• ArchRecord@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I find it indescribably funny that no matter what, every news site somehow manages to always put a mobile app install screen with the company’s product as the banner image for their articles, even in this case, when I think most people would have probably never even thought of Steam as a mobile app, only as PC software.

  • MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Good. I like transparency and this has always been the truth. And I’m glad Valve isn’t doing much to fight against it.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The only difference is the words they have to use. They aren’t making this change by choice

    • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Oor you dont pay attention to tech news.

      Theres a reason california passed that law, its not clear enough that you dont own the games

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I’d rather own the games that I pay for than “rent” them in the first place. Sure, this is useful. But it doesn’t really solve the issue of not owning anything you buy these days. If anything this will just give them an excuse when they decide to take games you paid for away from you.

    • danekrae@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I’d rather own the games that I pay for than “rent” them in the first place.

      But people will still pay up anyway.

    • ihatetheworld@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      17 hours ago

      When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you’re really not very price sensitive at that point in time. A consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10,20,30,50 hours on the game and then when they’re deep into the game they’re well invested in it. We’re not gouging, but we’re charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high. But it is a great model and I think it represents a substantially better future for the industry.

      I was reminded of this. They would if they could. I am glad i am not living in that timeline.

      • CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        16 hours ago

        When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you’re really not very price sensitive at that point in time

        Forgot how evil that was. God, if i was 6 hours in, and they asked me a dollar to reload, i’d uninstall the game, and go play some minecraft or something.

  • twinnie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I feel like there needs to be some kind of way of recording what games have been purchased (licensed) so that if a store were using goes out of business we should be able to get it from another store, at least for a very reduced price just to cover their costs.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Is it a blanket statement for every purchase regardless of what game it is?
    If so, that’s completely useless.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      It informs customers, that licensing a game on Steam is not like buying a pair of pants on pantsshop24.org. That’s what it’s meant to do.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I thought it would only apply to certain games. I feel like it’s just normalizing it rather than really being educational. Now companies can go fullboar with games only being a license and just point to the disclaimer as an excuse.

        • Ephera@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          Well, in this case, it is actually Valve that does the licensing. I don’t think the original companies have much to do with it, other than maybe being more willing to sell through Steam than e.g. GOG or itch.io.

          But all in all, yes, it would be a much more useful law, if it declared such a licensing model void.
          I’m guessing, they didn’t tackle that problem, because there are more legitimate uses of a licensing model, like World of Warcraft only giving you access while you’re paying the monthly fee.

          Nothing unsolvable, but you need some solid laws and it’d be a lot less likely that you’d get support from enough political parties to carry this into actual law.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          You only buy a license to watch/listen media private in most cases. Even if yo buy a DRM free copy of a film/track/game, you only have a license to consume it private. If you want to show (or share) with public, you need another (way more expensive) license to do that legally.

          The only difference is, when you only stream the media or there is DRM on the files, it is not possible to archive it easily and the danger of lost media is far greater.

          • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Dude, you just cannonballed into the Achualy pool. You know that’s not what we’re all talking about.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Those are like a real life Navi from Zelda.
        “Hey! Link!” one every site is annoying.
        That crap really needs to be a browser setting.

      • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        15 hours ago

        GOG themselves literally said that you do not, even very recently. You own a license like every other customer, and it can be revoked at their discretion.

        GOG choose to exclusively sell games for which they can sell DRM-free versions, which is a great option for consumers. It is not a straightforward decision however as this is, whether it is a priority or not, a tradeoff for the things that Steam integration provides - cloud backup, mod workshops, multiplayer functionality etc.

        Steam also sells plenty of DRM-free games, and offer customers the informed choice when selling Steam DRM and Third-Party DRM controlled game licenses.

        This is not an argument that Steam or GOG are objectively better. But it is a straightforward lie to state that the license you buy from GOG is legally different from the one you buy from Steam. What is different is the possibility or otherwise of DRM software being used to control your adherence to the license.

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          You’re like one of three people on Lemmy that understands this. I always get piled on whenever I bring it up.

          • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            13 hours ago

            It is usually also followed by “but I can download my installers and then I can have them whenever I like” as if it’s a sane idea to store terabytes of offline installers for the day that GOG goes out of business.

            I mean, I also have terabytes of offline installers for the day that Steam or GOG go down. On other people’s computers. In a, uh, distributed distribution system.