have it on GOG for free, if I actually want to play it. I'll eventually be self hosting almost all of my other media, and have taken steps in that direction, but I definitely will not be doing so for games. Steam is just too much better than any third party options.
They didn't create anything of any type. They just declined games that didn't follow their rules.