Your biggest problem is that you project far too much. Your arguments have all been "My personal situation doesn't apply here, stop trying to change things." We get it, you're not personally affected. Why then do you want people who are personally affected to stop advocating for themselves?

Never said the questions were not there. This doesn't mean their pushing DRM.

Along with many other questions and the option to answer "I don't want any..."

You only activate Windows 98 once via a CD key, but that's still DRM.
And annoyingly enough, Settlers 3 didn't have that stripped out either. They didn't even just cudgel it to make it "enter anything and pass".

I feel like most of us answer like this.

It shows an open consideration; an entertainment of the potential. If they were sticking true, they'd simply go, "Being DRM free is one of our core philosophies; so we won't trifle with questions about that, such a thing would be a waste of time, akin to that of trying to resurrect the Intellivision brand."

That sounds very plausible :)

No, that is what you expect them to do.

They are asking the customers. If most of their customers would not care about drm, why should they enforce it?
But obviously many of us do care and this is a legit way to tell them that we do.

Well, I can't speak for most of us, but I certainly did.

Thanks. Just completed it. To hell with all your apps, subscriptions, MOBAs and Battle Royales, GOG!

Yeah, if the response is clearly negative they will hopefully think twice about this crap, but it's hard not to see what they are pondering from this survey. Waaay to many questions about this stuff to delude oneself.

Thanks. I thought it was a pretty decent survey. Yeah they asked about quite a few things I have no interest in.. but I'm glad they asked.
I just went through my order history and looks like I've spent 879.53 eur on GOG this year. I didn't get a survey email. So I'm assuming it's not about how much you've spent.

Sorry, I guess I was a bit vague with my wording. Of course, DRM is DRM (although there MIGHT be some debate over what constitutes DRM precisely, I didn't mean to equivocate in my post). What I wanted to explain is how DRM matters to people. For some it's a matter of principle, for others the practical aspects are what's relevant. For example, some old games had codesheets as a form of offline DRM. Since you got the sheet with the game, this was at most an inconvenience for players (if they had to input the codes whenever the game starts) as opposed to an actual problem with the game refusing to work. I am willing to bet that if that was all that DRM ever was, we would have never gotten the need for a DRM-free store.

There is the possibility to lose the sheet, of course, and a badly written DRM check could still cause issues, but I feel like the first is something true for any form of backup of data (I could lose my CDs or my installers) and the other is an edge-case which would probably prompt a fix (since it's not the intended result from the devs).

If there existed a theoretical "perfect DRM" that couldn't be cracked but could also verify with 100% reliability, offline, and without privacy intrusions that you are the actual owner of a game, I feel like virtually no gamer or company would refuse it, so the point is obviously not that DRM exists, but that it either intrudes on you, limits how you can access your game, can cause bugs/performance issues, can lock you out of the game and so on (usually, all at once XD).

For the Cyberpunk 2077 scenario, I get why people are upset at having the extra content DRM'd, but my point there was explaining why it didn't bother many others. The situation obviously has parallels with extras tied to purchase from specific shops, on specific console or even to collector's editions (assuming they have some unique digital goods), especially if you look at the end result (content made for the game wasn't made available to me, unless I met some arbitrary requirements the devs/publishers have pushed on me). I also understand it's more annoying because it's being pushed through GOG, which should in theory be against using DRM.

This gating is arbitrary and annoying, but it's a miniscule part of the game. The perception would be that the extra content is DRM'd, as opposed to the game itself, is what I am trying to express, and when it's so small, it's more difficult to care if you are interested in the game. I am sure a quest being tied to Galaxy would have sparked a huge controversy, instead (I hope, at least).

I feel like people just care about different things, and those are the only things they care to have DRM-free. Of course, it's a fair observation that not everyone speaks clearly about their position, causing more friction.

1. A lot, but certainly not all.
2. My point still applies, as the more moderate or tolerant people in the DRM-free base who want DRM-free games have literally nothing to lose by siding with "the complainers" of the DRM-free base. You have everything to gain if the "outrage" is successful in getting GOG to reverse course. In other words there is no reason not to support the maximum possible rejection of DRM and DRM-like schemes.

Simply put, I don't do subscriptions and will never will, and I don't even like/use Galaxy anymore. A rewards program would maybe OK, but only if it is in the form of store credit. (And if the so-called "rewards" are just in-game items then I would not be interested in that at all. I absolutely HATE the online-only "rewards" systems for Witcher/Cyberpunk.)

Just keep GOG DRM-free with offline installers, and I'll keep buying games here. Otherwise, I'll buy my games elsewhere because GOG with DRM would make GOG no better than any other storefront.

I have taken it. Thanks to wolfsite and neumi5694 who have posted the link.

I took the survey link, thanks.
As a feature, I proposed a GOG workshop for mods, without Galaxy needed.