Oh, I know. Let me try to recap my argument, because I suspect we're not actually disagreeing all that much. :-)

The conversation started with Holi saying "Find a console that isn't locked down that people actually want then come back with your whining" and you responding with "PC", and then the discussion changed to DRM on the PC.

My argument is that DRM is still a significant factor on the PC. Sure, the situation is better than it is on consoles both because there are some DRM-free games and because you can even do that in the first place if you want, but few people in my experience are willing to actually forgo games with DRM. And in some sense I would say that's DRM is rather closer to the rule than the exception, and I suspect this post by you was more focusing on the exceptions.

It's pretty much just that focus that I objected to rather than the fact that PCs are a better ecosystem.

Why print the stuff when you can do it electronically? Think of the carbon waste when you burn through your money!

Sounds like they've got integrity to me, based on your examples. Maybe you need to look up what "integrity" means....

The oil industry can be counted on to operate in the manner you described, and everyone in the industry knows what's what and who's who. There are very few variables (hence the integrity). The Green energy industry, however, is one where anyone with a new idea can undercut the others and make a quick buck at the expense of everyone else. There are very few defined standards or processes, and virtually no price fixing (as everything's so new that the price is already inflated).

Now if you're talking about sociological or environmental integrity, they're both pretty bad taken as a whole.

Ford didn't make a device that made buggy whips better and faster without needing any people.

Robots are smart. They want you to continue to believe they want take over until it's too late. also known as the year 2019.

Having a maintenance person come out is cheaper then a full time data server employee.

Eventual a robot will fix it.

Yeah, that's a stopper. cause no one could put a rail on stairs robots could attach to.

It's the 21st century, stairs don't even stop Daleks anymore.

'Jobs' will become obsolete.
While thinking about it and preparing for that eventuality would be smart, it would get labeled as 'Socialist' by people and pundits who have no fucking clue what that means.

Will robots take over [x]? Yes, eventually.

How do you expect a 32-bit program with no knowledge of 64-bit processors to be able to tell the OS to not give it the full 4 GB, because the developer wasn't careful?

That happens by default on Windows. By default, programs only get 2GB of address space, and Windows "uses" (just doesn't give out, really) the other 2GB.

If a programmer thinks they're careful, they opt into the larger address space by setting the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag in their PE header (usually by passing a linker flag).

So now we can get to your question, and there are two answers:

1) Even if a program doesn't have knowledge of 64-bit Windows, they can still get some benefit from setting that flag: on a 32-bit Windows system configured to support it, they'll get a 3GB address space instead of 2GB.

2) If a program has no knowledge about the large-address-aware flag at all, then they "tell the OS to not give it the full 4 GB" by doing nothing.

In Firefox's case, Mozilla has set this flag:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox>dumpbin /headers firefox.exe
...
FILE HEADER VALUES
            14C machine (x86)
...
            122 characteristics
                  Executable
                  Application can handle large (>2GB) addresses <--
                  32 bit word machine
...

(You could probably actually modify the Firefox executable to unset that flag and stop it from using above 2GB of user memory, but I'm not sure what would happen or if there are other mechanisms that can overrule it or whatever.)

The direction in which I take this line of discussion depends on what fraction of the total audience a particular game needs before it's considered successful.

Also, I don't really care what the answer to this question is. I'm not looking at things from the point of view of the game developer and trying to argue that it makes sense for publishers to include DRM or not include DRM or whatever; I'm looking at things from the point of view of the gamer, who has to decide between supporting DRM-ed products or going without games they probably want.

Or do you claim that someone is likely to browse through GOG and see absolutely no worthwhile games?

Absolutely not.

What I mean is the following: if you were to ask everyone who plays PC games (maybe exclude the guy who just dabbles in solitaire in his spare time) what their favorites are and what games they haven't played that they would most like to, I strongly suspect that almost all of those lists will have games that are only available with DRM.

It doesn't have to be the same game between different people: maybe I put Portal on my list, you put HL2 on your list, someone else puts Mass Effect on their list. But there will be very few lists consisting entirely of games available DRM-free.

Sticking to DRM-free games will cause you to miss out on a ton of good stuff. If it's a strong principle to avoid DRM then it's worth it, but for most people that's not the case.

Does it really matter so long as it does what it says on the tin?

But if you put in the wrong figures, do you get the correct answer?

All they had to do was make the installation process work just like it does on the 360 where you have to put the DVD in on start up to prove you own a copy or have physical possession of one. They could have improved on that for convenience simply by making a feature to tie it to your profile and require the Internet for that. That way, the worst that could happen is two gamers share the same disk.

5% is 5%. It is barely on the edge of human perception. The average Joe would have difficulty noticing even if he were challenged to do so.