• Julian@lemm.eeEnglish
    1272·
    23 days ago

    Its pretty much up to the developer. You can have no DRM and not even require steam to be open, or you can make your game unplayable.

    • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
      67·
      23 days ago

      Imo Steam should tell people whether or not a game actually requires Steam (or another form of DRM) to run. I know they already do it for things like Denuvo, but they should also note if the game actually uses Steam as DRM or if the game can be launched without it.

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        19 days ago

        Steam DRM isn’t even really DRM in the traditional sense and it’s very easy to put games into a program or use an injected/patched .dll to bypass the Steam Launch check. It’s annoying sure but it’s not something that people should be concerned about.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        703·
        23 days ago

        Steam sells DRM-free games too, you can download them and then uninstall Steam and they will work. In this case though, on top of purchasing the game, you are buying a license to download updates for it through Steam. It’s a developer decision.

        • blindsight@beehaw.org
          62·
          23 days ago

          You still aren’t “purchasing” it.

          For example, you don’t have right of resale the same way you would with physical goods. You’re buying a license to the game for personal use, regardless, you just don’t have DRM limiting your access.

          • warm@kbin.earth
            11·
            23 days ago

            Well that’s just digital goods, not Steam specifically.

            You do get all the files for the game, that will work for as long as the OS will run them, with or without Steam (this is as close as you can come to ownership for software). Rather than a license to use them files, which become useless if you don’t run the game through Steam.

  • 4am@lemm.ee
    496·
    23 days ago

    This is also the case for physical copies, and has been since software was first sold

    • Monstrosity@lemm.eeEnglish
      321·
      22 days ago

      According to media lawyers, maybe. But when I have a CD of music, or a game cartridge, I can sell it to someone else. For money. Because it’s my copy I’m selling. So, what the fuck are you talking about except ceding the point to corporate lawyers for no good reason?

      • aski3252@lemmy.world
        3·
        22 days ago

        You own the license and can sell the license (generally), not the actual game. To use an analogy, if you buy and own a car, you could take it apart or replace any part you like, put the engine into another car, etc. You can’t do the equivalent with a typical game and other propertary software, at least not legally, because you don’t own it, you just own the right to use it.

        Might not make a noticable difference to most people because most people don’t do much with games/software apart from using it, but there still is a difference.

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        317·
        22 days ago

        That’s technically piracy. You should be careful as some have been sued for selling 2nd hand goods.

        Just because it makes sense and is intuitive doesn’t make it correct legally speaking

        • Monstrosity@lemm.eeEnglish
          14·
          22 days ago

          No it’s not. It’s well established law that we are allowed to resell our physical media. You’re just wrong. Like I said, if it were up to corporate media lawyers, you would be correct, which is why it’s frustrating to see people like OP & yourself falling into line when no one’s even asking you to. Stop that.

          • Gladaed@feddit.org
            17·
            22 days ago

            I am not falling in line, I am asking you to be aware so you don’t get sued for doing a reasonable thing. Maybe games are safe but I heard of other goods causing lawsuits.

        • DreitonLullaby@lemm.eeEnglish
          5·
          22 days ago

          Take my word with a grain of salt, but as far as I understand with my limited knowledge, you do not own the content stored on the disc; however, you do own the physical medium itself. That is how game stores are allowed to sell you second hand games. They aren’t selling you the disc contents, they are selling you the disc. Regardless, readers, do your own research and don’t take the word of random people on Lemmy including myself.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      31·
      22 days ago

      That’s a lie told by every new industry since the printing press. Books tried writing “by anonymously exchanging money for this mass-produced object, you’ve secretly entered into a contract that limits your” blah blah blah. Courts threw that shit out, one hundred years ago. Same thing happened for videos and music.

      Only software emerged recently enough, and under enough corruption, to keep pretending that opening shrink-wrap was magically the same as ink-on-paper agreement to some negotiated tradeoff.

      Moving to digital distribution changed nothing. These assholes would be the first to insist as much. They would agree, you own Factorio on Steam in exactly the same way you own SimCity on SNES. But anyone who points to the cartridge in your hands and insists “you don’t own that” is being a fucking idiot.

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          19 days ago

          People going on about being authorized do do this, not authorized to do that. General rule, don’t listen to others telling you what to do and what no to do if they can’t enforce their own rules. Steam and the rest of the digital corpos talk big, and act small. Do what you want, play your games not through steam, they handed the files to you and asked you nicely not do do what you want with them, you’re perfectly free not to listen to them, and honestly you shouldn’t listen to them 🏴‍☠️.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
      105·
      22 days ago

      You know what else used to be standard? Slavery and feudalism. Things don’t have to be this way.

    • SlothMama@lemmy.world
      4·
      21 days ago

      I’ve been trying to tell people for years this is how it actually works, now they’re being ultra transparent about it so maybe people will actually care.

  • JayObey711@lemmy.world
    27·
    23 days ago

    it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing it’s not stealing

  • Scratch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    26·
    22 days ago

    This is literally how it has always been.

    You don’t own any of the games you paid for, you bought a license to play those games under specific circumstances. It’s the same with books & movies.

    Valve have (allegedly) stated that in the case of Steam shutting down, games they can update to remove Steam DRM, they will.

    • Kayn@dormi.zone
      16·
      22 days ago

      By now my GOG library has far exceeded my Steam library in size. I was surprised by how many games on my Steam wishlist are also on GOG.

        • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
          204·
          22 days ago

          2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.

          https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog

          You do not own games purchased on GOG. Same as Steam, EGS, Ubisoft Connect… GOG shills like to spread the lie that you own GOG games, thus justifying the use of their garbage platform, but when asked to explain how, they just say you can download the EXE so it’s functionally the same as owning (omitting, of course, that you can run most Steam or EGS games without having their respective clients installed, as that would go against their narrative).

          • slampisko@lemmy.world
            182·
            22 days ago

            Okay, I see your point, but I’d still say it’s a better license than Steam’s/Epic’s, because the games are DRM free (unless they’ve changed that and I’m not aware of it) and so once I’ve downloaded them, I can then play them whether or not GOG still exists or my “license to use GOG services” was revoked.

            you can run most Steam or EGS games without having their respective clients installed

            This is not consistent with my personal experience (though admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve tried – maybe a lot of games on Steam are now DRM free).

            • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
              217·
              22 days ago

              EGS doesn’t require the client, you can simply run the EXE.

              Steam games most commonly use Steamworks DRM, which is so easy to bypass it might as well not exist.

              That’s beside the point, however. GOG doesn’t sell you games, but licenses. Playing the game after your license has been revoked is copyright infringement, and no different than using a cracked version. DRM is another topic entirely.

              • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
                5·
                22 days ago

                What matters is I can put that exe on a harddrive/usb stick, plug it into any PC, and play it. Does that work with epic and steam? If I copy the game folder onto a usb stick and buy a new pc, can I plug it in and play it without ever installing the launchers? Or having to do some other workaround like download software I don’t know if I can trust that I wouldn’t have to do with GOG?

                I don’t care about whether it’s technically illegal or not, I only care about how easily I can play the game using nothing but the game, exactly like a cartridge.

              • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                1·
                19 days ago

                No offense but license infringement is such a weak argument because there isn’t anything to really enforce these licenses. They aren’t watching us in our homes, they can’t forcefully remove it from our computers. It is gatekeeping that people choose to feed into. They talk big and act small, you’re not supposed to play the game if your account is deleted or the service closes, but there isn’t anything stopping you from doing it, they’re just trying to gatekeep you. No real point in listening to them.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    181·
    23 days ago

    Personally I think we should bring back physical games to PC. Imagine a cartridge like device that can effectively use external storage as swap memory (which copies to ram as needed), laptops and desktops can be built with this while other computers could use an adapter.

          • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            21·
            22 days ago

            Fundamentally you do not own anything under capitalism, how would you create ownership if capitalism always steers towards what makes the most profit?

            • Koarnine@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              2·
              22 days ago

              Apologies for the long comment you were fully within your right to haphazardly essentialise about the state of affairs, sometimes we just want to complain. Its just about the audience really, and it can be so difficult to distinguish between bad-faith actors and those who are being snobbish in their response to you when you have the wrong audience for your rhetoric.

              It really depends on your audience, unfortunately the majority of people you speak your rhetoric too will not have 10% of the basis in knowledge required to make a consistent logical leap between neatly packaged concepts. Especially when many of those concepts have been prepackaged to the audience as inherently deserving of ridicule. Whereas the core ideas of most of those concepts are agreed upon across the political spectrum.

              Its far easier to argue against the Friedman Doctrine, the idea that “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”, than it is to argue against capitalism itself in an optics sense.

              Again its easier to argue against the current state of things, often colleqioully known as ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘late-stage capitalism’, than it is to argue against capitalism. Even if that implies the same as what you said (that capitalism tends towards or has tended towards inevitability), it will be received much more graciously as an observable fact of the current state of affairs.

              The Trump camp argues against the current state of things very effectively, despite intentionally identifying the issues incorrectly and pushing them in the worse direction. Because most people can identify the current system is broken, and most want to believe they can help to make it better. If they are given the right framework, debunking common misconceptions, blaming ‘late-stage capitalism’ for example, corporate elites, info about PACs and lobbying (how capitalism undermines democracy through bribery), then they would hopefully come to the conclusion themselves.

              My point being, while its not always your responsibility to meticulously articulate (some of) the core fundamentals of your ideology; if you hope for effective praxis then approaching people where they are at is necessary. Otherwise you risk appearing out of touch and facing (however (un)justifiable) pre-prepared ridicule potentially harming the ideology further through vibe association.

              When your audience is non-leftists (liberals), argue against corporate greed and for real social responsibility for wealthy and corporate actors, who should be providing their fair share to society first. Then argue for state ownership of public services, some services should not be ran for profit and instead for maximising public good (public transport, healthcare, energy, water, etc.). Argue against nestles actions in flint for example, or healthcare costs. These are all easy wins, argue against the big monopolies making us pay more for worse services, argue they should be broken up to allow competition.

              Like I say though, you are within your right to complain and not explain, just don’t be surprised when you have stinky libs acting smug and being arbitrarily obtuse.

              Also, don’t be dissauded by the humiliation, that is their strongest tool in making us powerless.

              I’m reminded of a quote from Yuri Bezmenov:

              “I realized that the purpose of propaganda was not to persuade or even to deceive, but to humiliate. When a person hears lies of the most absurd kind, and can say nothing in return, eventually he will be emotionally spent and conquered, and will not feel that he has any right to say what is true, or that there is no one who will care. Once this has been achieved, liars can move on to action, to do whatever they please without a whimper in response.”

    • Yuri addict@ani.socialEnglish
      3·
      23 days ago

      And hopefully it dosent require the original game drive to be plugged in all the time when you want to play

        • ArchRecord@lemm.eeEnglish
          71·
          22 days ago

          The same way you do it digitally: add a thin layer of DRM that gives you legal protection, but doesn’t actually do much on a technical level. Check a license key from the game drive in the same way you’d check the key of software someone paid you for, then let the code run on their machine.

          DRM itself isn’t a very good way of protecting media. The functional protections are almost nonexistent due to the nature of it. If you want to let someone play/watch/read content, you can’t also make it magically impossible for them to just take the code/video/text, and copy paste it somewhere else. The only thing DRM does is give you the legal right to invoke the state as a way of enforcing copyright law against anyone who ‘pirates’ your work.

          Any fraud that could happen likely wouldn’t be stopped no matter what they tried. (or rather, if they did nothing protection-wise)

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          19 days ago

          You don’t actually need to. The people who want to buy your game will buy your game. The people who don’t, just won’t. That’s not going to change by implementing artificial scarcity, people who really want it for free will find a way even if you try to stop them.

  • ToxicWaste@lemm.ee
    16·
    21 days ago

    no need be angry at steam. that is how it always has been. kudos to them to point it out very cleanly and not hiding it on page 400 of the 3rd EULA.

      • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
        7·
        20 days ago

        You also won’t be authorised to play them if your account is banned for any or no reason, or if steam somehow shut down (at least for any you havn’t already downloaded or if you ever uninstall them).

        That doesn’t sound much like owning to me. Could you imagine if gamestop banned you from their store and suddenly you couldn’t play any game you bought there? Would any logical person consider that ownership?

  • jg1i@lemmy.world
    218·
    22 days ago

    OK. I know I’m about to get blown the fuck up but… You will own nothing and be happy. But. Like. Unironically.

    I really don’t think most people want to manage thousands of music files on their computer. Or hundreds of movie files. Or thousands of picture files. Or hundreds of video game files.

    There are definitely options for doing this, but people who go this route are usually tech elite nerds. Not your parents or grandparents. Not normies.

    (I self-host Navidrome, Jellyfin, Immich, etc.)

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
      103·
      22 days ago

      You will be blown up, and you will be happy. Enjoy the technofeudalism you so desperately long for.

    • Magnus the Punk Cat@slrpnk.net
      5·
      22 days ago

      That’s why sharing tools or information via libraries is the most convenient and efficient way of managing. We don’t need to own everything if it’s easily available for everyone.

    • Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      22 days ago

      May be true but the core of the problem with buying games online is that you can pay for the game, the platform holder can just remove the game from the storefront at any tile, and essentially remove any access to the game you had previously purchased under the pretense that it is yours to keep, since you’ve paid for it, without citing any reasons or giving warnings. When we buy something, we usually assume, since that’s the way it is with physical goods, that you’re keeping what your buying.

      I feel like this transparent language is a good step in the right direction

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        22 days ago

        I think that a step in the actual right direction would be forcing platforms to give people actual ownership of what they pay for. If they have a licensing issue and want to pull the game, they can stop new sales, but they shouldn’t be allowed to make it unavailable to people who’ve already paid unless the entire company is going under and the store is shutting down (and even then, they should be forced to provide non-DRM downloads).

      • moonburster@lemmy.world
        2·
        21 days ago

        Currently I have multiple games in stream which have no store page and I still am able to install them just fine. And they even run on Linux guys proton

        • Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zipEnglish
          2·
          21 days ago

          I’m not sure how Steam works exactly, but can’t you redownload games once you’ve added them to your library regardless of any store pages?

          • moonburster@lemmy.world
            2·
            21 days ago

            Yes that’s exactly my point. The comment I was responding to was saying stuff gets deleted on steam, which is true. But that you can still play them/they are still in my library