this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
474 points (98.8% liked)
Steam
10247 readers
1 users here now
Steam is a video game digital distribution service by Valve.
Steam News | Steam Beta Client news
Useful tools:
SteamDB
SteamCharts
Issue tracker for Linux version of Steam
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Steam forces games to have DRM?
I guess i didnt notice the DRM of the games installed from steam that i was able to play without steam installed
Steam does not force DRM
I assume it does force DRM. I can't play Terraria, skyrim, elder ring, etc. without it. I have not encountered one release which I can play without the runtime.
Terraria in particular shouldn't use it unless it was forced to do so based off the fact that they're available on gog which mandates games be drm free.
I'm not even allowed to run that game without updating it if it's out of date. I literally can't play a modded game because it may be rendered unplayable at any moment by the publisher. Makes the whole workshop people talk up all but useless.
As far as i know, terraria has DRM because it uses steam features(for multiplayer)
Celeste and stardew valley dont have DRM so its not forced
Terraria does not rely on steam features in order to engage with its core functionality. Perhaps you are trying to imply that the error is in the developers having integrated their publishers features into their release in such a way that a hard dependency on the runtime is formed when it shouldn't be.
This is not a valid argument because whatever calls terraria is making to the runtime should have a fallback in place for when the runtime is not being used. That fallback should be implemented by a small dummy runtime or something. It shouldn't be on the devs to ensure their single player game works when the publisher's adware bloated garbage runtime stops working.
I am not saying that its the fault of the developers for implementing multiplayer, i am just saying that, from my experience, the DRM is related to games using steam for multiplayer
I also agree that the game should still be able to be played if you dont use he multiplayer
I am saying that steam doesnt force games to use DRM
afaik, steam drm is optional and its the devs decision to use it or not. thats why there is actually a list of games that are hosted on steam without DRM.
So you ranted without knowing shit.
Steam has it's downsides,but none of your points are valid once you take a closer look.
Steam does not force it's DRM on developers (and there are various publishers that use a different or no DRM)
I have no idea what your problem is with your runtime,but at least for me/my household there is literally no loading times for steam anymore. Have you considered that this might be a problem your device is creating,e.g. due to a slow drive?
Updating is indeed a pain in the arse (but can be circumvented)
I don't know what you do to your client that you get the popups - I disabled them once and never got them again.
You never own a game unless you buy the holder of the IP. Read your TOS. You buy a licence to use a software and to obtain the necessary data to use it. Nothing more. Even when you buy a hardcopy in a shop you don't own the software.
GOG has no requirement of games to be DRM free and there absolutely are games that are DRM protected on GOG - and publishers can choose which DRM to use when so it's their decision anyway.
You can downgrade games in the setting as long as the publisher (!) allows/support it. It is done by a lot of games.
Don't get me wrong,there are a lot of things wrong with Steam. The monopoly it created, it's child protection issues, it's pricing towards developers(especially small ones), the fact that while at least in the EU you can now legally sell the account as such it still prohibits selling singlular usage licences, the fact that it is does harbour extremists and on the other hand willing censors itself to reach some markets are all major issues.
But the ones you mentioned aren't and it waters down the actual problems.
If you own a physical cartridge/disk on an old console, you own permanently playable physical copies of the games. No publisher is able to stop you from playing it. It is a permanently usable piece of tangible property which you legally own. This is what people talk about when they say they "own" games. IDGAF if the GoG ToS says I don't "own" a game if they have no ability to revoke my ability to play it once I've downloaded it. It's as playable as any physical game, for as long as I keep my hard disks intact. This is what it means to "own" a non -service based game, by any sensible definition of the word.
No one here claimed you become, or deserve to become the IP holder of the software. This is just a strawman that you made up because the idea of someone not making the same idiotic purchasing decisions as you personally offends you.
Publishers should not be able to deny you the right to modify the software you downloaded after you downloaded it. If they have a different opinion on the matter then I won't be a consumer of their services.
It's all just Stockholm syndrome and copium for you. Maybe one day in your 40s steam will decide to bleed you dry for everything you think your library is worth. They'll force you to pay a subscription fee just to access single player games purchased many years ago.
And you'll be able to do nothing about it, because you never own a game unless you buy the holder of the IP. Read your TOS. You buy a licence to use a software and to obtain the necessary data to use it. Nothing more.
Keep defending your abuser though I guess.