this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
1501 points (98.1% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
552 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Valve argued in court that you do not own any title in your library and that they are a subscription based service. That's not very ethical.
Is that not true though? As much as we hate it, until you get given some transferrable proof of ownership of the game (like an NFT) and ability to play without being tied to one service, it's the unfortunate reality of online game services.
It's easy to go buy a physical game but when it's online, you don't own anything - yet
It's true. Pragmatically speaking if you don't have access to the server software you can't play it if the servers go down, and besides reverse engineering or the goodwill of the developers I'm not aware of any games with online components that continue to be playable after their servers are taken down.
Back in 2000-2012, a good lot of mainly singleplayer games had optional multiplayer modes. Think Halo, Starcraft, TRON, Titanfall, etc. Even DOOM 2016 had it. These games function with the servers down.
Something I haven't thought about in a while: In the early 2000s games where you made a direct connection to the other player without an intervening, third-party server were still a thing. You still see it in things like netplay functionality in emulators.
Is this still a thing at all in 2023? Imagine it would be very niche, but this comment made me curious.
It's still in Team Fortress 2 and Factorio
Well then allow me to name a few:
Battlefront 2 (the original), still active when the servers have been down for years
Titanfall 2. Official servers aren't technically down, but pretty much unusable and NorthStar is the alternative
Counter strike 1.6 is pretty much just community-run servers, same with day of defeat: source. I don't know if they are tied with valve that if valve shut them down, they wouldn't be searchable.
Supreme commander: Forged Alliance
Hell, Battle for Middle Earth II still has a small community
Valheim has never had official servers. I run my own via docker on debian
Unreal Tournament 1999
Minecraft (official servers aren't down, but if they shutdown there would still be 2000 servers)
Fundamentally I don't really know how it'd be viable to truly "own" a specific copy of something, when it's always possible to make infinitely many copies of it. Any such "ownership" is at best essentially just conceptual, aside from perhaps the legal right to annoy other people about the copies they are in possession of.
So instead my personal take is that I'd rather everything just be offered DRM-free. I don't necessarily need transferable ownership as much as I just need proper and guaranteed access under my own control after I purchase the product.
NFTs cannot have copies made (apart from by the publisher) and are ideally suited to this problem
But anything that exists as digital data can be copied. The same applies to NFTs. Make an NFT image or game or whatever, and it can be copied by whoever has access to it. The only way to prevent such copying is to not release it at all.
The only stipulation is that copies made without authorization of whoever holds the rights to it would not be "official" instances of the thing, and there are potential copyright restrictions on the use of such copies...but that's using NFTs to justify copyright law, and aside from "lol copyright", legal of ownership of an NFT is even more of a mess than traditional legal ownership of an IP.
You're talking about media linked to by existing NFTs. You can't copy an NFT and use it, you don't have the cryptographic keys to mint more. There is a finite number.
And what exactly is that NFT, as distinct from the media it's linked to, useful for? Aside from simply saying that it is unique and one can have ownership of it.
Cryptographic licence verification so you can play the game, say for example to use online services. Allows you to trade that licence to other people directly, no third party involvement to facilitate the trade. The game would pick it up and work. Anyone could download the game files but they only work if you own the game either by buying off someone directly or an official publisher
Any such verification depends on some other party to verify it. If the game requires online services, then the verification is dependent on the online services; the verification can't stand alone. But we already have existing systems for that without the need for NFTs.
On the other hand, if the game is a standalone game that doesn't require connecting to online services, then if the game can be made to run on one computer it can be made to run on another computer. No matter how you choose to assign ownership, you can't get around this. Videogames are fundamentally data, and data can be copied.
Besides...inventing a new NFT-based DRM? No matter how you do it, it's not going to be as convenient as simply not having DRM. A DRM-free game is one that anyone can just pick up and it'll work, too. You're proposing a "solution" that doesn't offer anything new, while opening up other cans of worms along the way.
Also, we already have peer to peer game trades/sales anyway, and we've had these, long before NFTs were a thing.
Here’s to throwing the baby out with the bathwater I guess
I can agree that Valve has done some good things, such as making digital distribution go big, making indie games viable, and doing a lot to advance gaming on Linux.
But I'd also argue that that doesn't obligate me to spend money to patronize them, particularly when I can get a better (by virtue of being DRM-free) product elsewhere.
You never owned any software, even before valve. All you ever purchased was a license key that could be revoked at any time.
That isn't a problem made by valve, it existed far before the whole company was even founded. The underlying issue is the way digital mediums are licensed and the corresponding copyright laws.
That's not really true. I still have physical media that I've purchased as a teenager. That's not a license key that I own that's physical media. It was independent of any licensing servers or anything like that. Digital media licensing didn't really start taking effect until about 2010ish en masse. Prior to that most streaming services like Netflix weren't really streaming services as internet infrastructure didn't quite exist to that degree yet.
They also forced developers to never price lower on any other platform than steam as a condition fire selling on steam. Which is not only unethical, it's illegal. Also the secret hardware changes to steam deck which people usually try to justify, but was shady no matter what.
That's not entirely true. Valve forces devs to not sell Steam keys lower on other sites without also going on sale on Steam in a reasonable close amount of time.
I know it sounds the same at first, but it's a drastic difference. You can generate as many Steam keys as you like and sell then on other sites, Valve won't see a single cent from these sales. They however still provide their online services and servers for free for all those keys sold on other sites. It is quite reasonable that they force you to match prices since they literally are losing money (albeit not much) if you sell on other platforms. And I don't mean lost sales, but infrastructure cost.
And additionally is this rule pretty much never enforced. AAA studios have special deals and indi devs aren't worth the hassle.
I can't speak to whether or not that is true, because it's not necessarily exclusive. Both can be correct. It's not what's in the antitrust lawsuit. it's not what I'm talking about either. The issue outlined in the antitrust suit is: *"Valve has for years maintained its dominance and thwarted effective competition by engaging in various anticompetitive acts. For example, Valve forces game publishers to agree to a Platform Most-Favored-Nations Clause (the “Valve PMFN”) as a requirement to access Steam. Valve explicitly requires that publishers agree that games sold elsewhere must be sold “in a similar way to how you sell your game on Steam” and publishers cannot “give Steam customers a worse deal” for games sold elsewhere,2 i.e., Valve prohibits publishers from giving consumers a better deal on other stores that compete with Steam. Valve interprets and enforces this language to encompass price parity, forcing game publishers to charge the inflated Steam Store price across the marketplace, on all game sales, even sales of games that are not enabled for Steam. Valve thus uses its PMFN to control the prices of games sold in the Steam Store and in other stores. Rather than lowering prices to Steam customers, Valve’s PMFN has the effect of reducing price competition and raising game prices." That's one of several complaints against Valve." * I'm really surprised so many people here of all places believe any corporation gives a shit about anything but their money. Corporations are never your friend. If they helped make piracy necessary it wasn't done for our benefit, it was done because it is profitable for them. Here's the complaint in case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC in it's entirety: https://www.steamclaims.com/_files/ugd/5210fb_80b19705e27549158fea02a16055b0e4.pdf
I never said valve is a friend, they simply are the more trustworthy party in this lawsuit. Two things about this:
I've never seen any proof of this MFN clause. I've read the Steamworks distribution agreement (which is hidden behind an NDA), I've read the steam TOS, I've looked through the steamworks documentation that is declared as legally binding in the contract, I've looked for screenshots or citations. There is nothing that would even suggest they are interfering with non-steamkey prices apart from what Wolfire games tells the court. (Who are, of course, coincidentally using the same Lawfirm as epic does, which makes this whole thing even more suspicious.)
This is the second time this lawsuit is brought up and there are pretty much no complaints from other devs, not even anonymous. Usually when lawsuits like this happen a bandwagon full of people come out to complain, twitter descends into a shitstorm and reddit digs out their aluminium foil hats. But there is absolutely nothing at the moment.
You are free to post any links with proof you have. Maybe the lawsuit will dig up something in Valve's basement. But as of now, everything we've seen is just one big accusation from Wolfire games.
You did not that's correct, that was meant more towards all of the people in the thread in general worshiping steam as a corporate savior. That was poor writing on my part. The things you mentioned are almost word for word the conjecture you find on Reddit and has not proof itself. I would love to see a copy of the MFN myself. Valve definitely admits they ask developers to offer similar prices according to their responses to other users, but won't deny it or produce a copy themselves of any MFN. All I'm saying is they're in a well deserved anti-trust suit that covers several topics beyond the MFN as detailed in the links I did provide. Their motions to dismissed have been slapped down because the judges feels there's enough evidence to proceed on at least some of the claims. I guess we'll see whether the case can prove itself or not and neither of us will really know until all of the evidence is presented. I'm not blindly believing they must be guilty, but it's hard to say Steam isn't a monopoly. There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Steam, but arguing that with the other people here is a bit like arguing with gun owners. People are willing to dismiss their principles about things that affect the macrocosm quickly when it could deprive them of something they personally enjoy.
They would probably have issues with publishers if you actually owned the titles.
It'd probably make them very heavily liable if for some reason Steam shut down, they had to make something unavailable for some reason, whatever.
This is exactly what happened actually in one of Valve's court cases. It wasn't that Steam went down, but rather the user was permabanned. When that ban happened he lost access to his game library. However, he had purchased those games so he argued successfully that he had a right to download what he purchased. Valve attempted to argue that they were a subscription service so that they would not have to provide anything to him. In the end since he won the case, he was allowed to download what he purchased. I'm sure that created a weird situation for those publishers and I'm not sure whether or not Steam had to remove the Steam DRM prior to allowing him to download.