517
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
517 points (99.4% liked)
Games
16742 readers
743 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
New bypass just dropped: not buying a single-player game that makes you create and log into a third-party service exclusively because that service wants money in the form of your data/wants to enforce DRM.
Edit: the 'Steam tho' comments below are true and Steam's DRM does suck (I use GOG when I can), but they miss the point I'm making, which is that if you're buying a game through Steam, you already have the account set up to comply with the DRM. That's just inherent to the steps of purchasing the game on Steam. Whereas for something like a Sony account here, you don't necessarily have that, and unlike Steam for instance that at least has the value proposition of cloud saves, you're getting fuck-all in return here. Additionally, this account is used for likely only one or two games, just introducing a needless logistical hurdle for account management. Think of how many dozens of essentially burner accounts you would have if every game publisher put this bullshit in.
tbh the steam drm is not that bad you dont have to be always online but what do i hate is i have to leave the steam client open which might tank the fps a little
I get not wanting to have to have 40 different accounts to play your games, and making that your entire basis for not buying a game - sure whatever. But that's your decision, and other people are allowed to be upset that they have to do so, and still want to play the game and just deal with the bullshit foisted on them by corporations.
Steam is DRM too, just so you know
Every time... No, Steam is not DRM. I mean, technically it is, but if you consider Steam DRM you must also consider every other game store DRM.
Usually when we talk about Drams we're talking about things that try to prevent copyright infringement, steam does not do that. It does offers an API which games can implement which has a naive form of DRM, but games are not forced to use it, and a lot of games don't. More often than not you can simply copy the game folder from steam to another computer without steam and run the game there, therefore no DRM.
Yes, in the sense that every store online is a digital right management, but people wouldn't consider itch or GoG DRMs, and if you go to this level of what DRM is it becomes impossible to sell software, because the mere fact of having someplace that allows some people access to something and others not it's a form of DRM.
Had Void musl on my notebook, was in vacation. Wine worked on there but proprietary Steam launcher (which is still needed, offline or not) did not.
Did you actually tried to launch the game? What error did you get? What game was it?
Steam launcher is not needed unless the game is programmed to fail if it doesn't detect steam, not all games do, it's usually a sign of a badly programmed game. Also the game might have had other DRMs.
But for example grab Crusader Kings or Stellatirs which tries to use the steam API bit if it fails it just keeps going without, and you can copy it to another computer and play without steam installed.
you're wrong. steam absolutely is DRM and works exactly as such. but it's not mandatory, and there are games that opt to not use steam DRM. so there are many DRM-free games on Steam, more than a thousand at this point, but also many times more that can't be launched without Steam.
There's a HUGE difference between a platform having optional DRM and a platform being DRM. Also it's not opt-out, it's opt-in, so by default games don't have it, if they do it's because someone on the game studio decided to add it, Valve does not force it or even encourage it, they just have it available.
It's very unfair to say "Steam is DRM", and a more accurate description is what I used "Steam has optional DRM".
no there isn't. DRM games to DRM free game ratio is like 40:1. it doesn't matter if it's opt in. steam's a DRM software. that's what lead to it being so popular with developers and publishers in the first place. if they didn't have it things would probably have gone a different way. it would probably have fewer games total than i currently have in my library.
If for every 41 games that had Denuevo one didn't had DRM Denuevo wouldn't be a DRM software. However Denuevo is a DRM software, a game cannot both have Denuevo and not have DRM, however a game can be on Steam and not have DRM, therefore Steam is not DRM.
Btw, I think the ratio is way off, the vast majority of games on steam are Indy which don't usually integrate with DRM.
Steam is pretty lenient with their offline mode tbh. What I don't like is when I launch a game from Steam library and it prompts for login to some other launcher.
As a publisher, what is the data that Sony can get from forcing the PS account that they can't get from Steam? I assume Steam provides all the relevant data to the publishers already?
as with almost every such case, they want you in their ecosystem. some benefits here and there, some in game extras, maybe some discounts, and you're hopefully now invested in their service, which means you're more likely to consider their games over others, since you might now consider the extra benefits you get from playing their games ... stuff like that.
I'm not saying steam isn't more costumer friendly than most other DRM; in just saying that claiming it isn't one or that you can play any steam game without Steam is flat out wrong.
You should go inform yourself, many games on steam can be played without steam. I've even shared my copy of a game with a bunch of friends and we all played together in LAN, with a single copy of a Steam game, and only I had steam installed since this was at work.
Steam does not enforce games to require steam, it is not a requirement, it's available for those who want to use it.
reading is hard eh? guess what "any" means.
Writing is hard, huh? According to the dictionary Any means "some, or even the smallest amount or number of", therefore "you can play any steam game without steam" means "you can play even the smallest amount or number of steam games on steam", or in other words "you can play one steam game without steam". And like I said you can in fact play more than one steam games without steam, therefore you're wrong.
oh my god. reading is hard. "you can play any game without Steam" means no matter which game. which is patently false. there are more DRM games on steam than DRM-free ones. so if you pick any game at random, the odds are against you.
"Any" has those two meanings, the fact that you chose an ambiguous phrasing is your fault, and the fact you haven't apologized while making clear what you meant, but in fact doubled down in the aggressive tone tells a lot about you.
Also the phrase doesn't mean what you think it does, you should have said"you can play all games on steam without steam", which would be correct, not all games can be played without seam, but some can, you yourself recognize this when you say that the odds are against me when picking a random game, therefore there is a chance. And this is the thing that seems hard to comprehend to everyone who claims steam is DRM, they that same phrasing with Denuevo or other actual DRM things and you'll see why it's bullshit.
In other words, a software is DRM if and only if every game that contains it is DRM protected. Let's go back to logic school:
if A then Bis negated asA and not B, for example"If a dog then an animal" is true, so the negation would be false: "dog and not an animal" is in fact a contradiction. Or on the other side "if animal then dog" is false, so the negation animal and not a dog" must be possible, and indeed it is.In this case what you're stating is that steam is DRM which means "if it's on steam then it's DRM protected", that statement is false because the negation"game on steam and no DRM" is possible. On the other hand "if it has Denuevo is DRM protected is true" and the negation "has Denuevo and is no DRM" is an impossibility.
the context makes it clear. i already said there are DRM free and DRM games on steam in comments you responded to. assuming i meant you can play not a single steam game without steam is just a dumb assumption because it disregards that i already acknowledge DRM-free games on steam.
Acknowledging DRM free games on steam is absolute proof that steam is not DRM, you cannot hold both views at the same time, they're contradictory. Either all games on steam have DRM or steam is not DRM. Again, replace steam with an actual DRM software like Denuevo and you'll see why.
I do. I don't understand why people get up in a tiff about one DRM when they advocate for another.
Because if you consider Steam to be DRM by the same token you also consider itch and GoG and any way of buying games DRM, which makes the term almost meaningless since companies should be allowed to charge for their products.
Having to sign in to something to play your games is a DRM, that's definitely steam. Don't think it fully extends to GOG since once you've downloaded the games you don't even need their client or to ever reconnect to their servers ever again.
If people complain about having to sign into psn to play a game they should also complain about facing to sign into steam is what I'm saying. They always seem to get preferable treatment when it comes to this stuff that it makes it seem like everyone wants them to become (or stay - depending on how you feel about it) a monopoly.
You must sign into steam the same way you must sign in to GoG, i.e. to download the game the first time. After that you can just run the binary. In fact you can copy that binary to another computer without steam to play there. However Steam is not against DRM, therefore some games there do have DRM and need either steam or in this case PSN to run.
That's an important thing, games CAN use steam as DRM, but they're not forced to, so there are games in Steam without DRM, therefore Steam is not a DRM by definition.
I could've sworn I've definitely had issues trying to run steam games elsewhere in the past. For example I have a retro XP gaming PC and what a few failed attempts I had to assume any steam game was just not going to work. Guess I was just doing it wrong then maybe
Not necessarily your fault, some games make the steam library a hard requirement by not implementing safe guards against it not being present. Others use some of the API there to ensure the game is owned and steam is logged in, but that's not enforced by steam, so if a game doesn't work without steam it's by design of the game devs.
So, no steam as well?
Sounds good to me. It's annoying that connecting to a store and a social media platform has become so normalized. I just want to play a game.
How does the social media portion of steam affect you if you don’t participate?
It's bloat, unnecessary junk that's part of their ecosystem. Instead of having specialized apps, you have one app that does everything; and of course every other brand has to have their own, even fucking musk wants it for twitter.
This creates two problems, first it strains your hardware for no reason, second it creates dozens of walled gardens that don't interoperate, if you want to chat with your steam friends, you need to go on steam, if you want to play your games, you need to open the right launcher; this is the same shit apple is getting prosecuted for by the EU right now.
GoG is just as well. Epic, Ubishit, EA.
Take a look at all of them and take the best choice for yourself. No monopoly, here. Steam isn't paying EA and Ubisoft to suck. They'd suck if Valve existed or not.
Steam isn't the only choice for a gamer any more than a cheap Civic is the only choice for a poor college freshman.
He could do a lot worse.
I mean, we definitely do have a steam monopoly on desktop, they might not be abusing their position much, as of yet anyways, but it's a monopoly all the same. They captured the desktop playerbase in their little ecosystem and now people are stuck because of their game catalog, achievements, friend list...
What we really need is a standardization of these systems and interoperability between platforms so that they're forced to actually compete instead of being miles ahead just by virtue of being there first.
For managing a library of videogames on the desktop, including integration with all available stores and local installs, there is Playnite for Windows and Lutris for Linux.
Were they first? I can remember the battle.net launcher way before I ever heard of Steam.
Battle net only became a thing in like 2010, steam came very early in 2002, and started off straight away with exclusives that required you to install their client. They still do btw, there's no portal, dota... on epic or whatever.
That's what I thought back in 2007. Now I kinda like the convenience. If they added an option to download the games, like GOG, it'd be perfect.
Steam DRM is a joke anyways and not all games on steam have it, so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for them to get rid of it.
It's okay, disability discount is available for everyone with a peg leg, eyepatch, or hook hand.
This is why I pirated the game!
See! You didn't have to! Still makes you a hero in my book, but you didn't have to!