People use steam because it’s good service, and a good product.
In fact, they also gave Linux a boost
They also have things like cloud saving
Developers use them because apparently they have some awesome features too for things like multiplayer and such and a great API
I like steam as a user but it’s still proprietary software and I’m slightly concerned about what is going to happen when Gabe Newell steps down as president and ceo of Valve.
As long as you understand the terms of your agreement with Steam as a platform, everything is fine. Physical media for games are outdated anyway, especially with frequent updates, patches, and DLC releases. Regarding older titles that are no longer supported, well, as the saying goes: “If buying isn’t owing…”
Chad GOG
This has literally always been the case with Steam, the only difference is that people are told up front now. Things will likely continue to operate exactly the same as it has until now, I doubt Valve wants to disrupt the giant money train they have.
I would be surprised if it even was possible for them to change so that the games are bought. I suspect that would be quite complicated legally.
It’s literally in the title that GOG does exactly that. Why would Steam’s hands be legally tied if GOG’s aren’t?
No, that isn’t what GOG is doing.
GOG is still only licencing games to you. They do offer you the opportunity to download an offline installer though.
How is having an offline installer that can’t be taken away, not the same thing as owning?
As far as I know there is no mandatory DRM on Steam either, so if a publisher wants to they can just make their game be portable and not require Steam to even be installed. Pretty sure all the re-releases that use DOSBox or ScummVM are like this, for example.
Yeah there are loads of DRM free games on steam (mostly indies of course). Steam just offers a very basic (and easily bypassable if you know how) DRM to debs/publishers but they absolutely don’t need to use it.
Here’s another reminder to sign this initiative if you live in the EU.
I’d totally sign…if the Russian funded tory party hadn’t decided we should leave because they were scared of the far right taking votes.
Spread the word, then.
I like GOG, but this is just weasel-words to take advantage of the ignorance of the public. Whether you receive the installs directly or not, you still don’t own your games, you are just licensing them, same as Steam.
This doesn’t tip the scales into the “this is wrong” territory for me, but I do think this kind of word manipulation exploiting an unknowledgeable public is a little bit slimy.
I think it is fair. When you buy games through GOG, you get the offline installer. Nobody can take that away from you.
When you buy games through Steam, you can only install them via the Steam client. If the Steam servers are offline, you cannot install your games. In theory, some games are without any DRM, and you can just zip them up, but even then that doesn’t always work, and you shouldn’t have to. That’s not to take away from Steam, of course, it is great at what it does.
Providing an offline installer that works no matter what is as good as “owning” the game IMO, even if “technically” you are just purchasing a license to use the game.
edit: I went and read what GOG itself actually says. The headline is slimy, GOG’s disclosure is fine. I don’t think they’re implying anything beyond what they offer.
The headline is slimy
Are you referring to the use of the word “killshot”? Otherwise, the headline says exactly the same thing.
Its offline installers ‘cannot be taken away from you’
No implication of outright ownership, just that they can’t take away the offline installers. I mean, I guess it doesn’t outright say “that you’ve already downloaded,” but given the length, I’d say that’s a passable omission.
We don’t have to do this. It’s the juxtaposition of GOG’s claim paired being intentionally paired with the steam disclaimer so as to present it as if an alternative.
I just like calling it “the kill shot”, as though GOG is about to take all of Steam’s market share some time next week.
please let this be true it would be really funny
I don’t think “weasel words” is the right term here.
You own the GOG games like you own a book you bought, and like you don’t own a DRM-crippled book, even though you might be entitled to read it under certain circumstances. The difference between downloading an installer and downloading a game on Steam is, the installer will continue to work even if GOG folds or decides they don’t like you anymore. But if Steam blocks your account, all the games you bought are gone, and Steam is fully in the right to do so since you don’t own their games.
That’s not true. You still only receive a license to play the game, you do not own it. Directly from GOG’s website:
We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
Practically this means you cannot resell your GOG installer in the way you could resell a physical book.
That’s fair I guess. But you can keep a backup of your GoG games in case the server goes down. With Steam that isn’t possible.
Absolutely. GOG has a much better license and distribution model, but it’s still a license.
I think OP is saying that, while you can buy a book to read it, you do not own the copyright to that book. They’re saying it’s basically the same idea with GOG.
The illustration does break down, but I think their point still stands.
You can resell, trade, give, lend a book you bought. You’re just not allowed to do the same with any copies you’ve made. At least where I live
Like I said, the illustration does break down.
There are no products for which you get the IP because you bought one unit. Edit: IANAL, there might be.
Not a book, nor a car. So I don’t see how that’s relevant.
Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
The amount of people thinking they are getting ripped off by steam now is astounding.
They are the reason this step is incredibly necessary.
I mean I’ve always had an issue that digital goods could always be revoked/taken back. That’s why I didn’t buy things on steam until it became basically the only way (as consoles have less physical media). This is just a great reminder for the public that we’re consistently loosing control over our digital lives.
I’ve been an advocate for forcing companies to change the wording for digital goofs to “lease” rather than “buy”. Cause at the end of the day, no one owns their steam library.
I mean, we are… Gabe became a billionaire that owns a yacht collection, his money came from somewhere, there’s no reason to defend any billionaires or their companies unless you are a billionaire yourself.
Gabe heads a company which is successful because it respects its employees, customers, and suppliers instead of constantly trying to marginalize and abuse them. They are not perfect by any means, but they do fit into the definition of ethical capitalism, which should not be understated. They don’t employ anticompetitive tactics like bribing/coercing developers into exclusivity contracts. They don’t operate with a bunch of 1099 contractors so they can avoid providing benefits. Etc.
And they could do all of these good things while charging less than 30% and Gabe would be the only one feeling a negative impact on his finances.
As for contractors, they do hire them, court documents came out and their profits per actually employees are way higher than most companies.
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?
G*mers really don’t want the industry to evaluate the $60 price point and apply inflationary adjustments going back to when it became the standard.
The $60 was based on 55%+ going to distribution channels, +physical media costs, so it could be down from there.
regular reminder that digital distribution was sold to us under the false promise that games would be cheaper, because they wouldnt have to pay for printing boxes, CDs, manuals, greebles, Wouldnt have to pay for shipping or storage, or any other burden addition of physical media.
That we’d be able to buy games for 30 dollars, and that that the developers and everyone involved would make more money than they would have paying 50 for a physical game.
Yeah, this is the original sin, they just banked the cost the whole time until they could cry that they need to charge more because of inflation.
and now, they are wanting to sell games for 70-80 bucks for AAA titles.
Its not cause the games are 50 dollars that they arent making enough hundreds of millions. The only reason these AAA games arent making bank is because they’re shit
Can anyone honestly remember the last AAA title that wasnt an absolute dog pile?
Fr tho people seem to forget abt inflation a lot when talking abt the old days
People seem to forget that just moderately decent games sell magnitudes more today than they did 20 years ago, too, thus continuing to bring in insane cash (as long as you arent sony or other companies that are obscenely wasteful…) despite inflation, this stable pricing making them a good entertainment investment for people whose minimum wage hasnt changed in like 15 years
Why compare oranges and apples? Console and PC games were never the same from a price perspective.
This is a really interesting chart. A lot of N64 games were $70 and even $80 at launch which is upwards of $150 today. Just crazy.
People keep saying SNES/N64/etc games were super expensive…and i just wanna ask where they were buying them?
Cause everytime I went into the stores to get one they were 49.99.
I don’t think it’s Steam setting the prices.
They indirectly are inflating it with their 30% cut
So games sold on storefronts owned by the same publishers as the game should be 30% cheaper right? Right?
Should be cheaper, emphasis on should, but at the same time if they sell directly and take the same cut, that’s one less intermediary in the chain so more money going to the devs.
None of the managerial class are good people, wake up, all billionaires are taking advantage of us.
They are also deflating it by providing services that developers would otherwise have to spend time and money on to develop themselves.
Their 30% cuts allowed Gabe to start collecting yachts, they could charge a lot less while still offering the same services and only Gabe would see his finances take the hit, no one else in the world would be poorer if they charged 20% instead.
wdym you can play steam games offline the only exception is needing the steam client?
You also need a Steam account, to which all your games are linked. If you somehow get perma-banned off of Steam, you lose everything.
To install a game you have bought on steam you need the steam client, the steam servers, internet and your steam account. If any of those stops being available you can no longer install the games you have bought. So while you can play the games once installed without most of the above, you can lose access to your not currently installed games.
Also, on steam you purchase licenses to the games which they can revoke. I.e. if steam turned evil they could take away games from your library and you couldn’t do anything about it really.
Comparatively on GOG, you get a binary installer you can download and can keep forever without DRM so you don’t need anything else to install the game in the future, even if it disappeared from your GOG account for some reason, you could still install and play the game.
thank you for the detailed explanations i just thought steam only needs the client to work
If Steam stops working, you could replace the Steam API with the Goldberg emulator, and an already installed game should work, if there is no other DRM.
But yes, GOG is definitely better.
I just wish GOG Galaxy worked on Linux.
Offline installer. So a game gets removed from your library for any reason. Now you get a new PC and can’t play the game anymore. At GoG you get an installer that doesn’t check servers and can work with no internet connection etc. So even if they were forced to remove a game from your library, you still have the installer and can install it whenever you want. So if you keep a hard drive of installers, you will forever own the game as long as you don’t lose that data.
Now if we could just have GOG Galaxy for Linux. It would make my life so much easier.
Heroic Game Launcher is pretty cool. It does game save sync with GOG games too.
I know, I use it. I’d prefer an official Galaxy port though.
Lutris lets you add your GOG account and download/install games directly. its not Galaxy, but its pretty flawless.
Lutris is awesome.
Open source games, games with their own launcher, games on steam, gog, etc are all in it. Can pick to run things natively on Linux, use proton (pick your version or just use latest), wine, or choose from others, and it does it seamlessly. For games you already have installed on steam, you don’t need to reinstall them, it finds them and makes them runnable from within lutris once you connect your steam account, you can also install games that you own on any of your connected launchers, and browse/download your undownloaded games from themExamples for some of the stuff I have all in it now:
Catacyslm: DDA catapult launcher (free and open source game - highly recommend you try it out. Takes some getting used to, but there isn’t much you can’t do. Also, make sure you get cataclysm-tiles or use a launcher. ASCII is pure, but hard to get used to. Also, DO NOT buy it on steam.)
All of my installed steam games
Cyberpunk 2077 and the witcher 3 via gog
FFXIV (the official launcher, not steam)
Vintage story (open source but not free - highly recommend if you like open world survival crafting games with a big emphasis on survival)
I feel you. Installing Fallout London was such a pain in the ass for Linux.
I wrote a guide for getting fallout london up and running if you need a hand
Unpopular opinion: if I have to fudge with Wine instead of Proton, I simply will not bother. It’s 2024. I’m not going to fiddle with configs, or get a setup together just to play a single game. That’s ridiculous. A game should 100% be one click to run, whether it’s native or not. and if that’s not what is expected in 2024, Linux get it together. sincerely: a full time Linux gamer that is a single parent and doesn’t have time to fiddle just to play a game. Wine and most of its front ends need a major overhaul.
Linux get it together
Who are you making demands to, precisely?
What an ignorant and meaningless comment.
I test games for a living and most of the time wine runs perfectly fine. You can also just use umu laucher which does everything for you.
Also I don’t really get your point. Who’s forcing you to use wine instead of proton?
I’m not aware of how things are now, but at least previously you couldn’t really use Proton outside of Steam.
So I assume OC defends Steam as the only platform that can smoothly run games with Proton instead of regular Wine, which does not work as well for certain games and/or requires tedious configuration.
You are right about proton. But the tedious configuration part is not true. Proton and ge-wine(now UMU) do the same thing, i.e applying custom patches. Wine base package is not expected to do this.
Heroic is decent imo. It lets you download Wine, manage prefixes, enable/disable dxvk/vkd3d, configure gamescope & mangohud and so on.
So does lutris and bottles. Don’t know what OP is talking about.
You need to “get it together” and buy games for your platform.
“That’s ridiculous”
Then just use Proton? You don’t need Steam for it. And sitting there and demanding “Linux” to get it “together” because it is 2024 is rather ignorant due to the fact that it is not Linux’ fault that the software in question needs additional workarounds in order to make it run. People out there are using their freetime to come up with solutions for problems caused by corporations using proprietary libraries and software. I don’t think that your opinion is unpopular. I get what you want, I do wish the same, and a lot of peoole would agree with it as well, but the context in which we operate here matters a lot.
Does GOG work on Linux?
If it works on Steam it works on GOG. Nothing about proton is limited to Steam.
There’s a Linux specific Steam program though. Is there a Linux specific GOG program?
The Heroic Games Launcher can download and run GOG games. It’s a community-run project, but officially affiliated with GOG.
How does GOG support Heroic?
They set up a commission with gog if you buy games through heroic
Is this an actual, specific deal with Heroic, or some general affiliate linking thing?
No clue if it’s heroic exclusive but it’s more than just affiliate linking. Heroic embeds the actual gog store page in the launcher and gets a percentage of anything you buy per their agreement with gog
Cool, thanks.
You mean a native version of GOG? I don’t think so, but you can use it through Lutris.
Nowadays the Heroic Games Launcher is the preferred solution for downloading and running GOG games. It’s a community-run project, but officially affiliated with GOG.
Many of their games do have native linux versions, and a lot do work under wine or proton, which can be used as a Non-steam game in Steam or even without Steam.
Their launcher doesn’t yet have a native linux version but it’s completely optional, and does still run under wine if you really want it.
If I’m not going to use their game manager, then why would I buy the game from them instead of just buying it directly from the game studio? I guess because game studios rarely distribute their own games anymore?
Exactly, the game publishers and distributors are often not the developers themselves. Only one to distribute direct in recent memory was World Of Goo 2, and even that was sold primarily through the Epic store.
NGL This feels disingenuous coming from GOG, Yes, you can keep the installers, but you do NOT own the game.
Yeah? And whats the difference in practice?
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
I can see the functional difference there, with regards to sell/trade/loan. You could of course emulate the functionality, or rely on the honor system for abandon ware stuff, but that’s clunky, inefficient, not worth the energy.
I hadn’t considered the second hand aspect. Even as a kid, I was always more a “build a library” kind of person versus a “cycle my catalog” kind of person. I was considering things from an availability to play the game perspective alone. Thanks for the different perspective!
I don’t want to advocate for shoveling money into any company, but if you could sell your steam games it would screw over indie devs in a big way. Many games made by small studies or one person don’t have as much content as AAA studies and would be far more prone to a small handful of copies being distributed back and forth on the used market instead of each being a sale that goes to the developer.
Some devs would see a drop in sales as much as 90% and I just don’t think it’s worth it to shoot the gaming industry in the foot like that.
Just to be clear: my main point was that you don’t own any more the game bought on GOG than on Steam.
And there are definitely upsides to this type of market.
Although nowadays I wouldn’t buy a just released triple A 70€ game knowing I can’t sell or give it (not that I play those much anymore). The games I actually want to keep a few and far between.
I buy second hand Switch games for my nephews. It’s cheap, I’m actually giving them something, and they can trade them with their friends or sell them to buy fortnite skins the little shitsAgain, not hating on GOG, I’ve been a customer for a long time. Mainly because I don’t want any kind of launcher. I play 99% solo games, don’t need no updates or multiple clicks to launch a game.
I would ABSOLUTELY argue that you more own a game purchased on gog, with an offline installer, than one purchased on steam. I now see the functional difference between owning a drm-free installer vs owning a physical game, but there’s also a gulf of difference between steam and gog
Just to be entirely fair. The rest of what you said is absolutely spot on.
I agree, you are “more owner” with a GOG game.
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.
There really is no difference. For almost all intents and purposes, GOG’s offline installers can be treated the same way as physical CDs of way back then, with one of the only exceptions being that you cannot resell them.
Plus, unless the installers have the full package, it’ll still require an internet connection. Usually installers download the files and then install them.
When have they not had the full package on GOG?
They’re called offline installers for a reason.
I’ll give gog this, I have never seen an installer from them that needed an internet connection, That being said, they actively call it licensing in their own agreement
Doesn’t steam have a clause to the effect of “if we go out of business, you’ll get X period to download your games so you can manage them yourself”?
Even if that’s not the case, the drm is very easy to crack.
I don’t know if it’s a clause but Gabe said it at one point. Is that legally binding though? It wouldn’t surprise me one bit that whatever VC eventually buys steam and then runs it into the ground would have no problem changing the user agreement to whatever suited them…
It’s not legally binding, since it isn’t part of the user agreement you review when buying games on Steam.
I think I read in the steam agreement itself - I could be wrong, but I generally have a source tagged to my knowledge, and the knowledge is tagged as a direct quote from the document
And yes, if a VC buys out steam I’d be horrified, but it’s structurally resistant to that. It’s largely employee owned and heavily employee managed, their handbook helped me understand the concept of how employee owned businesses could be the answer to many of society’s problems
If there’s a grace period, perhaps, however:
- Steam does not provide installers for games, this means that whatever game you want, needs to be 100% functional and already be parsed/deployed/installed by steam on your hard drive.
- That game needs to be DRM free, meaning that it has an executable available that can be launched without steam running or requiring any sort of authentication or input from the steam servers/services before being able to launch, play or even interact with the menus
So only the DRM free games will remain, and only the installed ones at that. Anything that wasn’t will be lost to the wind the moment the distribution service or storage (yours or theirs) bits the dust…
-
installers for games are usually just a script that unzips the game and makes some shortcuts. Steam installs all your games in a standard way in a folder of your choice. You can straight up copy that folder to another computer. You can use another launcher and just play your games, there are already many that can read steam’s standardized format. I’ve done it multiple times to avoid redownloading my library
-
It depends how steam sunsets their DRM, but yes - obviously if a game has 3rd party DRM, that third party is in control. Steam could choose a user hostile way to sunset their own DRM, but they could release ways to deactivate it
DRM is bad, steam provides an easy way for developers to use steam DRM, and it’s generally less user hostile than most DRM. To me, this seems like harm reduction
Ultimately, it’s not up to steam what, if any, DRM a game uses. They manage their in house offering, but the developer doesn’t have to use it if they don’t want to
-
100% agreed. just wish GOG was more linux friendly.
best of both worlds: piracy.
i wouldn’t pirate an indie game tho
Unless you already bought it
Much of the pirated games though will be GOG installers so might as well just install it with lutris/wine
yes
