this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
819 points (99.5% liked)
Games
32539 readers
1762 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Ubisoft take note"
Ubisoft is nothing compared to Valve... You don't own anything you purchase on Steam and it's the biggest store by a huge margin, don't know why Ubisoft is mentioned specifically...
Games sold on Steam are not required to use Steam's DRM. There are lots of DRM free games on Steam. Steam is only required to be installed to purchase/download them but not to run them. After download, the game files can be copied and ran on any computer without any verification.
They don't make it clear which games have steam DRM and which games have nothing at all, they only list it if it's a third party solution like denuvo.
So they're not DRM free then if you need Steam to download them. You also need to be connected to the internet at least once to confirm ownership, so even if you download it once and think that you can now just transfer the game from one PC to another without an internet connection or without Steam, you can't.
DRM free and actual ownership means physical. The closest you'll get to that with digital games is through GOG or Itch.io or anything similar where you can download the actual install files and you don't need any launcher at all.
You can purchase the game in a web browser and use steamcmd, which (one could argue is still requiring an app) to download and install. In cases where the publisher is not invoking DRM (Larian games like BG3, DoS2, etc. for instance) once the game is downloaded you can certainly archive it and transfer it to another machine and run it there without Steam. In the end you are likely purchasing proprietary software (though again it's not always the case on Steam) and we could say you don't really own that either, so maybe take your complaints to the publishers or just use the power of your wallet and not buy those games and support libre games, of which there are many, another way. That said, Valve is actively making things better for users by developing and contributing to useful libre software like Proton (WINE, DXVK, etc) that can work outside of Steam.
once you downloaded the game you can copy it into a pendrive, upload it into mega or whatever storage and use it. I don't get why y'all get so held up at the fact that steam might stop offering infinite downloads. Once you have downloaded the game you are free to burn it or store it wherever! This is different from streaming music for example, since with music you never have a local copy you can work with.
You can. I have several games where I can literally copy the game folder into another computer, press the executable and be able to play it offline. Terraria, vampire survivors, stardew valley, pathfinder: WOTR, Grim Dawn, AoE2... And more. I literally have "backup" zips of several path versions of grim dawn to play different mods because I'm too lazy to patch the game each time I want to replay different versions.
Once the game it's in your system it's as physical as it can get. There's no difference of storage in your disk, a pendrive, an external drive or an optical CD. You give the example of GoG, there's plenty games in steam that once "installed" have all the files in the game folder and you can easily move them.
In the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network,” Valve reps have said, “measures are in place to ensure that all users will continue to have access to their Steam games.”
If there is one think we should all have learned by now in this Era is that talk means nothing at all: there have to be hard contractual clausules along with personal punishment for those who break them or some kind of escrow system for money meant to go into that "end of life" plan for it to actually be genuine.
"Valve reps have said" is worth as much as the paper it's written on and that stuff is not even written on paper.
Except they have proven this so far to be accurate. Games that have long since been removed from sale are still downloadable for people who purchased them at the time. Which is more than others can say.
But the steam network is still around. When steam actually shuts down and no longer has the infrastructure to provide downloads for games, I have no idea what their plan is. They hypothetically could provide a way to remove the DRM, but I doubt that it's something the publishers of games would allow.
Well, as the guy falling from the top of the Empire State Building was overheard saying on his way down: "well, so far so good".
Or as the common caveat given to retail investors goes: past performance is no predictor of future results.
"So far" proves nothing because it can be "so far" only because the conditions for something different haven't yet happenned or it simply hasn't been in their best interest yet to act differently.
If their intentions were really the purest, most honest and genuine of all, they could have placed themselves under a contractual obligation to do so and put money aside for an "end of life plan" in a way such that they can't legally use it for other things, or even done like GoG and provided offline installer to those people who want them.
Steam have chosen to maintain their ability to claw back games in your library whilst they could have done otherwise as demonstrated by GoG which let you download offline installers - no matter what they say, their actions to keep open the option of doing otherwise say the very opposite.
But we know that is only guaranteed for single player Valve games
And until it happens that’s meaningless
Blame devs for not creating a system for custom servers, not valve who's games do have those systems.
How do you host an Artifact server?
How do we update it to work on unsupported (read future) systems?
You got me on the first one. Artifact is definitely an exception to what I said.
As for the 2nd question, you emulate old systems.
And yet, they always refused to put it in writing in the EULA. Wonder why.
They can still delete your account and cut you off from your games.
It's even more basic than that: if there's no escrow with money for that "end of life" "plan" and no contractual way to claw back money for it from those getting dividends from Valve, then what the "Valve representatives" said is a completelly empty promised, or in other words a shameless lie.
Genuine intentions actually have reliable funding attached to them, not just talkie talkie from people who will never suffer in even the tinyest of ways from not fulfulling what they promised.
In this day and age, we've been swamped with examples that we can't simply trust in people having a genuine feeling of ethical and moral duty to do what they say they will do with no actual hard consequences for non-compliance or their money on the line for it.
PS: And by "we can't trust in people" I really mean "we can't trust in people who are making statements and promises as nameless representatives of a company". Individuals personally speaking for themselves about something they control still generally are, even in this day and age, much better than people acting the role of anonymous corporate drone.
Boo hoo, someone say too many slurs on the forums?
Eh... I was just showing that you don't actually own your games as access to them can be taken from you, that's all.
Just people trying to ride the wave for internet points without really knowing what they're talking about. It's just the popular "current thing" to hate on.
To add to your point, it's amazing that so many people are still mindless fanboys, even of Steam.
Steam has restrictions on installing the games their customers supposedly own, even if it's nothing more than "you can't install it from a local copy of the installer and have to install it from the Steam servers" - it's not full ownership if you can't do what you want with it when you want it without the say so of a 3rd party.
That's just how it is.
Now, it's perfectly fair if one says "yeah, but I totally trust them" which IMHO is kinda naive in this day and age (personally, almost 4 decades of being a Techie and a gamer have taught me to distrust until there's no way they can avoid their promises, but that just me), or that one knows the risks but still thinks that it's worth it to purchase from Steam for many games and that the mere existence of Steam has allowed many games to exists that wouldn't have existed otherwise (mainly Indie ones) - which is my own posture at least up to a point - but a whole different thing is the whole "I LoVe STeaM And tHeY CaN DO NotHInG wrONg" fanboyism.
Sorry but they have in place restrictions on game installation and often game playing which from the point of view of Customers are not needed and serve no purpose (they're not optional and a choice for the customer, but imposed on customers), hence they serve somebody else than the customer. It being a valid business model and far too common in this day and age (hence people are used to it) doesn't make those things be "in the interest of Customers" and similarly those being (so far) less enshittified than other similar artificial restrictions on Customers out there do not make them a good thing, only so far not as bad as others.
I mean, for fuck's sake, this isn't the loby of an EA multiplayer game and we're supposed to be mostly adults here in Lemmy: lets think a bit like frigging adults rather than having knee-jerk pro-Steam reactions based on fucking brand-loyalty like mindless pimply-faced teen fanboys. (Apologies to the handful of wise-beyond-their-years pimply faced teens that might read this).