This is peak Gaben simp meme. Steam were the pioneers of “you don’t own the game, you just own a licence to play it” model which has caused massive amounts of enshittification of the gaming industry. Not to mention all the other bullshit they’ve pushed over the years.
But valve always gets a pass because dumbass games think “lord Gaben” is their best friend because he sells other peoples games for 90% off some times.
Microsoft pioneered the “your software is licensed, not owned” in the early 80s. Even before Steam, you didn’t own your games. Even if they are on physical media, you don’t own the software on the media; you just own the media it came on.
The problem is that I sometimes must connect to Steam to get my games, and I have to disable the domain blockers in my firewall. It sucks because Steam is worse than Google with the amount of queries, and you know those douches are selling our info.
Nothing pisses me off more than buying a product and finding out later that I have to compromise privacy to use it.
I hear this more frequently nowadays, but it really is kind of misplacing the blame for this change. Steam went for this model precisely because many of the bigger game companies to this day refuse to sell their games as anything but a heavily restricted license. And Steam as a storefront does have to cater to them in that regard, especially back then. Even physical disks as others pointed out were technically not something you owned, but rather that resale and such was not enforced or enforceable. (You would definitely get some stern letters if you started copying and selling those games at larger scale, even if you ‘owned’ the original copy).
People do still sell DRM free games on Steam that you can copy and distribute to essentially your hearts extent without Steam ever getting involved. The license you have is for Steam to provide you the download service so you can get your digital copy (and a bit more). If you care about people owning games, then it’s up to you to support and buy from the kinds of companies that don’t provide you a license or (more likely) where the license is unrestricted enough to fit your description of ownership. The middleman like Steam you buy it from shouldn’t matter if they don’t exert undue control beyond that. And at least being on PC if you really must buy something with DRM you have options to remove it.
Idk man. I remember someone recommending spec ops: the line a few weeks ago, but said it’s not available on steam any more. I bought it eons ago and had no problem besides controls getting it on my deck.
Have you finished it yet? It’s best played through fairly quickly so you can remember different parts. There are a couple of frustrating encounters, but the story is top notch.
This is peak Gaben simp meme. Steam were the pioneers of “you don’t own the game, you just own a licence to play it” model which has caused massive amounts of enshittification of the gaming industry. Not to mention all the other bullshit they’ve pushed over the years.
But valve always gets a pass because dumbass games think “lord Gaben” is their best friend because he sells other peoples games for 90% off some times.
Microsoft pioneered the “your software is licensed, not owned” in the early 80s. Even before Steam, you didn’t own your games. Even if they are on physical media, you don’t own the software on the media; you just own the media it came on.
The problem is that I sometimes must connect to Steam to get my games, and I have to disable the domain blockers in my firewall. It sucks because Steam is worse than Google with the amount of queries, and you know those douches are selling our info.
Nothing pisses me off more than buying a product and finding out later that I have to compromise privacy to use it.
FCKGW, but yes.
This is what I keep telling people. This whole game ‘ownership’ debate is only happening because no-one ever reads the EULA.
I hear this more frequently nowadays, but it really is kind of misplacing the blame for this change. Steam went for this model precisely because many of the bigger game companies to this day refuse to sell their games as anything but a heavily restricted license. And Steam as a storefront does have to cater to them in that regard, especially back then. Even physical disks as others pointed out were technically not something you owned, but rather that resale and such was not enforced or enforceable. (You would definitely get some stern letters if you started copying and selling those games at larger scale, even if you ‘owned’ the original copy).
People do still sell DRM free games on Steam that you can copy and distribute to essentially your hearts extent without Steam ever getting involved. The license you have is for Steam to provide you the download service so you can get your digital copy (and a bit more). If you care about people owning games, then it’s up to you to support and buy from the kinds of companies that don’t provide you a license or (more likely) where the license is unrestricted enough to fit your description of ownership. The middleman like Steam you buy it from shouldn’t matter if they don’t exert undue control beyond that. And at least being on PC if you really must buy something with DRM you have options to remove it.
Idk man. I remember someone recommending spec ops: the line a few weeks ago, but said it’s not available on steam any more. I bought it eons ago and had no problem besides controls getting it on my deck.
Have you finished it yet? It’s best played through fairly quickly so you can remember different parts. There are a couple of frustrating encounters, but the story is top notch.
Fuck me! No I got like 2 hours in a while back but my god damned AuDHD had me focus on something else.
i still can download the crew