I love how this article takes shots at steam despite valve being THE company holding the bar up in the gaming space.
I could list examples but I honestly don't even think I need to
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
840 points (95.5% liked)
Games
32114 readers
1584 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Absolutely. I mean, I love the fact that GOG has DRM-free games. It's really incredible how many games are available without DRM because of them.
But I'm not going to make Valve out to be the bad guy here. Valve is like 99% of the reason why gaming on Linux is viable right now.
Valve seems like a great example of how, if you don't sell your company to venture capitalists, you can just be cool nerds that make good products. As much as I want DRM-free to be the norm, I'm also not going to vilify a company that is one of the best examples of not enshittifying right now.
A lot of Steam games are also DRM free. It's up to the individual developers whether they enforce DRM checks or not.
I've copied files from Steam folders directly to a flash drive, plugged them into an offline, Steam-less computer that I don't have rights to install anything on, and ran them perfectly. But it is a game-by-game thing.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(66 replies)
100% agreed. just wish GOG was more linux friendly.
best of both worlds: piracy.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Okay steam, if its just a digital license and not ownership.. Then surely you'll be significantly lowering prices, Since you charge full ownership prices for games, not license prices.. Right?
load more comments
(17 replies)
NGL This feels disingenuous coming from GOG, Yes, you can keep the installers, but you do NOT own the game.
Seriously not trying to just be contradictory:
What's the difference? In practical terms, what does this mean for me as the consumer? We don't own the intellectual property, but may use the software as-is? From a practical, consumer standpoint that feels the same as the days of owning your software on a disc, unable to be taken as long as you have physical control over the device. I'm fine with calling this "owning" personally.
I'm absolutely willing to be wrong on this. I'm by no means an expert. Please, if I have missed something, let me know.
Can you sell them? or trade, give, even lend them? My guess is you can't. And when I was a kid I did all those things.
It's not anedoctal IMO, but a change in paradigm. I'm not saying it's all bad. I buy games on GOG. But I don't own them really
A 2015 study in France showed 54% where more willing to buy a game when they knew they could sell them when done
There is no drm so zip the installer and everything to your friend and call it a day
We were talking about legal offers. Are you legally the owner of your game.
Of course you can share, reproduce, pirate ... but that's not the point here.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)