Gaming

Reposting my comment from the other post:

Stores should only provide DRM, and anything else that they do must be optional.

But earlier:

I would rather pay a fraction of the price to play a game for one month than pretend digitally distributed games have the lifespan of a boxed physical product.

So, DRM is bad… but acceptable if it's only DRM?

If DRM is a critical failure point for game preservation and ownership, then a store providing only DRM is still part of the problem.

In lieu of even the simplest commitment by Valve... Game Pass represent far greater value to consumers.

Game Pass is the epitome of temporary, self-updating, DRM-heavy software that you can't patch, mod, or preserve. Yet it’s presented as a solution?

Valve does not expect users to delete their account; they think... nobody will ever hold them accountable.

Then:

They claim that upon deleting your account, your community posts will remain and will be attributed to [deleted], however this is not true...

Wait, isn't it contradictory to say they didn’t expect users to delete accounts while criticizing their policy on deleted accounts?

Because the Steam client patches itself... their DRM prevents running Windows 98-era games on original hardware.

That shit is 25 years old. Does this goober really think it's reasonable to expect support for an obsolete operating system?

Also, is this really a steam-only issue?

Valve's... design deliberately hooks and blocks access to those APIs as part of Steam Input's initialization.

This is typical behavior of API abstraction layers.

If Steam Input replaces lower-level APIs, that’s exactly what it’s designed to do. Epic, Microsoft, and others do the same. The difference is the option to disable it - not the architectural behavior itself.

In summation: This dingbat is a walking contradiction with an axe to grind.

Here's the actual source, I don't think the article really adds anything

https://gist.github.com/Kaldaien/c66bf3dca62a5ac63785714f686e60ad

Enter Monthly Subscription Game Libraries and DRM-free → Exit Steam

I strongly disagree with this paragraph, as we saw with Netflix and video streaming monthly subscriptions are a trap which allows a massive increase tot he cost to the consumer and a noticeable drop in the quality of the content in a way steams model simply does not.

They immediately lost me with props to the Microsoft store with what a pain it was to even access the game directory in the past. And even if it is improving is something that just locks you into having to use Windows OS as opposed to being able play the purchased game on other OS.

Hell with stuff like recall and Windows moving to trying to force OS online accounts compared to how clean Winows 7 used to be they just lose credibility for whatever they are trying to argue.

There is a valid argument against the DRM being that your ancient air-gapped system should be able to run the game still but can't run the DRM due to the requirements changing after the point of purchase. Perhaps there is a discussion to be had about whether DRM should be removed once you change the system requirements drastically, but this feels like a rare circumstance.

The simple solution is to get DRM-free copies from GOG where possible. Archive the installers if you're worried about future compatibility. That way you can have a nostalgic Windows 98 machine or whatever that only plays games and won't bug you with random unprovoked changes and updates from day to day.

The author of this article reflexively and illogically defends Steam (like usual):

But at least some of what Kaldaien complains about isn't necessarily on Steam's shoulders. It's well within devs' powers to provide players with access to older game versions on Steam (KOTOR 2, which I recently replayed, lets you access its pre-Aspyr version via a beta branch, for instance), but many of them elect not to. That strikes me as an issue with individual devs rather than Steam as a whole, and as for Steam Input? Well, again, if there's a problem there it's with developers electing to use that API over OS-native ones that's the issue.

He literally completely misses the modder's point. Steam itself will not run on the original machine you purchased KOTOR 2 on. You can buy a gaming machine, purchase a game through steam and 6 years later, one random day you're suddenly no longer able to play your game, simply because Valve has decided that the version of Steam that you bought the game through is no longer ok and now you need to upgrade your hardware and OS to play the same game you've been playing for years.

A moot point if you're running Linux.

Your problem is your OS, not Valve's software.

Though I prefer Gog's model.

I'm a big fan of Special K as it effectively fixed Nier Automata on PC for me. Kaldeian has done excellent, thankless work on making PC games work better and for more people.

And though Valve shouldn't always be given the benefit of the doubt, I don't really agree with his arguments.

Games you purchased on a Windows 98 machine later had their system requirements bumped up to Windows XP, then to Windows 7, then to Windows 10...

Is there any connection between the hardware your initial purchase was made on, and the hardware you would run that game on right now? You can buy games from your phone, or your Steam deck, or at the public library, or on your father's Gateway. Maybe he means the game's original system requirements, as listed "on the back of the box" so to speak. But if I want to play SWBF2 from 2005, must I find an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and an ATI Radeon HD 5570? No, I just need parts with equivalent/better performance that I can find today. Steam updating those system requirements for newer hardware makes those games MORE accessible, not less. It considers new gamers discovering older games and gives them a path to playing it.

The inexorable passage of time, and the eventual security flaws that can no longer be patched, means that every single one of those devices will be retired. But that's why emulation and tools like Special K are important to game preservation. It's why Stop Killing Games is not retroactive and does not ask for infinite software support.

Enter Monthly Subscription Game Libraries and DRM-free → Exit Steam

In lieu of even the simplest commitment by Valve to keep their DRM client free of system requirement creep, business models like Ubisoft+, EA Access and Game Pass represent far greater value to consumers. The claim is often made that you "do not own the game" with these services, but you do not own them on Steam either; Valve stops pretending to care if their store's software breaks your game after you have played it for two hours.

I would rather pay a fraction of the price to play a game for one month than pretend digitally distributed games have the lifespan of a boxed physical product. You can consume the entirety of a game within one month and pay an appropriate amount of money for the ephemeral service offered.

this person is extremely misguided. the a copy if the game files, drop in the goldberg emu dll, and done. works forever, in as many copies as you feel like. DRMs can stand in the way, but that's exactly what makes it even worse on subscription platforms. and online only, or strictly multiplayer games? these won't work whatever you do, but that's not valve's fault.

valve is careless but today other than GOG, it's still the best (read: least bad) popular storefront, and subscription based systems are simply just the worst.

I don't necessarily agree with all of Kaldaien's points, but I can't say they aren't well argued. Their opinions are valid if you're willing to accept and consider their perspective.

I personally don't see the point playing games on the original hardware, and I think keeping them updated for modern systems is a good thing, but I can see why someone might disagree and prefer running them in a VM on a traditional operating system, especially in terms of keeping the original way the game ran intact. I also disagree about the value of Microsoft's game rental service, but I also see the value in saying "if I don't actually own my games anyway, why not take it to it's logical conclusion of just renting them."

As I said, their points are well argued, even if I don't necessarily agree on them.

"You no longer have the liberty of buying a game from wherever you want. You must consider whether your store is going to continue receiving patches, whether the store itself is going to continue supporting your hardware and software, and whether your friends online bought the game from the same store."

So are we pissed at the entire industry, or just Steam? You don't have the liberty to buy anything from wherever you want. Go download Fortnite from Steam, buddy! Oop! It ain't there!? Here's hoping he deleted the rest of his online accounts while he was at it, but online blowhards tend to be hypocrites.

Kaldaien in need of more attention? How is this news?

You have (at the moment I'm writing this) 8 hours: https://www.gog.com/