[HN Gopher] Valve says Steam users don't own a thing, GOG says i...
___________________________________________________________________
Valve says Steam users don't own a thing, GOG says its games can't
be taken away
Author : josephcsible
Score : 128 points
Date : 2024-10-11 19:37 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gamesradar.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gamesradar.com)
| josephcsible wrote:
| Full title (84 characters too long): Valve reminds Steam users
| they don't actually own a darn thing they buy, GOG pounces and
| says its games "cannot be taken away from you" thanks to offline
| installers
| benoau wrote:
| GOG has actually gone further than that:
|
| > "In general, your GOG account and GOG content is not
| transferable. However, if you can obtain a copy of a court
| order that specifically entitles someone to your GOG personal
| account, the digital content attached to it taking into account
| the EULAs of specific games within it, and that specifically
| refers to your GOG username or at least email address used to
| create such an account, we'd do our best to make it happen.
| We're willing to handle such a situation and preserve your GOG
| library--but currently we can only do it with the help of the
| justice system."
|
| https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/gog-will-let-you-beq...
| nosioptar wrote:
| Gog is pretty great in terms of how they treat customers.
|
| I've had to refund a few games, I've never had a problem.
| wordofx wrote:
| There was confusion around this?
| dmonitor wrote:
| I'm sure some less knowledgeable people weren't aware of the
| distinction. There is a proposed California law to make the
| distinction more clear: don't use the word "purchase" unless
| you make clear that it is a license you are purchasing, not the
| game.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Not just proposed, the CA law is going into effect in a few
| months
| wordofx wrote:
| If there is confusion then it's a probably a good thing. Just
| kinda raised an eyebrow that there was confusion.
| the_gorilla wrote:
| It's not that the consumers weren't aware of the distinction
| between buy and rent, just that companies outright started to
| lie about the meaning of "purchase".
| happytoexplain wrote:
| It seems obvious that the distinction between buying a game
| digitally and buying a license to play a game digitally could
| be confusing to the average person looking at a digital
| storefront. Are you being facetious? (honestly asking - like,
| "gee, who would have thought there could be confusion?")
| benoau wrote:
| A lot of Steam customers simply haven't thought very far
| ahead: what happens when they die? As a twenty-year old
| company there is certainly a reckoning on the horizon as
| their users age-out and start passing in higher numbers.
|
| What happens when Gabe Newell dies is another very important
| question that adds some urgency - one or two decades - to
| establishing more balanced policies.
| wordofx wrote:
| Steam has never offered offline installers. And even offline
| play requires you to be online for offline to work for a
| period of time before being online again. If the service
| disappears so does your catalog.
|
| I thought it was common knowledge you're only buying a
| license to play via steam. You never own the game outright
| forever.
| bentley wrote:
| I think a lot of people reasonably believe that "buying"
| digital content provides continuous, permanent access to that
| content, as opposed to the common alternative of either paying
| for a time-limited "rental" or for a monthly streaming
| subscription that obviously expires access as soon as one stops
| paying.
|
| Such people are taken by surprise when it turns out companies
| can take away your "bought" content simply by virtue of
| changing licensing agreements or corporate structure without
| public input. Some recent cases:
|
| * Crunchyroll and Funimation merged. People who had "permanent"
| digital copies purchased from Funimation lost them.
|
| * Sony's license for Discovery Channel content was not renewed,
| so all Discovery videos people had purchased (most notably, 20
| seasons of Mythbusters) were removed from customers' libraries.
|
| * Ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew and removed it
| from purchasers' Steam libraries, despite the presence of a
| 20-hour single-player campaign that was online only for no good
| reason.
|
| Maybe people will get used to this and consider all purchases
| ephemeral. I hope not. That's why I buy and advocate for DRM-
| free media.
| OWMYT wrote:
| What I can't understand is that CDPR is willing to confer legal
| rights to play their games in perpetuity in stark contrast to
| virtually every other similar platform, yet they don't bother to
| hire a few developers to maintain a Linux client, effectively
| forcing its users to be at the whim of Microsoft, which surely is
| going to have its users' best interests at heart.
| the_gorilla wrote:
| Linux users don't buy software, and expect that the company
| give it out for free and beg for donations. Just use a
| compatibility layer someone built for free while begging for
| donations.
| OWMYT wrote:
| Isn't the whole point of DRM-free that people who don't pay
| don't pay and those measures hurt legitimate customers the
| most? Especially for PC games, piracy is extremely prevalent
| no matter which technology is used.
|
| Of course, Linux users might pirate the games, as do Windows
| users. I am purely talking about legal rights here. I have to
| imagine there are quite a few developers with a primary Linux
| PC who are much more inclined to purchase a game if it
| doesn't require pulling out a special purpose Windows machine
| or dealing with an unofficial hack that barely works. Maybe
| those potential revenues don't justify the high costs of
| changing some compiler flags to CDPR.
| the_gorilla wrote:
| I'm not saying they pirate it, I'm saying they don't
| believe in making money off software through selling
| products, but instead through beggary. They're such a small
| market share (2-3% on most games) that it's just not worth
| the effort.
|
| Linux compatibility layers are actually getting pretty good
| anyway, and it's easier to get your game to run that way
| than to actually properly port it to linux.
| amarant wrote:
| Hey, Linux user with 5 software subscriptions, including all
| jetbrains products, here. Every Linux user I know has a
| similar amount of paid software, even the ones that keep
| talking about how everything should be OSS in an ideal world.
|
| Can we please for the love of all that is logic stop
| repeating this cartoonishly inaccurate stereotype?
| phalangion wrote:
| I'd guess money has a lot (everything) to do with it. The Linux
| gamers market is not big enough to be worth the investment.
| Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote:
| With the steam deck, this might not be true anymore given how
| a bunch of big games made sure to be steam deck verified
| oersted wrote:
| I don't entirely disagree, but I believe that GOG has always
| been focused on simple file-based DRM-free distribution (just
| download the zip).
|
| GOG Galaxy has been experimental until recently and it is more
| concerned with being a unified gaming client rather than the
| primary way to distribute GOG games. In the last couple of
| years it has actually become quite unstable anyway and it is
| barely being maintained, clearly not a focus, Linux or not.
|
| "Forcing its users to be at the whim of Microsoft" is quite a
| stretch.
| OWMYT wrote:
| I might have exaggerated a bit. I haven't really tested GOG
| out much because it doesn't do those things like having a
| Linux client I expect a consumer-centric platform to do and
| it caved in to the Chinese government just like everyone
| else.
|
| But if the idea is that other platforms might screw you over
| some time down the line and this platform will have your
| back, I am not convinced if they entirely dismiss Linux. I
| know it is not practical for CDPR to develop Proton like
| Valve. The bare minimum they can do though is to show they
| have contingency plans in case Valve stops upstreaming its
| translation layer. Otherwise, why not stick to the platform
| that is too big to fail and is actually doing something
| useful?
| oersted wrote:
| If the concern is CDPR's character, I believe their first-
| party games are known to be remarkably Linux friendly.
| CP2077 actually run best in Stadia at launch, which I
| believe was Linux based.
|
| Also consider the fact that a large fraction of GOG games
| are painstakingly restored old games, where revenue is
| clearly an afterthought, they sometimes seem like a
| nonprofit. You can't reasonably expect them to also add
| Linux support to games from an era where Linux gaming was
| practically nonexistent, modern Linux translation layers
| will most likely be completely incompatible.
|
| And again, they have not had a client for most of their
| tenure, and I cannot think of anything more consumer-
| friendly or consistent with Linux ideology than literally
| letting you download the files and do what you want with
| them without any DRM.
| OWMYT wrote:
| That is a good point. I might have been holding them to
| too high a standard. I don't really take into account
| benefits like DRM-free properly either.
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| You can use the heroic game launcher instead of gog galaxy:
| https://heroicgameslauncher.com/
|
| And you can just download the games from their website, they
| don't force you to use gog galaxy.
| OWMYT wrote:
| I am just a bit concerned about their attitude. If they were
| to release a decent open source Linux client with
| compatibility layers (just free ride Valve for now...) and
| commit to maintaining it, then I guess I am on the boat. Last
| time I checked the process was not very polished and games
| could be outdated.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Steam (via Proton) generally works, though, for those who
| wish to use it. (Steam+Proton also works with things
| downloaded from outside of Steam, too, and has for
| years[0].)
|
| Proton itself is open-source[1].
|
| If someone wanted to package up standalone Proton binaries
| for a Linux distro, then I don't see any particular
| barriers that would prevent that.
|
| On GoG's part, they do provide the ability to just download
| a game with a web browser (the old-fashioned, DRM-free
| way). From there, I can manage the games I that own in any
| way that I choose.
|
| Thus, I'm simply not seeing a problem here that needs
| solved. I already have the freedom to do whatever I want.
|
| Which part of this situation is broken, do you suppose, and
| why does GoG in particular need to fix it?
|
| [0]: https://boilingsteam.com/valve-breaks-the-shackles-of-
| proton...
|
| [1]: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton
| ensignavenger wrote:
| I would love to do that, but I have always had trouble
| getting it to work well with GOG. Maybe it is something odd
| with my systems, but I have found it is easier to just
| download the games from alternative sources than GOG and run
| them in Lutris, setting them up manually.
| Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote:
| Heroic game launcher has huge flaws, one of this is to update
| a videogame, you have to download another copy of the game.
| Updating baldur's gate on my steam deck takes 180gb.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Sorry for my context what is CDPR?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| CD Project Red, Polish game studio known for the Witcher and
| Cyberpunk. (and in this context their willingness to just
| sell you games no strings attached)
| dreadlordbone wrote:
| CD Projekt Red, the company who own GOG as well as make The
| Witcher series & Cyberpunk 2077
| 0x457 wrote:
| CD Projekt Red, owner of GOG.
|
| also game developer that made Witcher and Cyberpunk 2077.
| lupusreal wrote:
| I have purchased several games for Linux from GOG. I have never
| needed a "linux client" nor do I ever want one. Why would I
| want that kind of shitware when I can download the installers
| right off their website? The only reason that sort of software
| ever became normalized (e.g. Steam) is because it acts as DRM,
| but GOG doesn't have DRM.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Isn't this just Valve implementing the new law required in
| California?
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digit...
| metadat wrote:
| (1) Helpful context, thanks! Discussed 2 weeks ago:
|
| _California new law forces digital stores to admit you 're
| just licensing content_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41663432 - Sep 2024 (11
| comments)
|
| (2) There is also a submission from today related to this
| article (though TFA and this other article are both rather
| light and shallow at ~1 paragraph each):
|
| _Steam now tells gamers up front that they 're buying a
| license, not a game (engadget.com)_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41809193 (15 comments)
|
| (3) Finally, a marginally more informative article from Ars:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/10/steam-now-reminds-you...
| kleiba wrote:
| Isn't that discussed in the article?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41809193
| chaoskitty wrote:
| There's something so much better about having physical cartridges
| :)
|
| While that wouldn't make sense these days, knowing the installer
| you downloaded will still work decades from now is great, and I
| hope to see more companies like GOG start doing this.
| niemandhier wrote:
| My switch cartridges work without Wi-Fi, so the games must be
| stored there in playable form.
| altairprime wrote:
| GOG is still not "selling" the game, even though they offer
| offline installers, as one would with certainty face legal
| objections for setting up a resale marketplace website for games
| purchased from GOG. That your license is indefinite and your
| installer can be archived is excellent, but that's still only a
| license with benefits.
| voxic11 wrote:
| The California law that has driven these marketing copy changes
| only applies to selling of software with revocable access. If
| the access cannot be revoked then the law still allows you to
| say you are selling the software rather than renting it. The
| law does not require licenses be transferable to qualify for
| this exemption.
|
| > (b)(1) It shall be unlawful for a seller of a digital good to
| advertise or offer for sale a digital good to a purchaser with
| the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable
| person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership
| interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a
| time-limited rental...
|
| > (4)This section does not apply to any of the following:
| ...(C) Any digital good that is advertised or offered to a
| person that the seller cannot revoke access to after the
| transaction, which includes making the digital good available
| at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an
| external storage source to be used without a connection to the
| internet.
|
| https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab...
| forgetfulness wrote:
| The benefit being that you will still be able to use the things
| you purchased even if your licensor goes down or you are not in
| good standing with them, which is what people used to call
| "owning" software back in the day anyway.
| spockz wrote:
| Well, that, and being able to give the software to somebody
| else, for free or money.
| endigma wrote:
| This title is super weighted, Valve makes it quite clear that
| users do in fact own a thing, a license for a product on Steam.
| This is fundamental to games with online DRM.
| dualboot wrote:
| It's fundamental to all non-free software.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| It's fundamental to all software. Even FOSS software is
| licensed, it's just incredibly permissive and doesn't cost
| money.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| This is just wrong. They could just sell copies instead of
| licenses. Copyright law doesn't care about interaction with
| already-existing copies, so mere usage of a software (and
| making archival copies) doesn't need a license at all
| hggigg wrote:
| I feel slightly less bad about stealing all my games now.
| Sniffnoy wrote:
| I think it's worth once again linking the "Stop Killing Games"
| campaign, for those that don't know about it!
| https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
| ryanackley wrote:
| A long time ago, I used Paypal to purchase a steam game. This was
| like 15 years ago. For some reason Paypal marked it as suspicious
| and immediately cancelled the transaction. Steam then locked me
| out of my account. I had several dozen games. I couldn't get
| anyone to reply to me from Steam. To this day, I'm locked out of
| that account and all of the games I had purchased. I started a
| new account but yeah it's scary.
| nerdix wrote:
| That's scary. I use PayPal to pay for steam games just out of
| convenience.
|
| My account is almost 20 years old (I signed up because you had
| to in order to play HL2) and I've purchased a lot of games over
| the years.
| ileonichwiesz wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what convenience? How is using Paypal
| easier than just inputting your card info once?
| hggigg wrote:
| Epic did that to me a couple of years back.
|
| Once burned twice shy.
|
| I just stole the games instead!
| dpc_01234 wrote:
| If you don't have the source code, you don't really "own" the
| software anyway. Any closed source software will eventually stop
| working due to technological changes, etc.
|
| I treat games as mostly consumption items. I play them for a
| while, and then I might as well throw them to trash if they were
| physical items. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't accept lack of
| source code anyway, just like with the OS and important personal
| computing software.
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| OTOH I have been installing and playing _some_ games for almost
| 20 years on several computers using the same installer.
| benoau wrote:
| Emulation and virtualization have solved the longevity
| problem and continue to do so better than ever. There is no
| doubt at all that games will still work in the future, and
| other software, as long as they don't have a hard-dependency
| on a dead online system.
| deepsun wrote:
| Anyway it's better to have at least closed binary.
|
| Same thing with open code -- one may say that depending on its
| license you also may not own it. But I say it's one step
| better.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| There are teams of dedicated fans and developers that have
| fully reverse engineered older games' source code to allow byte
| for byte recompilation. If this process could be accelerated or
| boosted with better tooling I think that would be a huge boon
| for game preservation and enhancements. I'm really hopeful that
| long-term advancements in AI tooling will help enable faster
| reverse engineering of games from binary to source code.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| The goal should be getting source code released or 'leaked'.
| ferbivore wrote:
| This is an incredibly bizarre view. Most people who play games
| don't consider them disposable trash. I don't quite understand
| why you would post this, given the context. You don't
| personally care about games, therefore the industry's anti-
| consumer actions are justifiable?
| lokar wrote:
| I read it as an observation that regardless of license terms,
| 99% of gamers will loos the ability to play a game after some
| amount of time (10? 15? 20 years). If you accept that, the
| change from "buy" to "license" is not as large as it seems.
| lll-o-lll wrote:
| Except that it's not true. I can play all the games of my
| childhood with various emulators. No source code required.
|
| Machine code has always been enough.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| License terms? Really?
|
| Which license terms, specifically, prevent me from playing
| a 20-year-old game on a 20-year-old machine?
| asdf123qweasd wrote:
| Its sort of sad, a painting, a cultural artifact, produced by
| 100s of people, beloved by millions and its just tossed aside,
| trampled like a electronic mandala - or worser still, destroyed
| in its vision by trying to turn it into an addiction. Nobody
| will remember our names for the art we made, we will be
| forgotten and background-noise to other artifacts who survive
| deep time.
| changing1999 wrote:
| I mean... even if you do have the source code it will
| eventually stop working if you try to use it on newer stacks.
| The question is who is updating the software, not necessarily
| who owns it.
| xyproto wrote:
| I see what you mean, but a counterpoint is NES games and how
| they can continue to be emulated. Super Mario is not open
| source, but it will not stop working.
| archsurface wrote:
| I didn't know about GOG. Symptoms of getting older. I need
| similar for films. I don't want to stream, I don't want to rip,
| and I'm too out of touch with torrent things to feel comfortable;
| not that I ever dared in simpler times, of course.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-11 23:01 UTC)