Isn't this just Valve implementing the new law required in California?
https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digit...
(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...
Isn't that discussed in the article?
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.
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.
Out of curiosity, what convenience? How is using Paypal easier than just inputting your card info once?
Epic did that to me a couple of years back.
Once burned twice shy.
I just stole the games instead!
Our Intellectual Property utopia is such that you need to steal back what you owned, because its been impounded by an 800 pound automaton.
Maybe someone will create a gaming model that 'borrows' from every known game in existence, so that we'll finally get an Artificial Gaming-you Intelligence.
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.
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.
The goal should be getting source code released or 'leaked'.
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?
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.
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.
License terms? Really?
Which license terms, specifically, prevent me from playing a 20-year-old game on a 20-year-old machine?
> You don't personally care ...
I'm just stating the fact. If you want to own software, you need to get the source code. If you don't get the source code, you're paying $10-$60 per perishable consumable, and should be always be aware of that, not deluding yourself about some "ownership".
I own my personal computer software, from the Linux OS, through code editor, compilers, etc. I have the source code. I personally care, so I do own, and pay extra (in time and money) for that privilege and look down on people who don't, as I think they are foolish. I do not care about the games, so the license deal is fine with me. I played the game already, if I really want to play it again, I can pay $5 on sale again.
If you and others care about owning games, or any other software for that matter, demand and pay for the source code. Otherwise you own nothing.
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.
Is that how you feel about owning any other item? Do you have the schematics for your toaster, your fridge, your table?
> Do you have the schematics for [...] your fridge
I'm not sure about today given stuff getting "smarter", but home appliances do typically include the schematics. You typically find them inside an envelope as you disassemble the thing.
That's interesting in this context because GOG first started off getting good old games to work on modern hardware. I would also say that emulation of hardware has come a long ways, so a DRM-free executable may be all that you need for historic preservation, barring software that requires communicating with a server for its functionality.
And even if source code is provided, it can be next to impossible to build it on your machine, so hopefully it has a docker image or what have you. Would also need to know the GPU requirement to compile it.
Not saying I wouldn't want the source code to be provided, but I'd like it purely for research and modding purposes, not to make sure I can build from source 10 years from now.
OTOH I have been installing and playing _some_ games for almost 20 years on several computers using the same installer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A couple years ago I opted out of the new game release rat race because I realized they're costing more and I'm getting less and I don't find recent AAA games any more fun than older games (and often quite a bit less fun). I was also just sick of all the bullshit like many games being released in a buggy state, content being held back for the inevitable DLC, and having to sign up for an online account on some publisher's site after buying the game from another online service.
I've switched to retro gaming and find I enjoy it more. For example, exploring 90s Japanese games that never saw wide release in the US. Recently I've found some real winners exploring the X360 and PS3 back catalog of indie games via emulation. I'd never seen many of these because they were only released on their respective online services. Of course, with the shutdown of those stores, these titles would be lost to time were it not for the preservation and emulation communities archiving them. This is why I'm a fan of publishers like GOG who're at least making an effort toward perpetual availability.
As games push the limits of gambling ratio addiction mechanics, social and psychological coercion, sunk cost fallacy, and a host of other tactics as best exemplified by pay to win games made by machine zone aand others,
Games are getting definitively worse. You are a revenue stream, not a customer or a person to app Al to in any way but the most lazy and base ways possible.
Each successive graphic generation places additional production cost to build models and world's, arguably to the artistic detriment of any game: first, since there is so much labor, corners are cut and artistic vision can't be applied everywhere to an army of graphic artists, many outsourced. Second, the overall production costs, much like movie production, makes producers conservative and cookie cutter in pursuit of a reliable return on investment.
The emulation community is preserving not just games, but an entirely different culture of gaming.
Perhaps AI can help with better mass generation of artistic assets, but really an AI is a mass averager of it's inputs: artistic vision is fundamentally a deviation from a norm, and large AI models are anything but
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.
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...
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.
Well, that, and being able to give the software to somebody else, for free or money.
You were technically never allowed to do that if you read the EULA fine print, but it didn't stop many people
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/
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
It's not just money. Some companies did DVD linux ports 10-15 years ago which haven't been installable in years. The linux environment isn't as stable as windows.
There are Linux releases on GOG which are not playable on a modern distribution without heroics. Too much churn in system libraries/dependencies/whatever.
The only way to ensure I have a working backup of a GOG installer is to download the Windows release even when Linux is an option.
With the steam deck, this might not be true anymore given how a bunch of big games made sure to be steam deck verified
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.
Sorry for my context what is CDPR?
CD Projekt Red, the company who own GOG as well as make The Witcher series & Cyberpunk 2077
CD Projekt Red, owner of GOG.
also game developer that made Witcher and Cyberpunk 2077.
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)
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.
This is slander.
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.
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.
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?
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
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...
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.
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.
It's fundamental to all non-free software.
It's fundamental to all software. Even FOSS software is licensed, it's just incredibly permissive and doesn't cost money.
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
There was confusion around this?
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.
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?")
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.
Steam says they won't pass the library to heirs, but steam will do whatever the probate judge tells them to.
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.
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.
Not just proposed, the CA law is going into effect in a few months
If there is confusion then it’s a probably a good thing. Just kinda raised an eyebrow that there was confusion.
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".
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.
My switch cartridges work without Wi-Fi, so the games must be stored there in playable form.
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.
[dupe]
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41809193
I feel slightly less bad about stealing all my games now.
I might pirate what I already bought, since that is the only way to actually acquire it.
That’s exactly what I did. Epic shot my account.