I may be ignorant af here but...I think culturally, they aren't nearly as cynical as we are about the corporate hellscape, at least not publicly.
The attitude seems to be that companies, especially Nintendo, are a home-country brand, seen as successful and good at business, and therefore should be respected for it.
This is the likely the same attitude that leads to their abysmal work culture that prizes literally working yourself to death, or at least as close to it as you can.
I think the death grip is loosening though, primarily driven by younger generations seeing through the bullshit.
No surprise there, there are plenty of people with expendable income that will want Valve's newest thing. But even their biggest success, the Steam Deck, only managed around 5 million sales at a reasonable price. The Steam Machine is doubly niche at that price.
While I agree there with the Machine being more niche and would probably not sell as much as a Deck, the deck also has availability issues. Can't sell more than exist đ¤ˇââď¸ (or well, I guess you could, but then you'd be an asshole lol).
The Deck was available and at a decent price for years. But you're right, every one they made did get eventually get sold until the new and "improved price" versions came out.
Why do you think it's more niche? It's a pc, priced reasonably for a pc this size at this time, while the deck is a handheld. Are you saying that PCs are more niche than handhelds nowadays?
Eh, I'd argue the steam machine isn't a PC to most people that don't already own a PC. Most adverts I've seen of the steam machine promote it very console-like, just with steam and more games. Everyone who reads enough into it, and knows enough about PCs to feel comfortable with Linux, most likely already has a comparable or better PC at home.
Because a PC enthusiast is more likely to build their own and it's too expensive for a non-enthusiast. The Steam Deck was as popular as it was because of the price.
Why do you think it's too expensive for non-enthusiasts? I mean it is expensive, just as other PCs became expensive. But if you are not saying that PC sales will stop altogether, then I don't see how SM is niche given that it's priced comparatively to other PCs.
I mean it's closer to a pellet gun because afaik the Steam machine isn't subsidized by game sales unlike some consoles, still engineering and setting up manufacturing still probably cost a lot so it's probably still a gun just not a shotgun.
Ps6 will be able to run steamliteÂŽ but you will have to purchase each title on the PlayStation store and steam to be able to play it and will cost 900 dollars
I think this is about losing fans/customers, not necessarily losing money. Which is still a stretch with Steam. The Machine isn't the best product, but it's not harming anyone.
Valve started it. Valve invented the "we can violate copyright laws because it's on a computer". Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.
It is illegal to stop you from reselling copyrighted work you bought at whatever price you can get. Book publishers tried that over 100 years ago and were smacked down by the Supreme Court and followed up with laws passed by Congress.
Any time someone gets an account ban. Now sometimes those are for a good reason, but it still removes access to purchased content, as steam is the gatekeeper to access them.
Itâs about reselling them. You cannot sell your game on steam. EU made a law that requires is and then Steam converted everyoneâs purchases into licenses.
guess I just don't care about the cost. I don't buy launch titles. if I don't like a game I just give it away to someone and chalk the cost up to learning to never buy from that developer again.
So this doesn't feel like an issue to me because its a digital download.
This means we know an infinite number of these games could be made. There is no scarcity issue at hand. So my digital copy sitting unplayed doesn't remove from someone else's ability to play. Therefore I don't really care that I don't play those games.
Looking at your comments intellectual quality you also never sold a house. That doesnât mean it would be ok to convert everyoneâs property into leasing.
not only did you waste your time reading through my comment history, you also thought that your weak attempt at wit would somehow inflame or irritate.
it's clear you didn't learn anything about me because if you had, you would have known that I need to care about your opinion for it to matter to me.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
If I don't let you resell something you bought that's ownership. I'm not talking about illegal copies. I'm talking about transferring the license to play the content you purchased.
If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that's not ownership.
How about you buy a house, then when you go to sell it, the builder says you can't. Or you are living in a house that you bought and 5 years later the builder says, we are taking your house back, here is what you paid for it.
If I don't let you resell something you bought that's ownership.
TIL people with organ transplants don't own the organs they bought.
TIL people with pacemakers don't own their hearts.
If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that's not ownership.
so has steam ever taken games from users? I mean, I have games no longer offered through the store. hell, I bought game keys from Amazon for games that aren't sold in store anymore and added them to my steam library. so please tell me how I don't own my games by your definitions.
your only proof is from a decade ago and you clearly didn't read it. because if you had read it, you would have seen this little tidbit.
Valve invented the "we can violate copyright laws because it's on a computer"
That stunt was invented by the music industry first. It was a hit with publishers. Valve helped the publishers do the same shit with video games and it's still awful, but they weren't the inventors.
It boils down to the same issues of predatory copyright laws that have been perverted into a twisted mockery of the good intentions they were initially supposed to serve.
I can only assume that you think that copyright law are laws granting rights to copy holders, rather than laws granting the rights to the creator to control who can make copies.
That a new law was created to say "if it's on a computer you don't have rights" doesn't mean the public should meekly accept being screwed over. It's the same as the current anti repair laws.
What law?
The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren't sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it's use, and you can't sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.
I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.
because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do)
You aren't necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.
The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn't necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn't a law. That's why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.
Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s. I don't think you're even reading the sources you send me. Are you just generating responses with ai?
Again, what law is being broken by steam?
First sale doctrine does not apply to licenses, it applies to products, and furthermore you cannot transfer a digital product without copying it.
We can't just say that they're breaking the law as were wish it existed rather than how it actually is, but I agree with your goal, that software should be resellable.
, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s.
It absolutely did not say that.
17 U.S.C. § 109(a) from 1976 clarified the earlier laws without changing them at all. It even specifically mentions video games. That is if you buy a video game you have the right to resell it (dispose).
Courts have since ruled that the law and 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) don't apply because you bought a "license".
But that doesn't change the law or 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which was even clearer that someone who purchases music or a video game has the right to resell it.
Bellular News reported on some emails that came up in Discovery from a recent lawsuit. Many people have heard the story âThey just donât want devs to sell Steam keys below their price.â This was not that. There is E-mail evidence of Valve preventing Ubisoft from selling a version of Siege for $10 on their store, while the Steam price was $15; and there may be similar examples coming up.
This is more important for indies than a shitty AAA store, but basically a dev should be allowed to run their own store and skip Valveâs fees if they are committed. Minecraft did it, for instance. Part of the issue is, while Iâm pretty sure people can come up with counterexamples, Valve doesnât seem perfectly consistent with any one policy.
I still love Steam and I consider most âmonopolyâ claims to be Epic-paid astroturf. But I wonât default to defending them on all fronts when they also tacitly allow child gambling.
Theyâre a de facto monopoly, and they pretty much started the whole drm protected license tied to account thing for video games. They also charge quite some fees for devs.
But they havenât been in the news for anything specific lately, besides maybe the price of the stream machine, which definitely isnât their fault.
Iâm not saying there isnât a reason theyâre in the position theyâre in. They provide a good service and â so far â havenât made a notable faux-pas. But Iâd still rather buy a game on gog than on steam.
They arenât a monopoly. But they are monopolistic. They have a market share of 80-90% and are using that power to make it harder for competitors to gain market share (for example by pressuring developers to not lower their prices on platforms with lower fees).
From what I remember, individual publishers started it, but they used a combo of cd-based drm (which would install rootkits on your pc and sometimes kill your cd drive) and online activation of your key to your account. Steam just made a much less invasive system that lets you access your purchases easily instead of making it risky and hard.
Ive had this argument with people multiple times and it ALWAYS boils down to, Steam is too successful and no one else wants to compete with what steam is actually doing right.
But, there are enough other platforms who are trying to get a foothold and valve doesnât exactly make it easy for them.
Theyâre currently being sued for anti competitive behaviour by pressuring devs into not offering cheaper prices on platforms with lower fees.
I'm aware and it's a bullshit lawsuit because people are jealous of steams success. Its not anti competitive to say I will distribute your games for you, but you can't turn around a out sell it for cheaper once it becomes successful.
they aren't stopping others from selling their games for cheaper, only saying you can't also sell the same thing for cheaper elsewhere to make us look like assholes.
It's entirely fair and transparent. They are free to delist their games from steam if they don't want to sell it for the same price as the steam store.
And also there are multiple ways to get steam keys for cheaper than steam sells the games yet valve still accommodates those purchases inspite of the way the TOC is stated about selling games cheaper elsewhere.
It's Ubisoft suing them and they are just bitter and jealous.
Man yâall are getting really defensive when it comes to your favourite multi billion dollar company.
I like the service steam provides but theyâre not your friend. Theyâre still a profit oriented company.
And just because valveâs competition are incompetent and/or assholes doesnât mean valveâs not anti competitive.
Itâs not about a dev selling a game cheaper on another platform once it becomes popular, itâs about valve forbidding them to sell it cheaper somewhere else at release. Them using their 80-90% market share to forcing developers to either comply or get locked out of more than three quarters of the market is the essence of anti competitive behavior. Doesnât matter if itâs Ubisoft whoâs complaining (fuck ubisoft). Itâs monopolistic.
Also didnât valve very recently state that theyâre gonna enforce their terms of service more strictly in regards to keys sold on other platforms?
Valve hasn't changed anything, I'm tired of people just bandwagoning every thing they don't like. Valve isn't like other companies. They are still a for profit venture but they aren't doing anything problematic.
I personally don't feel the terms they offer to provide the amazing service they provide is anti competitive, and like ive mentioned I have had this argument before. I don't see how it's anti competitive to say I'll sell your shit and host it and distribute it and manage your upgrades, but I don't want you listing it less elsewhere than your are willing to on my platform.
I'm not just out here licking Gabe's ballsack, you aren't offering any rationale for them being uncompetitive other than someone is suing them. Which is what I was responding to mainly. Just because Ubisoft, like Epic before then, even EA too, failed to create a product that people actually want to use, doesn't make Valve uncompetitive.
If this is such a bastardly term, why is it only now that those big firms are failing to launch, that the policies that are almost 20 years old now suddenly anticompetitive.
Can you offer one argument about why price parity is a bad thing?
Thatâs why I said âde factoâ. They have the power of a monopoly. They can do whatever the fuck they want, like charging developers more fees than almost any other PC games storefront. Because what can the devs do? Not use steam? Whoâs gonna play the games then?
And valve is currently getting sued for abusing their market dominance for anti competitive behavior, pressuring devs into not offering their games for cheaper on other platforms, which do offer a lower cut, for example.
So yea, they arenât a monopoly. But, at least within the PC games market, they do act monopolistic.
No one is expecting them to work for free. But theyâre expected to not use their market dominance to collect significantly higher fees than the competition, while pressuring game devs to not make their games cheaper on platforms with lower fees, which is something theyâre currently being sued over.
So, only gog is as expensive for devs on PC as Steam.
And of course they would ask as much as steam would, if they were in valveâs position.
But they arenât and valve is actively using their position of power to keep them there (besides the stores being worse, feature wise, but a lot of people would ignore that for 20% cheaper games on epic, for example).
Steam set the precedent of 30%. If you actually knew your history on this subject you'd also know 30% is far less than what publishers took before Steam. You are either uneducated about the subject or maliciously twisting the facts.
That doesnât matter though. Itâs a win for steam, sure, 20 years ago. But itâs not about historical developments. Itâs about the current state of the market. And there valve is using their market share to stifle competition.
Steam did basically invent the digital games marketplace, but that's not a bad thing in my eyes. It brought games to many many more people, and helped make the industry what it is today. Without Steam, PC gaming might still just be an obscure hobby, and there might not be many games there at all. People forget what it was like before Steam, console gaming was extremely more popular than PC gaming. Like the numbers aren't even close.
PC Games up to 2003 (Steam release date) were like: SimCity, Age of Mythology, Neverwinter Nights, Civ 3, Zoo Tycoon, Baldur's Gate, Unreal Tournament.
Notice what these games genres and playstyle is like. You had to use a mouse and keyboard because game controllers didn't even plug into your PC, even Microsoft Xbox used proprietary connectors not USB. My computer didn't even have an USB port back then. The games had to be basically completely remade for PC, and game dev tooling was bad, so most didn't bother porting at all. "Console-type games" were rare or extremely delayed PC releases.
This all changed after Steam made PC gaming popular, especially with the Orange Box. I remember thinking Steam was stupid back in the day. Like why do I have to make a dumb account just to use the CD I bought? And the interface was hot garbage. But of course it got better over time.
A digital marketplace for games existing is indeed in no way a bad thing.
Neither is Steam, per se. I use it myself happily and valve has done a lot of good for gamers, even more so as someone gaming on Linux.
However: That doesnât make it better that theyâre still at least partially responsible for online drm (although ea, ubisoft and microsoft arenât exactly innocent either).
Platforms like gog, which sells games without drm, get way more goodwill from me though.
Also, I find it a bit naĂŻve to think that steam singlehandedly made PC gaming popular. There were a lot of AAA games, even well into the 2010s, that used either disc based drm, no drm or â starting around 2010 â other, non steam online drm.
I didnât have the need for a steam account with more than goat simulator until like 2016 or 17 and I did play a lot of games.
What I do give steam credit for is making indie games popular. Prior, those just werenât really a big thing. Thanks to steam, you didnât need a big publisher.
Also: I do have gripes with the gaming community hating drm and other game launchers (and especially here on Lemmy being anti capitalist and anti billionaire) but then pulling out the pitchforks of anyone points out that Valve maybe isnât perfect eitherâŚ
I donât know any people who still buy digital music. Most have streaming services and those who donât either rip CDs or have a collection of YouTube downloads.
109 Comments
Raccoon_Rick@altgag.net · 215 pts · 54d
areakode@riskeratspizza.com · 55 pts · 54d
Let me buy the same game 5 times, damnit!
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 54d
"I'll stop making them when you stop buying them."
TallonMetroid@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 54d
You joke, but Japanese Twitter is full of corpo simps.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 53d
I may be ignorant af here but...I think culturally, they aren't nearly as cynical as we are about the corporate hellscape, at least not publicly.
The attitude seems to be that companies, especially Nintendo, are a home-country brand, seen as successful and good at business, and therefore should be respected for it.
This is the likely the same attitude that leads to their abysmal work culture that prizes literally working yourself to death, or at least as close to it as you can.
I think the death grip is loosening though, primarily driven by younger generations seeing through the bullshit.
rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social · 20 pts · 54d
Is that other joycon up it's butt?
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz · 6 pts · 53d
Yes, they have HD vibrations you know
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 144 pts · 54d
I'm assuming Steam's shotgun is the Steam Machine price? Not shotgun-worthy at all. They'll make money regardless of how it does.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 69 pts · 54d
The damn thing sold out immediately.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 54d
No surprise there, there are plenty of people with expendable income that will want Valve's newest thing. But even their biggest success, the Steam Deck, only managed around 5 million sales at a reasonable price. The Steam Machine is doubly niche at that price.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 15 pts · 54d
While I agree there with the Machine being more niche and would probably not sell as much as a Deck, the deck also has availability issues. Can't sell more than exist đ¤ˇââď¸ (or well, I guess you could, but then you'd be an asshole lol).
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 54d
The Deck was available and at a decent price for years. But you're right, every one they made did get eventually get sold until the new and "improved price" versions came out.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 54d
Why do you think it's more niche? It's a pc, priced reasonably for a pc this size at this time, while the deck is a handheld. Are you saying that PCs are more niche than handhelds nowadays?
Krzd@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 53d
Eh, I'd argue the steam machine isn't a PC to most people that don't already own a PC. Most adverts I've seen of the steam machine promote it very console-like, just with steam and more games. Everyone who reads enough into it, and knows enough about PCs to feel comfortable with Linux, most likely already has a comparable or better PC at home.
Forester@pawb.social · 4 pts · 53d
It's meant to be an entry-level PC to help console gamers migrate into a PC environment with minimal overhead.
It's not meant to be a 4k at 240fps future proofed build.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 53d
Because a PC enthusiast is more likely to build their own and it's too expensive for a non-enthusiast. The Steam Deck was as popular as it was because of the price.
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 53d
Why do you think it's too expensive for non-enthusiasts? I mean it is expensive, just as other PCs became expensive. But if you are not saying that PC sales will stop altogether, then I don't see how SM is niche given that it's priced comparatively to other PCs.
cepelinas@sopuli.xyz · 20 pts · 54d
I mean it's closer to a pellet gun because afaik the Steam machine isn't subsidized by game sales unlike some consoles, still engineering and setting up manufacturing still probably cost a lot so it's probably still a gun just not a shotgun.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 14 pts · 54d
I look at the Steam Machine being a proof of concept device leading to third party development.
There is now a lot of interest in computer markers to make their own machine and Valve is more than happy if they do it at no cost to Valve.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 54d
Yeah valve wins regardless of who builds the machines, arguably they win more if someone else builds the machine but regardless they win.
tackleberry@thelemmy.club · 14 pts · 53d
The Steam Machine is actually a better choice in a digital-only console landscape. Only a PC is better than it
At this rate, the PS6 would be a streaming device (like the Playstation Portal) and the PS7 would be an online virtual machine.
dragonlover@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 53d
It IS a PC
justaman123@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 53d
Ps6 will be able to run steamliteÂŽ but you will have to purchase each title on the PlayStation store and steam to be able to play it and will cost 900 dollars
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 53d
They were very obviously "shot" by AI and memory manufacturers.
OP is not a very good detective. They'd walk up on a scene and determine that five shots to the back of the head must have been suicide.
DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 54d
And so will all the others, maybe except Ubisoft.
I think this is about losing fans/customers, not necessarily losing money. Which is still a stretch with Steam. The Machine isn't the best product, but it's not harming anyone.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 54d
Nintendo is going to make money no matter what
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 54d
Yup, especially once they start putting out their heavy hitter franchises.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 54d
To me, its the price fixing allegations (e.g. dictating the prices of other stores).
Tingle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 53d
My guess would be Steam removing physical gift cards?
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 53d
Eh wait for the steam frame for the second shot
rklm@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 77 pts · 54d
What did valve do?
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 25 pts · 54d
I prefer the version that has OpenAI and Anthropic shooting Valve.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · -61 pts · 54d
Valve started it. Valve invented the "we can violate copyright laws because it's on a computer". Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.
It is illegal to stop you from reselling copyrighted work you bought at whatever price you can get. Book publishers tried that over 100 years ago and were smacked down by the Supreme Court and followed up with laws passed by Congress.
tyler@programming.dev · 102 pts · 54d
They did not invent that lol. Music companies did.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · -74 pts · 54d
Music companies weren't selling games.
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 60 pts · 54d
What a blind distinction
Signtist@bookwyr.me · 31 pts · 54d
In a legal sense, media is media. The laws were established for music before digital games were mainstream, and were then applied to games.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 58 pts · 54d
The iTunes Store is older than the Steam Store.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · -59 pts · 54d
Itunes didn't sell games.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 49 pts · 54d
The argument is about digital goods not just video games, but for the record they absolutely did.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · -46 pts · 54d
You didn't read your own link. From your own Wikipedia link: First game released in 2006. 2 years after Steam.
"the argument isn't about games"? Then where is the non gaming publisher in the OP gif above?
tyler@programming.dev · 26 pts · 54d
They most definitely did. Maybe you should learn about the stuff youâre talking about before posting things that are completely wrong.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · -36 pts · 54d
Maybe you should look up history before downvoting:
https://www.macworld.com/article/181577/ipodgames-2.html
First game on itunes was 2006- 3 years after Steam.
tyler@programming.dev · 6 pts · 54d
I do not see what your link has to do with your comment. iTunes did sell games, your comment was factually incorrect.
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 54d
Books aren't games, either, but you brought them up. Why are different forms of media valid when they support your argument but not when they don't?
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 54d
show me evidence that they took games away from users after they were purchased and didn't give refunds back to.
domdanial@reddthat.com · 9 pts · 54d
Any time someone gets an account ban. Now sometimes those are for a good reason, but it still removes access to purchased content, as steam is the gatekeeper to access them.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 54d
don't be a scrote then?
sznowicki@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 54d
Itâs about reselling them. You cannot sell your game on steam. EU made a law that requires is and then Steam converted everyoneâs purchases into licenses.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 54d
I've never resold games. I still have Kings Quest 3 in the original box, disks, and paperwork.
why would I sell games?
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 54d
You might not sell games, but other people do especially if they don't like a game.
Now the game just sits in a virtual library unplayed. If there was a way to sell, or loan, a game license to a friend or something, that'd be cool.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 54d
guess I just don't care about the cost. I don't buy launch titles. if I don't like a game I just give it away to someone and chalk the cost up to learning to never buy from that developer again.
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 54d
And how do you give away a digital game?
nagaram@startrek.website · 1 pts · 52d
So this doesn't feel like an issue to me because its a digital download.
This means we know an infinite number of these games could be made. There is no scarcity issue at hand. So my digital copy sitting unplayed doesn't remove from someone else's ability to play. Therefore I don't really care that I don't play those games.
Also, invite your friends over for a lan party
sznowicki@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 54d
Looking at your comments intellectual quality you also never sold a house. That doesnât mean it would be ok to convert everyoneâs property into leasing.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 54d
I'm genuinely sad for you.
not only did you waste your time reading through my comment history, you also thought that your weak attempt at wit would somehow inflame or irritate.
it's clear you didn't learn anything about me because if you had, you would have known that I need to care about your opinion for it to matter to me.
sznowicki@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 53d
I didnât.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 52d
If I don't let you resell something you bought that's ownership. I'm not talking about illegal copies. I'm talking about transferring the license to play the content you purchased.
If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that's not ownership.
How about you buy a house, then when you go to sell it, the builder says you can't. Or you are living in a house that you bought and 5 years later the builder says, we are taking your house back, here is what you paid for it.
That's not ownership.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-removes-game-order-of-war-challenge-from-user-libraries/
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
TIL people with organ transplants don't own the organs they bought.
TIL people with pacemakers don't own their hearts.
so has steam ever taken games from users? I mean, I have games no longer offered through the store. hell, I bought game keys from Amazon for games that aren't sold in store anymore and added them to my steam library. so please tell me how I don't own my games by your definitions.
your only proof is from a decade ago and you clearly didn't read it. because if you had read it, you would have seen this little tidbit.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 52d
You didn't buy the organ you got transplanted because federal law prohibits all organ sales.
??? A pacemaker is device implanted to maintain regular rhythm. If you purchased one from the manufacturer, you could sell it to someone else.
"Only multi player content"
So content was removed.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
so you don't own your organs, and thus have no rights.
content that was removed by the original developer, not steam.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
Ownership of your person which includes your organs is covered under constitutional rights, not property rights.
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 18 pts · 54d
That stunt was invented by the music industry first. It was a hit with publishers. Valve helped the publishers do the same shit with video games and it's still awful, but they weren't the inventors.
It boils down to the same issues of predatory copyright laws that have been perverted into a twisted mockery of the good intentions they were initially supposed to serve.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 52d
What copyright law did valve violate?
I can only assume that you think that copyright law are laws granting rights to copy holders, rather than laws granting the rights to the creator to control who can make copies.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
That a new law was created to say "if it's on a computer you don't have rights" doesn't mean the public should meekly accept being screwed over. It's the same as the current anti repair laws.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 51d
What law?
The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you're making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren't sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it's use, and you can't sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.
I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 51d
Laws don't expire unless specifically written to expire. Do you not believe in the right to free speech because that law is 250 years old?
Nor was it superceded 50 years ago. The case was in 2012 and wasn't ruled until 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.
You aren't necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.
The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn't necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn't a law. That's why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 51d
Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s. I don't think you're even reading the sources you send me. Are you just generating responses with ai?
Again, what law is being broken by steam?
First sale doctrine does not apply to licenses, it applies to products, and furthermore you cannot transfer a digital product without copying it.
We can't just say that they're breaking the law as were wish it existed rather than how it actually is, but I agree with your goal, that software should be resellable.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 50d
It absolutely did not say that.
17 U.S.C. § 109(a) from 1976 clarified the earlier laws without changing them at all. It even specifically mentions video games. That is if you buy a video game you have the right to resell it (dispose).
Courts have since ruled that the law and 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) don't apply because you bought a "license".
But that doesn't change the law or 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which was even clearer that someone who purchases music or a video game has the right to resell it.
Court rulings aren't law.
DrBob@lemmy.ca · 49 pts · 54d
What did Steam do?
hayvan@piefed.world · 51 pts · 54d
Probably mad about GabeCube price.
MajesticTechie@feddit.uk · 53 pts · 54d
I can't really blame em for that. I blame Sam Altman and the army of Clankers that spawned from it
SwissArmyKazoo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 54d
Sam Altman's AI Slop did it, not the godly Gabe.
Katana314@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 54d
Alright, fuckit, Iâll be Devils Advocate.
Bellular News reported on some emails that came up in Discovery from a recent lawsuit. Many people have heard the story âThey just donât want devs to sell Steam keys below their price.â This was not that. There is E-mail evidence of Valve preventing Ubisoft from selling a version of Siege for $10 on their store, while the Steam price was $15; and there may be similar examples coming up.
This is more important for indies than a shitty AAA store, but basically a dev should be allowed to run their own store and skip Valveâs fees if they are committed. Minecraft did it, for instance. Part of the issue is, while Iâm pretty sure people can come up with counterexamples, Valve doesnât seem perfectly consistent with any one policy.
I still love Steam and I consider most âmonopolyâ claims to be Epic-paid astroturf. But I wonât default to defending them on all fronts when they also tacitly allow child gambling.
accideath@feddit.org · -25 pts · 54d
Theyâre a de facto monopoly, and they pretty much started the whole drm protected license tied to account thing for video games. They also charge quite some fees for devs.
But they havenât been in the news for anything specific lately, besides maybe the price of the stream machine, which definitely isnât their fault.
Nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 57 pts · 54d
hard not to be a monopoly when you make a decent service and your opponent is (gestures vaguely)
Katana314@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 54d
Yeah, somehow I feel like this claimant never saw the original variation of this meme.
accideath@feddit.org · 3 pts · 54d
Iâm not saying there isnât a reason theyâre in the position theyâre in. They provide a good service and â so far â havenât made a notable faux-pas. But Iâd still rather buy a game on gog than on steam.
Nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 53d
and you can, is steam was a monopoly you wouldn't be able to
accideath@feddit.org · 2 pts · 53d
They arenât a monopoly. But they are monopolistic. They have a market share of 80-90% and are using that power to make it harder for competitors to gain market share (for example by pressuring developers to not lower their prices on platforms with lower fees).
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 54d
From what I remember, individual publishers started it, but they used a combo of cd-based drm (which would install rootkits on your pc and sometimes kill your cd drive) and online activation of your key to your account. Steam just made a much less invasive system that lets you access your purchases easily instead of making it risky and hard.
Jarix@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 54d
Ive had this argument with people multiple times and it ALWAYS boils down to, Steam is too successful and no one else wants to compete with what steam is actually doing right.
accideath@feddit.org · 2 pts · 54d
Steam is doing a lot right, donât get me wrong.
But, there are enough other platforms who are trying to get a foothold and valve doesnât exactly make it easy for them.
Theyâre currently being sued for anti competitive behaviour by pressuring devs into not offering cheaper prices on platforms with lower fees.
Jarix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 53d
I'm aware and it's a bullshit lawsuit because people are jealous of steams success. Its not anti competitive to say I will distribute your games for you, but you can't turn around a out sell it for cheaper once it becomes successful.
they aren't stopping others from selling their games for cheaper, only saying you can't also sell the same thing for cheaper elsewhere to make us look like assholes.
It's entirely fair and transparent. They are free to delist their games from steam if they don't want to sell it for the same price as the steam store.
And also there are multiple ways to get steam keys for cheaper than steam sells the games yet valve still accommodates those purchases inspite of the way the TOC is stated about selling games cheaper elsewhere.
It's Ubisoft suing them and they are just bitter and jealous.
accideath@feddit.org · 2 pts · 53d
Man yâall are getting really defensive when it comes to your favourite multi billion dollar company.
I like the service steam provides but theyâre not your friend. Theyâre still a profit oriented company.
And just because valveâs competition are incompetent and/or assholes doesnât mean valveâs not anti competitive.
Itâs not about a dev selling a game cheaper on another platform once it becomes popular, itâs about valve forbidding them to sell it cheaper somewhere else at release. Them using their 80-90% market share to forcing developers to either comply or get locked out of more than three quarters of the market is the essence of anti competitive behavior. Doesnât matter if itâs Ubisoft whoâs complaining (fuck ubisoft). Itâs monopolistic.
Also didnât valve very recently state that theyâre gonna enforce their terms of service more strictly in regards to keys sold on other platforms?
Jarix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 53d
Valve hasn't changed anything, I'm tired of people just bandwagoning every thing they don't like. Valve isn't like other companies. They are still a for profit venture but they aren't doing anything problematic.
I personally don't feel the terms they offer to provide the amazing service they provide is anti competitive, and like ive mentioned I have had this argument before. I don't see how it's anti competitive to say I'll sell your shit and host it and distribute it and manage your upgrades, but I don't want you listing it less elsewhere than your are willing to on my platform.
I'm not just out here licking Gabe's ballsack, you aren't offering any rationale for them being uncompetitive other than someone is suing them. Which is what I was responding to mainly. Just because Ubisoft, like Epic before then, even EA too, failed to create a product that people actually want to use, doesn't make Valve uncompetitive.
If this is such a bastardly term, why is it only now that those big firms are failing to launch, that the policies that are almost 20 years old now suddenly anticompetitive.
Can you offer one argument about why price parity is a bad thing?
accideath@feddit.org · 2 pts · 54d
But doesnât gog especially show, that you can do completely without drm and not have any issues?
Soggy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 53d
That's always been the case but the anti-home-copying paranoia has had media executives wringing their hands since the tape recorder at least.
accideath@feddit.org · 1 pts · 53d
Yes and it all gets beaten sooner or later regardless
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 54d
How are they a monopoly when you can buy most of the games on Steam elsewhere if you want? Most people just choose not to.
accideath@feddit.org · 1 pts · 54d
Thatâs why I said âde factoâ. They have the power of a monopoly. They can do whatever the fuck they want, like charging developers more fees than almost any other PC games storefront. Because what can the devs do? Not use steam? Whoâs gonna play the games then?
And valve is currently getting sued for abusing their market dominance for anti competitive behavior, pressuring devs into not offering their games for cheaper on other platforms, which do offer a lower cut, for example.
So yea, they arenât a monopoly. But, at least within the PC games market, they do act monopolistic.
ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website · 14 pts · 54d
Of course Steam charges fees they provide a service! Why is Valve the only game company expected to work for free?
accideath@feddit.org · 0 pts · 54d
No one is expecting them to work for free. But theyâre expected to not use their market dominance to collect significantly higher fees than the competition, while pressuring game devs to not make their games cheaper on platforms with lower fees, which is something theyâre currently being sued over.
Katana314@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 54d
The only distributor that has lower fees is Epic.
If you believe, in a Steamless world, Epic wouldnât raise their fee to 30%, I have a Half-Life 3 to sell you.
accideath@feddit.org · 1 pts · 53d
And Microsoft and itch.io.
So, only gog is as expensive for devs on PC as Steam.
And of course they would ask as much as steam would, if they were in valveâs position. But they arenât and valve is actively using their position of power to keep them there (besides the stores being worse, feature wise, but a lot of people would ignore that for 20% cheaper games on epic, for example).
Soggy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 53d
Itch.io doesn't provide anywhere near the service Valve does, it would be ludicrous for them to charge the same.
ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website · 2 pts · 53d
Steam set the precedent of 30%. If you actually knew your history on this subject you'd also know 30% is far less than what publishers took before Steam. You are either uneducated about the subject or maliciously twisting the facts.
accideath@feddit.org · 0 pts · 52d
That doesnât matter though. Itâs a win for steam, sure, 20 years ago. But itâs not about historical developments. Itâs about the current state of the market. And there valve is using their market share to stifle competition.
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 9 pts · 54d
Steam did basically invent the digital games marketplace, but that's not a bad thing in my eyes. It brought games to many many more people, and helped make the industry what it is today. Without Steam, PC gaming might still just be an obscure hobby, and there might not be many games there at all. People forget what it was like before Steam, console gaming was extremely more popular than PC gaming. Like the numbers aren't even close.
PC Games up to 2003 (Steam release date) were like: SimCity, Age of Mythology, Neverwinter Nights, Civ 3, Zoo Tycoon, Baldur's Gate, Unreal Tournament.
Notice what these games genres and playstyle is like. You had to use a mouse and keyboard because game controllers didn't even plug into your PC, even Microsoft Xbox used proprietary connectors not USB. My computer didn't even have an USB port back then. The games had to be basically completely remade for PC, and game dev tooling was bad, so most didn't bother porting at all. "Console-type games" were rare or extremely delayed PC releases.
This all changed after Steam made PC gaming popular, especially with the Orange Box. I remember thinking Steam was stupid back in the day. Like why do I have to make a dumb account just to use the CD I bought? And the interface was hot garbage. But of course it got better over time.
accideath@feddit.org · 4 pts · 54d
A digital marketplace for games existing is indeed in no way a bad thing.
Neither is Steam, per se. I use it myself happily and valve has done a lot of good for gamers, even more so as someone gaming on Linux.
However: That doesnât make it better that theyâre still at least partially responsible for online drm (although ea, ubisoft and microsoft arenât exactly innocent either).
Platforms like gog, which sells games without drm, get way more goodwill from me though.
Also, I find it a bit naĂŻve to think that steam singlehandedly made PC gaming popular. There were a lot of AAA games, even well into the 2010s, that used either disc based drm, no drm or â starting around 2010 â other, non steam online drm.
I didnât have the need for a steam account with more than goat simulator until like 2016 or 17 and I did play a lot of games.
What I do give steam credit for is making indie games popular. Prior, those just werenât really a big thing. Thanks to steam, you didnât need a big publisher.
Also: I do have gripes with the gaming community hating drm and other game launchers (and especially here on Lemmy being anti capitalist and anti billionaire) but then pulling out the pitchforks of anyone points out that Valve maybe isnât perfect eitherâŚ
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 54d
So is iTunes and theyâre still around
accideath@feddit.org · 0 pts · 54d
People still use iTunes?
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 51d
Donât be obtuse.
Where do people buy digital music of mainline artists?
accideath@feddit.org · 1 pts · 51d
I donât know any people who still buy digital music. Most have streaming services and those who donât either rip CDs or have a collection of YouTube downloads.
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 49d
Fair, but this is also a sample size of one.
accideath@feddit.org · 0 pts · 49d
I do know more than one people