545
Rule of owning (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 months ago by roon@lemmy.ml to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 215 points 2 months ago

I appreciate the transparency tbh. Would be better if things were different but it is what it is for now.

[-] HKayn@dormi.zone 114 points 2 months ago

For context, Steam is now forced to display this due to a new law passed in California: https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426

Valve is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

[-] julianh@lemm.ee 126 points 2 months 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.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 67 points 2 months 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.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago

Yeah that would be nice.

[-] Klaymore@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

PCGamingWiki has that info for most titles I believe. It would be nice to see it in Steam though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 18 points 2 months ago

Afaik, Steam only sells licences.

[-] warm@kbin.earth 68 points 2 months 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.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 10 points 2 months ago

DRM is orthagonal to ownership

[-] warm@kbin.earth 20 points 2 months ago

I do not disagree?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 87 points 2 months ago

This was always the case, just stated explicitly now

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SuperIce@lemmy.world 49 points 2 months ago

Did California's new law requiring this already go into effect?

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 61 points 2 months ago

January 1 2025, guess Steam preferred not waiting in this case

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 45 points 2 months ago

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

[-] Monstrosity@lemm.ee 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] loutr@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 months ago

Yeah, if a game needs online activation it doesn't matter which medium you buy...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 2 months ago
[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 50 points 2 months ago

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

[-] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 2 months ago

Bad argument piracy has never been stealing

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] RandomVideos@programming.dev 11 points 2 months ago

If buying becomes owning, will people stop pirating?

[-] Opisek@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

People were more inclined to buy software when it was a one time purchase rather than a license subscription (for example Adobe).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] JayObey711@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months 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

[-] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 28 points 2 months ago

Twitter is bad.

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months 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.

[-] Lotsen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 2 months ago
[-] Laser@feddit.org 39 points 2 months ago

Good Old Games Games

[-] HKayn@dormi.zone 16 points 2 months 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.

[-] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

I would love to do that, but GoG does not have the better regional pricing that steam does.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] ToxicWaste@lemm.ee 16 points 2 months 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.

[-] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

It's a good job Gabe Newell has made gamers comfortable with not owning their games.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jg1i@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months 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.ml 7 points 2 months ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

Thank you California law!

[-] msmc101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 months ago
[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Remember the people who long ago told you "in the future you will own nothing, and you will be happy"?

How'd you react? Did you call them crazy? Conspiracy theorists? Perhaps a Doomer?

You know what they should be called? Correct.

[-] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah I called them all those things and I still do.

Steam doesn’t have a monopoly on digital games distribution if you’re unhappy with their service just use another one that allows you to own a direct software license.

Stop being a conspiracy nutjob.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

This is solving the wrong problem entirely.

You do own games. They're products. They're mass-market goods, as surely as when they came on plastic rectangles or glass circles.

Being permitted to continue having things on your hard drive is not a service.

[-] auzy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

The reason people buy from steam though and develop for them though is because of their service.

Thor from pirate software mentions that even as a developer there are good reasons for them to use steam.

Even just the cloud saves and such is awesome

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
545 points (98.1% liked)

196

16748 readers
2704 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS