• Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    If there’s an offline game you love and play all the time, consider buying it again on GOG.com.

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    If only there was a Girl who was Fit that could, I don’t know, Repack this situation, thus saving us from it…

    • ninth_plane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      18 days ago

      Hey thanks for describing this hypothetical situation, I pay Steam for a lot of game licenses so I’ve lost touch with the current philosophy of hypothetical alternatives.

  • zoostation@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    Before Steam you bought a physical disc and it didn’t matter that you technically only purchased a license, the disc was yours and nobody was coming to your house to take it away if the publisher started fighting with the developer or whatever.

    • Deestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      True, with some modifications:

      Some games had online activation built in. Some games would simply not install on a second or third machine without getting permission from the publisher.

      Regular CDs have a lifespan of 5-10 years, shorter if not stored ideally. Almost all games had sophisticated mechanisms to prevent backups being taken.

      Even if you could take a backup, record associations and publishers lobbied to make it illegal and punishable by severe fines in many countries.

      Sony shipped fucking root kits on their CD that would hijack your PC and screw with backup software. EA shipped CDs with autoexexuting software that would actually delete CloneCD and other CD copying software and prevent new installes from working. My copy of Sims 2 came with that bullshit and OH MAN I was not happy about it.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        19 days ago

        Sony shipped fucking root kits on their CD that would hijack your PC and screw with backup software.

        Worse, this thing from Sony was on music CD’s and not even games.

        The Sony Rootkit debacle is one of the reasons that I still will not do business with Sony in any of its guises, for any reason, no matter the price. And believe me, I have a long memory.

      • _bcron_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        19 days ago

        Some games would simply not install on a second or third machine without getting permission from the publisher.

        I remember binning DDR2 RAM on a test bench back in the day and Windows deactivated itself after about a dozen times lol

    • cttttt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      Before Steam (esp. right before Steam) it was common for a disc to have nothing but a 100mb installer that attempted to download the game, or an actual game build so buggy that you were forced to download patches that required you to be online.

      Prior to this, games came with serial numbers and needed to be activated online. This made reselling PC games no longer a thing as you needed to trust who you were buying the game from.

      In both cases, the physical disc was yours, but it was pretty useless. It wasn’t the game, but also was required to play the game.

      Before that, we had truly resellable DRM: “Enter the 3rd word on the 20th page of the manual 🤣”.

      • zoostation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        No, dialup was still common in the early days of Steam, game content was not largely being delivered as downloads yet and discs were still useful because it could not yet be taken for grated that a customer would be always online.

        But I’d still rather download a game straight from the developer or publisher without an additional middleman. Privacy aside, the cost of that rent seeking from Steam gets passed along to you.

        • cttttt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          I vaguely remember having on the order of 5mbps “broadband” when Steam worn me down enough for me to give it a shot over the alternatives 🙄. It was pretty bad at first, but it worked. But maybe broadband adoption was more of a thing in Canada back then.

  • FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 days ago

    The answer is to introduce law which would force digital products to be owned, not licenced for non commercial users.

    • cttttt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 days ago

      I think the answer was to introduce a law which would force digital market places to clearly describe what users are paying for, for folks who weren’t around during the controversial time when Steam and Xbox Live Arcade came out and can’t grasp the concept; folks who didn’t observe the reality before and after this shift.

      Even though it was abundantly clear already, this is what the California law is all about.

      If, with this clear explanation, you still want to merely get a license to use games via a service, you should be able to do it.

      Valve isn’t doing anything wrong: far from it. Steam is awesome and I understand that one day, it could all go away and with it, all the games I have access to.

      I also understand that, at any time, Valve may decide that they don’t want me to use Steam anymore, or that someone may hack into my account and I won’t have access anymore.

      Finally, I get that even now, things that I could do with physical games; I can’t do with my Steam library (eg. Easily play a game on my Steam Deck while someone also plays another game on my desktop, or sell a game disc that sits on my desk).

      I understood this when I reluctantly signed up to Steam to play Half Life 2 back in the day when it was a complete dumpster fire of a buggy mess of a service. But it has improved so much since then.

      Hey, do you, but I don’t see what the big deal is. We’ve already protested that Steam was a bad idea, and Valve was literally the devil, but it’s actually turned out to be objectively more convenient than any alternative to play games, and it’s no longer Valve forcing us to install Steam to play their games. Practically the entire industry has shifted, plus there are now alternatives (besides piracy) like GoG. Hopefully this law causes more competition in that DRM free space.

    • Katana314@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      18 days ago

      What exactly would that entail? I “own” Hades, thus I can depict Zagreus in my own works, as his likeness is my property? I’m allowed to copy the game to a dozen thumb drives and sell them on the street?

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 days ago

    The amount of comments on social media that I saw of people surprised by this means this really wasn’t something the average person knew about, it’s natural to think if you paid for digital content it should’ve the same rights of physical. Though reselling will get messy.

  • NONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    19 days ago

    And that’s why the bulk of my game library comes from GOG, and I have Steam more out of commitment than taste.

  • Macaroni_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    18 days ago

    We knew it 10 years ago, we know it now, how is this news to anyone consuming online digital content?

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    18 days ago

    what’s old is new again! they tried to pull this shit back in the day but physical media was the only delivery method. now that everything is downloaded there’s a bunch of legal grey area they’re hiding in.

    so the next question, is this retroactive? if so, then when will I get my money back? Licensed software is cheaper than the full MSRP I paid for titles that had physical options I could have bought at a store. this is because licensed software usually has an expiration date while physical media with software can be installed anytime after purchase.

    so, Valve, one last question.

    where is it huh?!

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      yeah no, this is just fixing the wording to better represent the truth that has always been.

      this is because a California law recently passed requiring these kinds of purchases to inform consumers that they don’t actually own these games. valve decided it would be easier just to do this for everyone.

      this has always been true for all digital games you purchased. the fact that you didn’t realize this is why the law was needed.

      thanks California for being the only force fighting for consumers rights in the United States. i can see why conservatives give you so much shit. you do things that matter.

    • orangeboats@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 days ago

      I think there’s one key thing you missed: you have never bought a copy of the game on Steam! It’s always been a license. Valve simply made the fact clear now because of legal changes.

      so the next question, is this retroactive

      So the answer for this is a solid no.