(In a reasonable society) they can't have it both ways. Either the user owns the games or it is clearly labeled at the point of purchase in an unmissable way that they don't and the renting terms...
(In a reasonable society) they can't have it both ways. Either the user owns the games or it is clearly labeled at the point of purchase in an unmissable way that they don't and the renting terms are plainly explained. Not in ToS whose entire purpose is to not be read by the user.
Digital ownership should in my opininion involve at the bare minimum rights to resale and gurantee of unlimited access. How the seller gurantees that is their problem but the easiest way would be to release drm free copies usable on a standard system not under control of the seller.
Sadly the first condition just does not exist at this moment.
I quite like sution proposed by someone on Reddit. The first step is to replace Buy button with Rent everywhere. Maybe even with comment 'non refundable after ***'.
I quite like sution proposed by someone on Reddit. The first step is to replace Buy button with Rent everywhere. Maybe even with comment 'non refundable after ***'.
This entire thing reminds me of the old Pepsi contest when they ran an ad on television clearly implying it was possible to win a fighter jet. Then someone gathered enough points to win it as per...
This entire thing reminds me of the old Pepsi contest when they ran an ad on television clearly implying it was possible to win a fighter jet.
Then someone gathered enough points to win it as per the implied contract of the ad and lost in court since it was clearly unresonable. But of course it was not unreasonable to run something like that, aimed at children and not include disclaimers.
The absolute irony here is that, as a pirate, I own my games in a way actual customers never will. I can easily download a cracked copy of a game, install it into a USB stick. I can now go plug...
The absolute irony here is that, as a pirate, I own my games in a way actual customers never will. I can easily download a cracked copy of a game, install it into a USB stick. I can now go plug that into any computer, play it whenever I like, do whatever I want with it. No DRM, no activation limits, I de facto own that software far more than someone paying 70 dollars for it. With console games, I even have access to mods, cheats, romhacks, etc. it is a superior experience in almost every way. Like, there was a discussion around breakable weapons being a deal-breaker in Breath of the Wild. Something you can easily mod away if you have a jailbroken Switch or are emulating.
And it seems people just... accept that? That they'll have less right and privileges than someone getting it for free? I don't understand it.
A lot of that silent majority's stubbornness comes down to convenience, even at the cost of true ownership. Buying a digital game on any console is far easier and less intimidating than pirating...
A lot of that silent majority's stubbornness comes down to convenience, even at the cost of true ownership.
Buying a digital game on any console is far easier and less intimidating than pirating the same title and figuring out how to run it. For buying a game in a digital storefront, the process looks like this:
See the store icon -> browse until you find something you want -> hit "Buy" -> wait for the download to finish -> launch and play
It's basically as intuitive as ordering anything from any other online store.
Pirating a game, on the other hand, is far more involved. For that, they'll need to:
Find a trustworthy source
Navigate sketchy sites and pop-ups
Understand file types, extensions, and where to put files
Deal with installers, cracks, or launchers
Worry about malware and bans
Someone with solid experience in file managers, file extensions, basic security, and web browsing can usually find free game files quickly and safely. But it's a completely different story for the average user.
In an era where smartphones with clean, simple UIs dominate how people use the internet, most users will never need (or develop) those skills. Their lack of technical knowhow means piracy ends up requiring a lot more time, effort, and risk just to truly own the game files, while buying is a few clicks and done.
That makes sense. I think a large part of it is also the enjoyment of the process, which you like say might've ended with this generation. I bought a Retroid Pocket, but half of the fun is setting...
That makes sense. I think a large part of it is also the enjoyment of the process, which you like say might've ended with this generation. I bought a Retroid Pocket, but half of the fun is setting it up and tinkering with it. But like you mention, that means already being familiar with cemu and dolphin and duckstation. I don't think you need a lot of knowledge. I'm not a programmer or coder or engineer or anything. A lot of this feels like basic millenial knowledge anyone with a computer growing up in the 00s would've naturally accrued. But I'm probably wrong about this, I don't know.
I suppose that explains the changes to an extent. Piracy has always been a moderating influence on anti consumer behaviour. As pirates become rarer, moves like this will become more common, since there's less people that know they can easily get around it.
That said, anecdotally, it feels like there's been an explosion of piracy and emulation in the community. More and more recomps/decomps, retro consoles, unofficial ports, etc.
I'm a Millennial. I used to pirate music like crazy on Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, then torrents. As soon as Spotify became available in the US, I subscribed and almost entirely stopped pirating...
I'm a Millennial. I used to pirate music like crazy on Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, then torrents. As soon as Spotify became available in the US, I subscribed and almost entirely stopped pirating music. I've been a paying Spotify customer since like 2011, when Spotify got here. It's just easier to search a song in an app, and be able to play it on my phone, my computers, etc.
As a kid/teen, I dealt with warez and cracks. I used to frequent gamecopyworld. But once the Steam store came around, plus I started working and making money...it was just easier to not have to do any of that stuff. I want to play the game, not have to troubleshoot this janky-ass cracked version that's crashing my PC repeatedly. I work in IT today; I know my way around a computer. I troubleshoot plenty at work. I don't want to come home and keep doing that just to play a game.
About the only things I still pirate -- though still to a much lesser extent than back when I was in college -- are movies and shows. Because I have subscriptions to Prime Video and Crunchyroll and, up until pretty recently, to Netflix. But they don't have everything or they lose a license and content disappears. So pirating is still "necessary."
Anyway, I think it's too simplistic to say it's merely generational. In many ways, pirating, especially for music, movies, and shows, is easier than it ever was. Several of my friends use radarr and sonarr and have Plex or Jellyfin servers at home. And a lot of it us automated. Though do keep in mind, we're almost entirely IT/techy types.
Yet I imagine most people don't do it. Even back in high school and college, there was always a small group of us who were doing the pirating for everyone else. In college, there were like three of us who torrented movies for the rest of our friend group. We just shared our external HDDs around. In high school, I remember pirating music and burning CDs for my girlfriend and some of her friends. They didn't do that stuff. So I wouldn't even say these are "Millennial skills." Most Millennials may have beneficiaries of pirating, but I wouldn't say most pirated, themselves.
Convenience and price I think are the more important factors here. Convenience, we largely still have. Price, however, is definitely changing the equations for people. But is it enough to drive them to piracy? Time will tell. Even then, I imagine it'll be back to how it used to be: a few pirates doing all the dirty work for the rest of their social group.
Convenience is what drove me back into TV show/movie piracy. I don't mind paying for entertainment. I pay for a lot of it. What I do mind, is deciding I want to watch a movie searching the catalog...
Convenience is what drove me back into TV show/movie piracy.
I don't mind paying for entertainment. I pay for a lot of it. What I do mind, is deciding I want to watch a movie searching the catalog of a service I pay monthly for, not finding it, having to go online to figure out where I can pay for it, creating an account, putting my credit card info in, downloading the app, signing in, figuring out the subtly different interface, then setting a reminder to cancel the subscription when I'm done watching it.
Its just a pain in the ass, and I'm not going to subscribe to 10 different monthly services on the off chance I feel like watching a movie or show from them. There was a period of about 8 years when Netflix mostly had everything I wanted to watch, and I felt perfectly ok with paying for it. Those days are long gone, and at this point, piracy is way easier than dealing with the cluster fuck media companies have created out of pure greed, so fuck them, they don't get my money, and I watch their stuff for free.
If video games or music ever get to that point, I'll pirate them also. I have zero moral qualms with doing it.
I think everything you're on point with everything you're saying. Certainly I'm still surprised when friends from my generations don't really understand something like file types. I do think one...
I think everything you're on point with everything you're saying. Certainly I'm still surprised when friends from my generations don't really understand something like file types.
I do think one difference might be that I myself don't work in a tech field. I work in legal compliance, which mainly involved writing and talking to people. So I look forward to spending an hour figuring out how to get the Sega Saturn emulator to switch from disc 1 to disc 2 in Sakura Wars.
I buy most, but not all, of my media. Mostly it’s because I am in a financial position to be able to support the people who make things that I enjoy. It’s also convenience. If I buy a game on...
I buy most, but not all, of my media. Mostly it’s because I am in a financial position to be able to support the people who make things that I enjoy. It’s also convenience. If I buy a game on Steam, I know that I likely won’t have to mess around with proton, adding it as a non Steam game, finding all artwork sizes, etc. For audiobooks, it’s the same reason. Removing audibles drm now is quite simple, and I have it fully automated. Audibles metadata is always very accurate, and chapter markers and whatnot are in the files. I have and still do pirate audio books, but it always takes slightly more work to get the metadata how I want. For movies, I like apple’s convenience and the included extras.
However, for certain things, the convenience of piracy absolutely wins. I typically pirate all my ebooks. In part because getting the drm removed is a very manual and annoying process, and I need that to read them on my kobo. Also I almost always own the audiobook version legally, so I have supported the author for the work. I don’t feel bad about that. The one thing that is driving me to privacy for TV and movies is how awful so many streaming apps are, even on the relatively nice Apple TV. No, I never want autoplay. Not even if you want me to. And Netflix, with the playing of a clip from the show on the show screen, would you kindly fuck right off? I never want to hear it. Ever. I have been trying some time to get a setup that is reliable and consistent enough to replace the official apps, just to get a better user experience. But I haven’t found something that’s good enough yet. But I am still looking.
The thing that helps me is I can always fall back to piracy. I have audiobooks that audible has taken away from me, and I keep a copy drm free on my server. If I ever couldn’t play a game that I own because of drm, I would happily download a pirated copy.
We just had a moment like that for Netflix. My daughter really wanted to watch the next episode of a cartoon she liked, and whoops, it's not on Netflix anymore as of that day! Absolutely none of...
We just had a moment like that for Netflix. My daughter really wanted to watch the next episode of a cartoon she liked, and whoops, it's not on Netflix anymore as of that day!
Absolutely none of that. Go to one of my torrent sites, download the season, cast it to the TV, done, took five minutes. And I realise Netflix is operating under specific licensing agreements, but as a customer, piracy provided a better option than the streaming company, and didn't cost me 15 bucks a month.
And yeah, I suspect piracy is a fallback for a lot of people. If/when one of these big companies goes under and invalidates a bunch of people's user libraries, I suspect you'll get an explosion of piracy.
When Netflix lost The Office, it kicked up my piracy mechanations that had largely fallen dormant for 7 years. Sure, I was grabbing an odd show or two, but Plex was gone, none of the...
When Netflix lost The Office, it kicked up my piracy mechanations that had largely fallen dormant for 7 years. Sure, I was grabbing an odd show or two, but Plex was gone, none of the autodownloading functions were setup.
Now it's back to 2002 when I was broke and media was harder.
That's the thing with me too! After university, I had gone fully legitimate. Steam, Origin, physical stores, the whole nine yards. I kept a small collection of emulated GBA titles so I never lost...
That's the thing with me too! After university, I had gone fully legitimate. Steam, Origin, physical stores, the whole nine yards. I kept a small collection of emulated GBA titles so I never lost touch, but I had legitimately forgotten how to be a pirate for nearly two decades. Then the companies pushed and pushed and pushed, and then I needed to relearn PS2 emulation, after I bought a PS2 port on my PS4 that kept having bugs the original didn't have. And then why not figure out GameCube? Hey, why not jaikbreak my 3DS, since the eshop went down and I can't legally get the Fire Emblem Awakening DLC anymore, ever? And dust off the Vita, jailbreak that too.
Wait, why am I wasting my time like this? Why not just get a Retroid Pocket 5 and just have all the emulators there? And hey, my Switch is acting weird, replacing it is expansive, and the Switch 2 prices in my country are insane. So why not try to emulate the Switch? Hey, it works! How many titles can I download?
And once you figure all of this out, it's harder to go back, because it's just as easy (or easier) to get a Switch game, but instead of 70 American dollars, it's free, and you can go to gamebanana and get mods, turn on or off updates and DLC, do whatever.
I have a problem with an Ubisoft switch game: the just dance series. They were charging and arm and a leg but I put up with it, until they just removed the option to extend subscription...
I have a problem with an Ubisoft switch game: the just dance series. They were charging and arm and a leg but I put up with it, until they just removed the option to extend subscription entirely!!!!
As someone who's never done anything with the Nintendo piracy scene, can you help point me in the right direction to just keep playing a game I've paid hundreds of dollars for already?
With Nintendo, there's a huge difference between just general Nintendo (Game Boy through Wii U) and the Switch specifically. Emulating GB to the Wii is pretty easy, both in Windows and Android....
With Nintendo, there's a huge difference between just general Nintendo (Game Boy through Wii U) and the Switch specifically.
Emulating GB to the Wii is pretty easy, both in Windows and Android. The Wii U starts getting a tiny more complicated, because then you might want to deal with th Wii U downloader. The Switch is easy again, but because development is ongoing and because that development stops and starts, not every game is compatible out of the box. The difficulty of the Switch is getting the roms (games). Basic roms sites that carry every other platform won't carry Switch roms, you generally have to go to specialised sites for that. On Android, this is when you have to start trying out different drivers too. You also need to get firmware and keys.
I'm happy to discuss with you, but probably over PM.
So you know, libro.fm gives you DRM-free audio books at the same subscription price as Audible but they pay authors better than Audible does (when they choose not to sell exclusively on Audible)...
So you know, libro.fm gives you DRM-free audio books at the same subscription price as Audible but they pay authors better than Audible does (when they choose not to sell exclusively on Audible) and a portion of the retailer share goes to a bookstore of your choosing.
Regular pitrate with a libro.fm sub right here. If I can get it on libro.fm, I'll buy it. If it's not, I'll check the library apps. If not there, I'll pirate it.
Regular pitrate with a libro.fm sub right here. If I can get it on libro.fm, I'll buy it. If it's not, I'll check the library apps. If not there, I'll pirate it.
I’ve used them in the past. I love the idea, and I like that a service like that exists, but I don’t use them for a few reasons. Price: It’s only the same price when compared with the lowest...
I’ve used them in the past. I love the idea, and I like that a service like that exists, but I don’t use them for a few reasons.
Price: It’s only the same price when compared with the lowest audible subscription. I have the 24 credit per year sub, which comes out to around $10/credit. So libro.fm is 50% more expensive.
Selection: Unfortunately audibles exclusivity program is very effective. When I maintained both audible and libro.fm subs, I had trouble using my libro credits because probably 2/3 or more of the books I wanted were exclusives. It sucks, but ultimately it works.
Metadata and file type: This is the big one for me. In audible, files always have chapters, are distributed in high quality aac (once you remove the drm), have all the metadata like author, narrator, etc, and if chapters names exist, they are populated. I have books I bought from libro that contain exactly zero metadata and the chapter names are “part 1 of 36.mp3” in an m4b container. Not the end of the world, but it does mean that any given book purchase is a gamble that I might have to spend 5-15 minutes fixing the metadata so it shows up right in audiobookshelf.
I trialed it for a long time, but ultimately decided it’s not for me. I think if they offered a bulk credit purchase to get the price down, I would deal with the other issues. But an extra $120 or so per year for the rate I buy audiobooks is not an insignificant chunk of change. And the extra kick in the teeth of extra work to fix the metadata doesn’t make me feel good about it.
I know this is an extreme tangent but I am sooooo pissed off how every fricking streaming app needs to waste my time with their fricking song and dance logo video whenever I start up their app. I...
I know this is an extreme tangent but I am sooooo pissed off how every fricking streaming app needs to waste my time with their fricking song and dance logo video whenever I start up their app. I already know what app I am using! It’s the one I tapped on!
Actually the worst thing is that my banking apps do it too.
I think a lot of the time they do that to disguise the loading process in the background. It feels better for most people to see a splash screen instead of waiting for a UI to load. In some cases...
I think a lot of the time they do that to disguise the loading process in the background. It feels better for most people to see a splash screen instead of waiting for a UI to load. In some cases that's either not the case though, or the splash screen takes longer than the loading would have normally. Fuck that.
The thing that really pisses me off is that if I'm watching on my phone, I'm watching the same things that I've been watching or that are on my watchlist. Those should already be cached. There...
The thing that really pisses me off is that if I'm watching on my phone, I'm watching the same things that I've been watching or that are on my watchlist. Those should already be cached. There shouldn't be anything that needs to load, but they want to show me new things to annoy me instead.
It reminds me of that meme of pirating DVDs where normal DVD: Insert disc, see the "Don't copy", see five trailers, see another "Don't copy", see how punished you could be when you copy, see...
It reminds me of that meme of pirating DVDs where normal DVD: Insert disc, see the "Don't copy", see five trailers, see another "Don't copy", see how punished you could be when you copy, see standards used, see menu, hit "Play", watch movie. In the meantime, pirates: Insert disc, watch movie.
What you say is true. Pirates own more nowadays than regular customers do.
Sidenote about Breath of the Wild: Am I the only one, who actually likes breakable weapons? It made me use lesser ones normally and keep good ones for bosses. And I ended up with inventory full only the good ones anyway eventually.
Re BOTW, there are exactly two camps on this, and you belong to the lucky one! You're playing the game as it was designed, and that's probably for the best. For me, I hate hate hate my weapons...
Re BOTW, there are exactly two camps on this, and you belong to the lucky one! You're playing the game as it was designed, and that's probably for the best. For me, I hate hate hate my weapons breaking. I don't play Zelda to be careful with my weapons! Yes, logically, I will find better weapons. But when I find a cool weapon in BotW, it's not exciting if it's going to last 7 hits. It's like finding ammo.
Modding that away messes with the game balance, but also makes the game fun for me, because I get to use whatever cool weapons I want whenever I want. Without that, I legitimately wouldn't be able to play the game at all.
To be honest, I was kinda... a bit furious when I first understood that even good weapons break. But then I was kinda "meh, whatever" and started shuffling my weapons in the inventory only to...
To be honest, I was kinda... a bit furious when I first understood that even good weapons break. But then I was kinda "meh, whatever" and started shuffling my weapons in the inventory only to realize that even the best ones will be quite abundant later in the game.
I don't mod my games, generally speaking. The game either have to be good or I don't play it. BotW is one of the best modern era games (say 2010+) and even with this mechanic, I don't feel the need to mod the game. And I can say that because my next playthrough will be emulated on Steam Deck, which kinda brings me to being a pirate in someone's eyes. But hey! I own the original cartridge of the game, so I'm clear by my standards.
Actually I also have set up Vice City and San Andreas in emulator, ready to be played. And I also own PS2 discs of the games. What a strange way to play games in this time... But when you want to play on the hardware of your choice and without launchers or botched ports or remasters, what you gonna do?
I think it's a psychological thing, and it either affects you or it doesn't. I think I mod the majority of my games there days, if there's something good. Before I start a game, I'll look up if...
I think it's a psychological thing, and it either affects you or it doesn't.
I think I mod the majority of my games there days, if there's something good. Before I start a game, I'll look up if there's mods and romhacks, particularly if it's a retro game. A lot of time, it's the definitive version of the game.
And yeah, similar. While I'll pirate anything from a big corp, I don't really like doing it for indies. So I'll usually buy it, but then pirate it anyway in whatever format I wanted to have it depending on where I want to play it (my retro console or my computer). I had bought One Way Heroics on Steam, but decided I wanted to play it on my retroid pocket, so first tried using GameNative to run in. That was a bit of a faff, so then I just downloaded the Switch version, which works great.
Piracy is part of it, but a really huge thing for me (especially as a dad) is save states. Particularly with these old RPGs I like to play, I almost always prefer emulate solely because of save states, and the above lity to save scum through bullshit mechanics, or just leave when I need to leave.
I don't do even that. If big corp makes a game that isn't worth the money, it isn't worth the time for me as well - example being GTA5 or AC: Black Flag. GTA5 has great missions and that's it,...
While I'll pirate anything from a big corp, I don't really like doing it for indies
I don't do even that. If big corp makes a game that isn't worth the money, it isn't worth the time for me as well - example being GTA5 or AC: Black Flag. GTA5 has great missions and that's it, nothing more (well, it also looks good), but is plagued with launcher - I'm not coping with that, so I don't play the game, it's not worth playing for me. Black Flag is masterpiece, but once again, launcher... Well, I'm not buying the game then. And while it is great, I won't even pirate it (what a paradox!) - They fucked up and that's the end of the game for me. And when I speak with people, I always say that Ubisoft made the game in a way I can't enjoy it (due to launcher) thus the game as a whole is bad.
I don't do emulation or retro much, just for the games that I want to play on Steam Deck and there is no official way to do so.
Nah. I'm not one of them though. It makes weapons feel entirely disposable. Even the super rare awesome ones. I don't mind weapon durability in games if 1. It happens at a reasonable rate, and 2....
Sidenote about Breath of the Wild: Am I the only one, who actually likes breakable weapons?
Nah. I'm not one of them though. It makes weapons feel entirely disposable. Even the super rare awesome ones. I don't mind weapon durability in games if 1. It happens at a reasonable rate, and 2. Its temporary, with a sustainable wait to maintain weapons. BoTW fails on both of those fronts.
I can find an awesome endgame sword, and the thing seriously lasts like 30 hits. Even the cheapest harbor freight wrench I've ever bought allows me to turn a bolt more than 30 times. Using those weapons reminds me of the chairs and furniture in old wrestling games that you could use as improvised weapons. You could hit someone with it and it would last a few hits and then fall apart. Makes sense and feels grounded when talking about a chair, not so much when talking about a masterfully crafted sword.
But to each their own, I understand the point about using a variety of weapons, and I'm usually very into systems that force players to do that, I just wish it was done in a different way
I always think its hilarious when i pop a real dvd in and the first thing i see is an unskippable threat to me by a foreign federal agency. And how those are the first thing to get patched out of...
I always think its hilarious when i pop a real dvd in and the first thing i see is an unskippable threat to me by a foreign federal agency. And how those are the first thing to get patched out of reuploaded movies. Same with ads.
People just love to get conditioned to expect worse circumstances. They cant get enough of being the frog in the slowly boiling water. These were the same people who two years ago were crying about how the water is totally a normal temperature and microsoft should definitely be allowed to spend a record smashing amount of money on the purchase of activision-blizzard. I see Xbox's failing, sputtering now, being Sony's opening to capitalize on their market dominance from that (and other) mistake(s). We saw it the other way around when xbox tried its post 360 era shenanigans.
I don't know why so many people are dismissive of this and we STILL haven't really even begun to engage with what happens with our digital purchases when we want to sell them or die. As the OP...
I don't know why so many people are dismissive of this and we STILL haven't really even begun to engage with what happens with our digital purchases when we want to sell them or die.
As the OP mentioned, at the moment, ALL companies, not just SONY are wanting it every which way possible. They want you to BUY something at full price, have no rights to it's continued use or even acces, and no rights to sell it or pass it on, all while misrepresenting the fact that you own it. And they are getting their own way because people are like "Well, I haven't bought a physical game in years, and haven't been personally affected, so whatever. They can do what they want."
Steam laid a good groundwork with Family sharing I think. All they need yet is an account-transfer function with some reasonable requirements (5+ years in the family group or something, max of X...
Steam laid a good groundwork with Family sharing I think.
All they need yet is an account-transfer function with some reasonable requirements (5+ years in the family group or something, max of X games per month/year).
It would be better to have formally legalized account transfer/sharing, but that has a snowball's chance in hell of being passed.
All video games are digital...do people think BluRays have a range of values that can be "zeroish" or "almost one?" Also, I find it obnoxious that this has been the norm in the Steam-monopoly...
All video games are digital...do people think BluRays have a range of values that can be "zeroish" or "almost one?"
Also, I find it obnoxious that this has been the norm in the Steam-monopoly world for twenty years, and suddenly people only care when Sony makes a symbolic change...the vast majority of game sales are sold online through PSN.
I do believe first sale doctrine should apply to all software and electronic media sales, but the recent framing smells like childish anti-console stuff.
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, for multiple reasons. First of all, Steam provides an enormous amount of value - refunds, sales, features. Sony can’t even hold a candle to it. It is also not...
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, for multiple reasons. First of all, Steam provides an enormous amount of value - refunds, sales, features. Sony can’t even hold a candle to it.
It is also not a monopoly - on a PC, you are free to install from anyone & anywhere. People just choose Steam over its competitors. On a fully digital Playstation, it’s the PS Store - or bust.
Steam is a market leader for sure, but only because its competition is more or less utterly inept. They’ve also never done anything to enforce unfair practices, quite the opposite: investing in FOSS support (gaming on Linux), generous, no questions asked refund windows. And treating their customers right. On a PlayStation, as soon as you hit “Download” you are unable to refund the game anymore, and that’s only because they’re being mandated by EU law.
Steam has cornered the market because they provide value to their customers. Sony is vying for a monopoly by locking down their hardware & extracting maximum profits from its users. As the meme says: they are not the same.
Unequivocally false. Both have similar refund policies (14 days from purchase, Steam limits to two hours, PSN is prior to download), both have similar social features, and there's literally a...
First of all, Steam provides an enormous amount of value - refunds, sales, features. Sony can’t even hold a candle to it.
Unequivocally false. Both have similar refund policies (14 days from purchase, Steam limits to two hours, PSN is prior to download), both have similar social features, and there's literally a summer sale going on right now on PSN. I picked up an Assassin's Creed game for $8. Palworld's 30% off. Jedi Survivor is 74% off. Etc. (Valve also had to be forced, either by Australia or the EU to offer said policy.)
It is also not a monopoly - on a PC, you are free to install from anyone & anywhere. People just choose Steam over its competitors.
That does not make something not a monopoly. They have the dominant market position and the most influence on the overall market, with little to no meaningful competition.
Unlike Valve, Sony has also never stolen a game I've purchased from me. I paid full retail for CS:GO, and they one day discontinued support for my platform and launched "Counter-Strike 2," rendering the other unplayable and replacing it.
Sony provides an unparalleled quality gaming appliance that requires zero maintenance and accommodates playing in a living room.
I'm sorry, the PSN refund window is prior to download? What's the point then, if by the time you download it you have already nullified your ability to refund it. At least with Steam you can run...
I'm sorry, the PSN refund window is prior to download? What's the point then, if by the time you download it you have already nullified your ability to refund it. At least with Steam you can run the game at least once to make sure it works and is something you feel was properly worth your money. Two hours may not be enough, but its something compared to "prior to download." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but thats not parity at all in that instance.
Additionally, you can and always could continue to play CS:GO through the beta branch feature, and last I heard it still had an active enough player base to find matches. It definitely still sucks though, making the forums and achievements and reviews for both games merge together is a messy & unnecessary move. And PlayStation would do the exact same thing if they decided it suited their interests. So if anything both scenarios just reinforce why we need better digital purchasing/ownership rights as consumers.
I think it's genuinely interesting that people refuse to accept that Steam is a monopoly, and if they ARE a monopoly, that's okay, because they are Steam and they are a cool and good monopoly.
I think it's genuinely interesting that people refuse to accept that Steam is a monopoly, and if they ARE a monopoly, that's okay, because they are Steam and they are a cool and good monopoly.
I mean, clicking the 'free game' button on Epic every time it popped up whenever I loaded up Fortnight gave me a library that easily rivals my Steam library. Yet I almost never play any game on...
I mean, clicking the 'free game' button on Epic every time it popped up whenever I loaded up Fortnight gave me a library that easily rivals my Steam library. Yet I almost never play any game on it, even games that were on my wishlist from Steam, and some which I later bought on Steam anyway. Their attempt to jumpstart giant game libraties is almost definitive proof that it's not *just" about the game library.
Because Steam invested the time for Linux in a way that no other company did. They developed an amazing control accessibility framework that works with literally any game that lets the Steam Overlay work.
Blizzard was the second-closest because all their titles worked virtually flawlessly in Wine.
GoG had my business for awhile. But not supporting Galaxy on Linux basically further entrenched me on Steam.
Uplay? Origin? Any store from Microsoft? Hot garbage. I refuse to trust any Microsoft game store after losing several games.
The barrier to releasing a new game storefront is huge now, especially since I have one simple requirement: It has to work on Linux (the Steam Deck in particular) with virtually 0 futzing.
Last I checked,Valve isn't throwing their dominance as a storefront to force adoptions of other products like Microsoft, Google, or Apple do. They're (to the best of my knowledge) not mandating exclusively contracts for developers to sell their game on Steam. They're not even stopping someone from flashing their own OS on the Steam hardware, Epic could swoop in tomorrow and deploy "Epic OS" if they so chose.
Valve is seemingly the one company that has not succumbed to enshittification, and I think their relative openess is no small part of that.
Is Steam a monopoly (from a consumer's perspective)? I've never had any issues buying games on GOG or itch.io. From a developer's perspective, though, I agree it's a lot closer to a monopoly.
Is Steam a monopoly (from a consumer's perspective)? I've never had any issues buying games on GOG or itch.io.
From a developer's perspective, though, I agree it's a lot closer to a monopoly.
I dont know, it's not very surprising that people like the monopoly that treats them well and has for decades. Steam is probably one of the most consumer friendly companies in the industry, and by...
I dont know, it's not very surprising that people like the monopoly that treats them well and has for decades. Steam is probably one of the most consumer friendly companies in the industry, and by far the most consumer friendly platform in gaming among the major players. Not to mention how entrenched people are in its ecosystem/communites after said decades. Most people arent thinking about it that deeply or at all, and Steam isn't obviously harmful at a glance. Even though it does still do harmful monopoly things, it's usually not harmful to their users.
They are "consumer friendly" . . . for now. As I mentioned elsewhere, they were taken heavily to task by Australian regulators in Federal court and were found to have been not particularly...
They are "consumer friendly" . . . for now. As I mentioned elsewhere, they were taken heavily to task by Australian regulators in Federal court and were found to have been not particularly consumer friendly. I like Valve. I love Steam. I use it daily. I believe they are consumer friendly in the same way that any company is: it makes better financial sense at this point in time to be consumer friendly.
This a good point, I remembered the case but never actually read the full media release. Thanks for bringing it back up. Here's hoping we get better consumer rights before they decide its no...
This a good point, I remembered the case but never actually read the full media release. Thanks for bringing it back up. Here's hoping we get better consumer rights before they decide its no longer worth it.
Only because in 2014 ACCC took them to court in Australia and Valve lost the case. Worth noting that Valve’s current refund policy still technically doesn’t comply with Australian consumer law but...
generous, no questions asked refund windows.
Only because in 2014 ACCC took them to court in Australia and Valve lost the case. Worth noting that Valve’s current refund policy still technically doesn’t comply with Australian consumer law but it bandaid-covers the majority of cases.
I should probably caveat that both Steam and PSN have (true as at today at least) added arse-covering clauses so that they’re not explicitly breaking the law: Steam Valve will, upon request via...
I should probably caveat that both Steam and PSN have (true as at today at least) added arse-covering clauses so that they’re not explicitly breaking the law:
Steam
Valve will, upon request via help.steampowered.com, issue a refund for any reason, if the request is made within the required return period, and, in the case of games, if the title has been played for less than two hours.
There are more details below, but even if you fall outside of the refund rules we’ve described, you can ask for a refund anyway and we’ll take a look. Consumers in some jurisdictions may have additional rights to a refund in circumstances where the game is faulty.
PlayStation
Depending on the type of product, you may be able to request a refund if you’ve changed your mind about a PlayStation Store purchase.
In addition to the below, you may have additional rights under applicable local law, such as if your content is faulty. Nothing in the below limits or replaces any such rights under local law.
(added emphasis to arse-covering)
However, I’ve had a game fail to meet my (I would like to claim “reasonable”) expectations and be denied a refund because it didn’t fall under Steam’s general policy. I don’t have the time or money to take the issue to court, but perhaps if it happens enough in similar situations, someday I might see a class action. Probably unlikely to actually happen.
It’s pretty clever (if also insidious) to have a refund policy that’s technically more generous in most situations as a way to placate 90% of your user base, so that the people genuinely ripped off are dispersed enough that you don’t have to deal with them. If they tried the same refund policy trick in a bricks-and-mortar store I think the outcome would be different.
Steam was taken to court in Australia by the federal consumer affairs department and ordered to pay a significant fine over their misleading refund policies....
Steam was taken to court in Australia by the federal consumer affairs department and ordered to pay a significant fine over their misleading refund policies.
So was Sony. The result: Everyone in the world gets Australia's refund policy when they buy from Steam, but only Australian customers get Australia's refund policy when they buy from Sony (and...
The result: Everyone in the world gets Australia's refund policy when they buy from Steam, but only Australian customers get Australia's refund policy when they buy from Sony (and they have to jump through hoops to prove it, like providing an ACCC ticket number).
As a PC gamer I did find it a little strange just how pissed everyone was about the no disk thing. I think the lasy physical game I bought was something for the wii. But seeing court cases like...
As a PC gamer I did find it a little strange just how pissed everyone was about the no disk thing. I think the lasy physical game I bought was something for the wii.
But seeing court cases like this where they're saying "well obviously no one owns the game they buy. Everyone knows that!" is making things a lot clearer
As someone who owns all the Playstations, from an original PS1 through a PS5 with disk, and plays only games on disk on them, I am just not planning to buy another Playstation after this decision....
As someone who owns all the Playstations, from an original PS1 through a PS5 with disk, and plays only games on disk on them, I am just not planning to buy another Playstation after this decision. I am not outraged, upset, or posting about it online.
Sony just removed the only advantage to having a console for me, which was that I could at any time hook it up, turn it on, insert the game disc I want to play, and play it. With that feature gone, there's nothing that makes a Playstation better than a PC.
I'm convinced that half of all consumer protection laws only exist because the company pissed off the wrong person on the wrong day, who then took a solumn vow to get justice no matter the cost.
I'm convinced that half of all consumer protection laws only exist because the company pissed off the wrong person on the wrong day, who then took a solumn vow to get justice no matter the cost.
They didnt offer a meaningful benefit for customers in return. Its only net negatives for everybody but Sony, and they arent even trying to hide it. I suspect if they made a disc to digital...
They didnt offer a meaningful benefit for customers in return. Its only net negatives for everybody but Sony, and they arent even trying to hide it. I suspect if they made a disc to digital program like Xbox and a resale market on digital copies then there would be less pushback from consumers, but retail game businesses would still pushback.
It has been an issue before, but again, people eventually succumbed and accepted it because what other option did they have? It doesn’t mean it’s good. If steam wiped your games library because of...
It has been an issue before, but again, people eventually succumbed and accepted it because what other option did they have? It doesn’t mean it’s good.
If steam wiped your games library because of various contractual and licensing issues developers and publishers had, I am sure all the PC gamers would calmly say “Well, I always knew I was only renting these games. Sucks, but that’s in the TOS.”
I find it interesting that so many people are completely fine with renting things (even when the shopping button say “buy”) in some areas but completely against it others. Steam good, Adobe evil.
I think that has a lot more to do with Valve being generally seen as an overall hugely positive force in gaming, with a history of very few anti-consumer decisions versus basically any company in...
I think that has a lot more to do with Valve being generally seen as an overall hugely positive force in gaming, with a history of very few anti-consumer decisions versus basically any company in the world with the same amount of revenue.
People generally trust Valve not to fuck them over. They don't trust Adobe, or Sony, or Microsoft to do the same. A lot of that is that Valve is privately owned unlike all of those other companies, but just as importantly is who is running it. Gabe Newell has spent decades at this point consistently building up the trust of its customers in a way that few modern companies have.
Valve has always been an absolute anomaly, not only in the gaming space, but for a business as a whole, almost entirely because of Gabe Newell.
Once Gabe retires or god forbid, passes away, I think a lot of PC gamers will view their Steam libraries much more skeptically.
I for one would pirate every title I cared about, then do what I do for audiobooks and music: buy from my preferred DRM-free source, and pirate it otherwise. I'm convinced Valve is only as good as...
I for one would pirate every title I cared about, then do what I do for audiobooks and music: buy from my preferred DRM-free source, and pirate it otherwise.
I'm convinced Valve is only as good as they are because they know they stand on a house of cards.
The big difference there is that photoshop was a product you bought that later switched to a subscription. If you suddenly had to pay a monthly fee to keep your steam library, people would be...
The big difference there is that photoshop was a product you bought that later switched to a subscription.
If you suddenly had to pay a monthly fee to keep your steam library, people would be pretty pissed
Consoles (were) far ahead (or behind, depending how you look at it) of PC when it comes to game ownership. There's historically been far less of a need for software DRM in consoles because they...
Consoles (were) far ahead (or behind, depending how you look at it) of PC when it comes to game ownership.
There's historically been far less of a need for software DRM in consoles because they control both the platform and the media, so very effective hardware DRM could be implemented that made owning a disc synonymous with owning a game.
That hasn't been the case with PC games since... Ever really, so publishers had to invent new ways to do DRM like CD keys or online DRM platforms.
One of the beauties of console gaming has always been that if your friend wants to check out a game you owned, you could just give them the disc. If you no longer played a game, you could just sell it on eBay or trade it in.
On consoles, games were physical objects. On PC, they never really were.
If I was a console gamer, I would be pretty pissed off if that paradigm changed.
As a PC gamer, I'm frankly a little jealous of how good they'd had it for so long. I have probably tens of thousands of dollars of games on steam that I don't play, and likely will never play again. It would be nice to be able to sell them to someone who would.
Eh, in small pockets, but not predominantly. There were discs that were sold of course, but there's been a very strong culture of sharing game code among PC gaming independent of the media it was...
Eh, in small pockets, but not predominantly. There were discs that were sold of course, but there's been a very strong culture of sharing game code among PC gaming independent of the media it was on from the very beginning. Spacewar was freely distributed amongst university staff. Commodore 64 games were given out as source code in the backs of magazines. Shareware was an extremely popular software distribution model. You just gave the disks to your friend to copy, and if they liked it, they'd buy a license key.
Consoles never worked that way. They had cartridges you bought, and that was the game. The game didn't exist independently of the media it was on.
It honestly reeks of net-wide astroturf. The hoopla started around the time Microsoft announced their major layoffs, and that got buried in this...despite the fact that has more far reaching...
It honestly reeks of net-wide astroturf. The hoopla started around the time Microsoft announced their major layoffs, and that got buried in this...despite the fact that has more far reaching consequences.
The last PC game I bought on a disc would have been around 2008, and I bought many more online in subsequent years. Since switching to Sony and Nintendo over the past ~5 years, I've bought some, if I know it's something I want to lend to other people, but mostly it's just a worse experience: PSN has better sales than retail, and you can switch games quickly without changing a disc. It also takes longer to install from a disc than download, because 100Mb+ exceeds BluRay transfer speed.
Sony also has been selling games online since the PS3, so there's a twenty year track record: all PS4 games seamlessly are downloadable to a PS5 (same architecture) years later. PS3s are wildly different hardware architecture, but all purchased games are still downloadable. (The store is closed and you can't buy new PS3 games though.)
And money is fake as well, going by that logic. At least, as of 1973 in my country. They get a license to grab zeroes and ones from a server. So yes, it has value in that utility. I wouldn't call...
All video games are digital.
And money is fake as well, going by that logic. At least, as of 1973 in my country.
do people think BluRays have a range of values that can be "zeroish" or "almost one?"
They get a license to grab zeroes and ones from a server. So yes, it has value in that utility.
find it obnoxious that this has been the norm in the Steam-monopoly world for twenty years, and suddenly people only care when Sony makes a symbolic change
I wouldn't call myself a PC gamer per se. I have a PC collection, but it's "only" maybe a few hundred games spread throughout a dozen vendors over the course of 15 years. My physcial collection is not far off in size from my digital one.
So it's not "symbolic" for me. Being able to own a disc for media I cared about was a large draw in how I shaped my shopping habits.
the vast majority of game sales are sold online through PSN.
Okay. I'm not really here because I'm "the vast majority of people".
but the recent framing smells like childish anti-console stuff.
I can only speak for myself on the matter.
But I think it goes beyond childish when it's up in courts and we regularly use "reasonable person standard" worldwide. It's what makes court systems ones run by humans, not strict legal definitions (which are made by humans).
Another article here about using the oft forced arbitration clause to try to escape responsibility. I have zero idea how that is legal by the way. I simply wish to highlight the following I've...
Another article here about using the oft forced arbitration clause to try to escape responsibility. I have zero idea how that is legal by the way.
I simply wish to highlight the following
Sony highlights that Heycock bought Resident Evil Requiem for $69.99 on February 25, 2026, 11 days after co-plaintiff Jason Mendoza bought the same game, and argues that if a purchase conveyed ownership, Mendoza would have owned the title and Heycock’s transaction couldn’t have happened.
I've have seen this argument a few times and simply do not understand how it is not dismissed immediately. There is ownership of the game which includes all the rights to it. Then there is ownership ower the sole copy of the game.
There really needs to be a clarification appended before any claims such as these are made it seems. Owning the full rights to digital products upon store purchase is not reasonable. I think expecting rights over the copy is.
(In a reasonable society) they can't have it both ways. Either the user owns the games or it is clearly labeled at the point of purchase in an unmissable way that they don't and the renting terms are plainly explained. Not in ToS whose entire purpose is to not be read by the user.
Digital ownership should in my opininion involve at the bare minimum rights to resale and gurantee of unlimited access. How the seller gurantees that is their problem but the easiest way would be to release drm free copies usable on a standard system not under control of the seller.
Sadly the first condition just does not exist at this moment.
I quite like sution proposed by someone on Reddit. The first step is to replace Buy button with Rent everywhere. Maybe even with comment 'non refundable after ***'.
Or, for example on Amazon, they should have:
Rent (24 hours) - $19.99
Rent (until we take it away) - $24.99
This entire thing reminds me of the old Pepsi contest when they ran an ad on television clearly implying it was possible to win a fighter jet.
Then someone gathered enough points to win it as per the implied contract of the ad and lost in court since it was clearly unresonable. But of course it was not unreasonable to run something like that, aimed at children and not include disclaimers.
Link for those curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
The absolute irony here is that, as a pirate, I own my games in a way actual customers never will. I can easily download a cracked copy of a game, install it into a USB stick. I can now go plug that into any computer, play it whenever I like, do whatever I want with it. No DRM, no activation limits, I de facto own that software far more than someone paying 70 dollars for it. With console games, I even have access to mods, cheats, romhacks, etc. it is a superior experience in almost every way. Like, there was a discussion around breakable weapons being a deal-breaker in Breath of the Wild. Something you can easily mod away if you have a jailbroken Switch or are emulating.
And it seems people just... accept that? That they'll have less right and privileges than someone getting it for free? I don't understand it.
A lot of that silent majority's stubbornness comes down to convenience, even at the cost of true ownership.
Buying a digital game on any console is far easier and less intimidating than pirating the same title and figuring out how to run it. For buying a game in a digital storefront, the process looks like this:
See the store icon -> browse until you find something you want -> hit "Buy" -> wait for the download to finish -> launch and play
It's basically as intuitive as ordering anything from any other online store.
Pirating a game, on the other hand, is far more involved. For that, they'll need to:
Someone with solid experience in file managers, file extensions, basic security, and web browsing can usually find free game files quickly and safely. But it's a completely different story for the average user.
In an era where smartphones with clean, simple UIs dominate how people use the internet, most users will never need (or develop) those skills. Their lack of technical knowhow means piracy ends up requiring a lot more time, effort, and risk just to truly own the game files, while buying is a few clicks and done.
That makes sense. I think a large part of it is also the enjoyment of the process, which you like say might've ended with this generation. I bought a Retroid Pocket, but half of the fun is setting it up and tinkering with it. But like you mention, that means already being familiar with cemu and dolphin and duckstation. I don't think you need a lot of knowledge. I'm not a programmer or coder or engineer or anything. A lot of this feels like basic millenial knowledge anyone with a computer growing up in the 00s would've naturally accrued. But I'm probably wrong about this, I don't know.
I suppose that explains the changes to an extent. Piracy has always been a moderating influence on anti consumer behaviour. As pirates become rarer, moves like this will become more common, since there's less people that know they can easily get around it.
That said, anecdotally, it feels like there's been an explosion of piracy and emulation in the community. More and more recomps/decomps, retro consoles, unofficial ports, etc.
I'm a Millennial. I used to pirate music like crazy on Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, then torrents. As soon as Spotify became available in the US, I subscribed and almost entirely stopped pirating music. I've been a paying Spotify customer since like 2011, when Spotify got here. It's just easier to search a song in an app, and be able to play it on my phone, my computers, etc.
As a kid/teen, I dealt with warez and cracks. I used to frequent gamecopyworld. But once the Steam store came around, plus I started working and making money...it was just easier to not have to do any of that stuff. I want to play the game, not have to troubleshoot this janky-ass cracked version that's crashing my PC repeatedly. I work in IT today; I know my way around a computer. I troubleshoot plenty at work. I don't want to come home and keep doing that just to play a game.
About the only things I still pirate -- though still to a much lesser extent than back when I was in college -- are movies and shows. Because I have subscriptions to Prime Video and Crunchyroll and, up until pretty recently, to Netflix. But they don't have everything or they lose a license and content disappears. So pirating is still "necessary."
Anyway, I think it's too simplistic to say it's merely generational. In many ways, pirating, especially for music, movies, and shows, is easier than it ever was. Several of my friends use radarr and sonarr and have Plex or Jellyfin servers at home. And a lot of it us automated. Though do keep in mind, we're almost entirely IT/techy types.
Yet I imagine most people don't do it. Even back in high school and college, there was always a small group of us who were doing the pirating for everyone else. In college, there were like three of us who torrented movies for the rest of our friend group. We just shared our external HDDs around. In high school, I remember pirating music and burning CDs for my girlfriend and some of her friends. They didn't do that stuff. So I wouldn't even say these are "Millennial skills." Most Millennials may have beneficiaries of pirating, but I wouldn't say most pirated, themselves.
Convenience and price I think are the more important factors here. Convenience, we largely still have. Price, however, is definitely changing the equations for people. But is it enough to drive them to piracy? Time will tell. Even then, I imagine it'll be back to how it used to be: a few pirates doing all the dirty work for the rest of their social group.
Convenience is what drove me back into TV show/movie piracy.
I don't mind paying for entertainment. I pay for a lot of it. What I do mind, is deciding I want to watch a movie searching the catalog of a service I pay monthly for, not finding it, having to go online to figure out where I can pay for it, creating an account, putting my credit card info in, downloading the app, signing in, figuring out the subtly different interface, then setting a reminder to cancel the subscription when I'm done watching it.
Its just a pain in the ass, and I'm not going to subscribe to 10 different monthly services on the off chance I feel like watching a movie or show from them. There was a period of about 8 years when Netflix mostly had everything I wanted to watch, and I felt perfectly ok with paying for it. Those days are long gone, and at this point, piracy is way easier than dealing with the cluster fuck media companies have created out of pure greed, so fuck them, they don't get my money, and I watch their stuff for free.
If video games or music ever get to that point, I'll pirate them also. I have zero moral qualms with doing it.
Don't forget "we don't like your device so even though you're paying us for 4k, you're only getting 720p"
I think everything you're on point with everything you're saying. Certainly I'm still surprised when friends from my generations don't really understand something like file types.
I do think one difference might be that I myself don't work in a tech field. I work in legal compliance, which mainly involved writing and talking to people. So I look forward to spending an hour figuring out how to get the Sega Saturn emulator to switch from disc 1 to disc 2 in Sakura Wars.
I buy most, but not all, of my media. Mostly it’s because I am in a financial position to be able to support the people who make things that I enjoy. It’s also convenience. If I buy a game on Steam, I know that I likely won’t have to mess around with proton, adding it as a non Steam game, finding all artwork sizes, etc. For audiobooks, it’s the same reason. Removing audibles drm now is quite simple, and I have it fully automated. Audibles metadata is always very accurate, and chapter markers and whatnot are in the files. I have and still do pirate audio books, but it always takes slightly more work to get the metadata how I want. For movies, I like apple’s convenience and the included extras.
However, for certain things, the convenience of piracy absolutely wins. I typically pirate all my ebooks. In part because getting the drm removed is a very manual and annoying process, and I need that to read them on my kobo. Also I almost always own the audiobook version legally, so I have supported the author for the work. I don’t feel bad about that. The one thing that is driving me to privacy for TV and movies is how awful so many streaming apps are, even on the relatively nice Apple TV. No, I never want autoplay. Not even if you want me to. And Netflix, with the playing of a clip from the show on the show screen, would you kindly fuck right off? I never want to hear it. Ever. I have been trying some time to get a setup that is reliable and consistent enough to replace the official apps, just to get a better user experience. But I haven’t found something that’s good enough yet. But I am still looking.
The thing that helps me is I can always fall back to piracy. I have audiobooks that audible has taken away from me, and I keep a copy drm free on my server. If I ever couldn’t play a game that I own because of drm, I would happily download a pirated copy.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing.
We just had a moment like that for Netflix. My daughter really wanted to watch the next episode of a cartoon she liked, and whoops, it's not on Netflix anymore as of that day!
Absolutely none of that. Go to one of my torrent sites, download the season, cast it to the TV, done, took five minutes. And I realise Netflix is operating under specific licensing agreements, but as a customer, piracy provided a better option than the streaming company, and didn't cost me 15 bucks a month.
And yeah, I suspect piracy is a fallback for a lot of people. If/when one of these big companies goes under and invalidates a bunch of people's user libraries, I suspect you'll get an explosion of piracy.
When Netflix lost The Office, it kicked up my piracy mechanations that had largely fallen dormant for 7 years. Sure, I was grabbing an odd show or two, but Plex was gone, none of the autodownloading functions were setup.
Now it's back to 2002 when I was broke and media was harder.
That's the thing with me too! After university, I had gone fully legitimate. Steam, Origin, physical stores, the whole nine yards. I kept a small collection of emulated GBA titles so I never lost touch, but I had legitimately forgotten how to be a pirate for nearly two decades. Then the companies pushed and pushed and pushed, and then I needed to relearn PS2 emulation, after I bought a PS2 port on my PS4 that kept having bugs the original didn't have. And then why not figure out GameCube? Hey, why not jaikbreak my 3DS, since the eshop went down and I can't legally get the Fire Emblem Awakening DLC anymore, ever? And dust off the Vita, jailbreak that too.
Wait, why am I wasting my time like this? Why not just get a Retroid Pocket 5 and just have all the emulators there? And hey, my Switch is acting weird, replacing it is expansive, and the Switch 2 prices in my country are insane. So why not try to emulate the Switch? Hey, it works! How many titles can I download?
And once you figure all of this out, it's harder to go back, because it's just as easy (or easier) to get a Switch game, but instead of 70 American dollars, it's free, and you can go to gamebanana and get mods, turn on or off updates and DLC, do whatever.
I have a problem with an Ubisoft switch game: the just dance series. They were charging and arm and a leg but I put up with it, until they just removed the option to extend subscription entirely!!!!
As someone who's never done anything with the Nintendo piracy scene, can you help point me in the right direction to just keep playing a game I've paid hundreds of dollars for already?
With Nintendo, there's a huge difference between just general Nintendo (Game Boy through Wii U) and the Switch specifically.
Emulating GB to the Wii is pretty easy, both in Windows and Android. The Wii U starts getting a tiny more complicated, because then you might want to deal with th Wii U downloader. The Switch is easy again, but because development is ongoing and because that development stops and starts, not every game is compatible out of the box. The difficulty of the Switch is getting the roms (games). Basic roms sites that carry every other platform won't carry Switch roms, you generally have to go to specialised sites for that. On Android, this is when you have to start trying out different drivers too. You also need to get firmware and keys.
I'm happy to discuss with you, but probably over PM.
So you know, libro.fm gives you DRM-free audio books at the same subscription price as Audible but they pay authors better than Audible does (when they choose not to sell exclusively on Audible) and a portion of the retailer share goes to a bookstore of your choosing.
Regular pitrate with a libro.fm sub right here. If I can get it on libro.fm, I'll buy it. If it's not, I'll check the library apps. If not there, I'll pirate it.
I’ve used them in the past. I love the idea, and I like that a service like that exists, but I don’t use them for a few reasons.
Price: It’s only the same price when compared with the lowest audible subscription. I have the 24 credit per year sub, which comes out to around $10/credit. So libro.fm is 50% more expensive.
Selection: Unfortunately audibles exclusivity program is very effective. When I maintained both audible and libro.fm subs, I had trouble using my libro credits because probably 2/3 or more of the books I wanted were exclusives. It sucks, but ultimately it works.
Metadata and file type: This is the big one for me. In audible, files always have chapters, are distributed in high quality aac (once you remove the drm), have all the metadata like author, narrator, etc, and if chapters names exist, they are populated. I have books I bought from libro that contain exactly zero metadata and the chapter names are “part 1 of 36.mp3” in an m4b container. Not the end of the world, but it does mean that any given book purchase is a gamble that I might have to spend 5-15 minutes fixing the metadata so it shows up right in audiobookshelf.
I trialed it for a long time, but ultimately decided it’s not for me. I think if they offered a bulk credit purchase to get the price down, I would deal with the other issues. But an extra $120 or so per year for the rate I buy audiobooks is not an insignificant chunk of change. And the extra kick in the teeth of extra work to fix the metadata doesn’t make me feel good about it.
I know this is an extreme tangent but I am sooooo pissed off how every fricking streaming app needs to waste my time with their fricking song and dance logo video whenever I start up their app. I already know what app I am using! It’s the one I tapped on!
Actually the worst thing is that my banking apps do it too.
I think a lot of the time they do that to disguise the loading process in the background. It feels better for most people to see a splash screen instead of waiting for a UI to load. In some cases that's either not the case though, or the splash screen takes longer than the loading would have normally. Fuck that.
The thing that really pisses me off is that if I'm watching on my phone, I'm watching the same things that I've been watching or that are on my watchlist. Those should already be cached. There shouldn't be anything that needs to load, but they want to show me new things to annoy me instead.
It reminds me of that meme of pirating DVDs where normal DVD: Insert disc, see the "Don't copy", see five trailers, see another "Don't copy", see how punished you could be when you copy, see standards used, see menu, hit "Play", watch movie. In the meantime, pirates: Insert disc, watch movie.
What you say is true. Pirates own more nowadays than regular customers do.
Sidenote about Breath of the Wild: Am I the only one, who actually likes breakable weapons? It made me use lesser ones normally and keep good ones for bosses. And I ended up with inventory full only the good ones anyway eventually.
Re BOTW, there are exactly two camps on this, and you belong to the lucky one! You're playing the game as it was designed, and that's probably for the best. For me, I hate hate hate my weapons breaking. I don't play Zelda to be careful with my weapons! Yes, logically, I will find better weapons. But when I find a cool weapon in BotW, it's not exciting if it's going to last 7 hits. It's like finding ammo.
Modding that away messes with the game balance, but also makes the game fun for me, because I get to use whatever cool weapons I want whenever I want. Without that, I legitimately wouldn't be able to play the game at all.
To be honest, I was kinda... a bit furious when I first understood that even good weapons break. But then I was kinda "meh, whatever" and started shuffling my weapons in the inventory only to realize that even the best ones will be quite abundant later in the game.
I don't mod my games, generally speaking. The game either have to be good or I don't play it. BotW is one of the best modern era games (say 2010+) and even with this mechanic, I don't feel the need to mod the game. And I can say that because my next playthrough will be emulated on Steam Deck, which kinda brings me to being a pirate in someone's eyes. But hey! I own the original cartridge of the game, so I'm clear by my standards.
Actually I also have set up Vice City and San Andreas in emulator, ready to be played. And I also own PS2 discs of the games. What a strange way to play games in this time... But when you want to play on the hardware of your choice and without launchers or botched ports or remasters, what you gonna do?
I think it's a psychological thing, and it either affects you or it doesn't.
I think I mod the majority of my games there days, if there's something good. Before I start a game, I'll look up if there's mods and romhacks, particularly if it's a retro game. A lot of time, it's the definitive version of the game.
And yeah, similar. While I'll pirate anything from a big corp, I don't really like doing it for indies. So I'll usually buy it, but then pirate it anyway in whatever format I wanted to have it depending on where I want to play it (my retro console or my computer). I had bought One Way Heroics on Steam, but decided I wanted to play it on my retroid pocket, so first tried using GameNative to run in. That was a bit of a faff, so then I just downloaded the Switch version, which works great.
Piracy is part of it, but a really huge thing for me (especially as a dad) is save states. Particularly with these old RPGs I like to play, I almost always prefer emulate solely because of save states, and the above lity to save scum through bullshit mechanics, or just leave when I need to leave.
I don't do even that. If big corp makes a game that isn't worth the money, it isn't worth the time for me as well - example being GTA5 or AC: Black Flag. GTA5 has great missions and that's it, nothing more (well, it also looks good), but is plagued with launcher - I'm not coping with that, so I don't play the game, it's not worth playing for me. Black Flag is masterpiece, but once again, launcher... Well, I'm not buying the game then. And while it is great, I won't even pirate it (what a paradox!) - They fucked up and that's the end of the game for me. And when I speak with people, I always say that Ubisoft made the game in a way I can't enjoy it (due to launcher) thus the game as a whole is bad.
I don't do emulation or retro much, just for the games that I want to play on Steam Deck and there is no official way to do so.
Nah. I'm not one of them though. It makes weapons feel entirely disposable. Even the super rare awesome ones. I don't mind weapon durability in games if 1. It happens at a reasonable rate, and 2. Its temporary, with a sustainable wait to maintain weapons. BoTW fails on both of those fronts.
I can find an awesome endgame sword, and the thing seriously lasts like 30 hits. Even the cheapest harbor freight wrench I've ever bought allows me to turn a bolt more than 30 times. Using those weapons reminds me of the chairs and furniture in old wrestling games that you could use as improvised weapons. You could hit someone with it and it would last a few hits and then fall apart. Makes sense and feels grounded when talking about a chair, not so much when talking about a masterfully crafted sword.
But to each their own, I understand the point about using a variety of weapons, and I'm usually very into systems that force players to do that, I just wish it was done in a different way
I always think its hilarious when i pop a real dvd in and the first thing i see is an unskippable threat to me by a foreign federal agency. And how those are the first thing to get patched out of reuploaded movies. Same with ads.
People just love to get conditioned to expect worse circumstances. They cant get enough of being the frog in the slowly boiling water. These were the same people who two years ago were crying about how the water is totally a normal temperature and microsoft should definitely be allowed to spend a record smashing amount of money on the purchase of activision-blizzard. I see Xbox's failing, sputtering now, being Sony's opening to capitalize on their market dominance from that (and other) mistake(s). We saw it the other way around when xbox tried its post 360 era shenanigans.
I used to rip and reburn my DVDs just so I could skip that FBI "warning".
Gog?
For some games, for sure. But you won't find something like Tears of the Kingdom on GOG.
I don't know why so many people are dismissive of this and we STILL haven't really even begun to engage with what happens with our digital purchases when we want to sell them or die.
As the OP mentioned, at the moment, ALL companies, not just SONY are wanting it every which way possible. They want you to BUY something at full price, have no rights to it's continued use or even acces, and no rights to sell it or pass it on, all while misrepresenting the fact that you own it. And they are getting their own way because people are like "Well, I haven't bought a physical game in years, and haven't been personally affected, so whatever. They can do what they want."
Steam laid a good groundwork with Family sharing I think.
All they need yet is an account-transfer function with some reasonable requirements (5+ years in the family group or something, max of X games per month/year).
It would be better to have formally legalized account transfer/sharing, but that has a snowball's chance in hell of being passed.
All video games are digital...do people think BluRays have a range of values that can be "zeroish" or "almost one?"
Also, I find it obnoxious that this has been the norm in the Steam-monopoly world for twenty years, and suddenly people only care when Sony makes a symbolic change...the vast majority of game sales are sold online through PSN.
I do believe first sale doctrine should apply to all software and electronic media sales, but the recent framing smells like childish anti-console stuff.
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison, for multiple reasons. First of all, Steam provides an enormous amount of value - refunds, sales, features. Sony can’t even hold a candle to it.
It is also not a monopoly - on a PC, you are free to install from anyone & anywhere. People just choose Steam over its competitors. On a fully digital Playstation, it’s the PS Store - or bust.
Steam is a market leader for sure, but only because its competition is more or less utterly inept. They’ve also never done anything to enforce unfair practices, quite the opposite: investing in FOSS support (gaming on Linux), generous, no questions asked refund windows. And treating their customers right. On a PlayStation, as soon as you hit “Download” you are unable to refund the game anymore, and that’s only because they’re being mandated by EU law.
Steam has cornered the market because they provide value to their customers. Sony is vying for a monopoly by locking down their hardware & extracting maximum profits from its users. As the meme says: they are not the same.
Unequivocally false. Both have similar refund policies (14 days from purchase, Steam limits to two hours, PSN is prior to download), both have similar social features, and there's literally a summer sale going on right now on PSN. I picked up an Assassin's Creed game for $8. Palworld's 30% off. Jedi Survivor is 74% off. Etc. (Valve also had to be forced, either by Australia or the EU to offer said policy.)
That does not make something not a monopoly. They have the dominant market position and the most influence on the overall market, with little to no meaningful competition.
Unlike Valve, Sony has also never stolen a game I've purchased from me. I paid full retail for CS:GO, and they one day discontinued support for my platform and launched "Counter-Strike 2," rendering the other unplayable and replacing it.
Sony provides an unparalleled quality gaming appliance that requires zero maintenance and accommodates playing in a living room.
I'm sorry, the PSN refund window is prior to download? What's the point then, if by the time you download it you have already nullified your ability to refund it. At least with Steam you can run the game at least once to make sure it works and is something you feel was properly worth your money. Two hours may not be enough, but its something compared to "prior to download." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but thats not parity at all in that instance.
Additionally, you can and always could continue to play CS:GO through the beta branch feature, and last I heard it still had an active enough player base to find matches. It definitely still sucks though, making the forums and achievements and reviews for both games merge together is a messy & unnecessary move. And PlayStation would do the exact same thing if they decided it suited their interests. So if anything both scenarios just reinforce why we need better digital purchasing/ownership rights as consumers.
I think it's genuinely interesting that people refuse to accept that Steam is a monopoly, and if they ARE a monopoly, that's okay, because they are Steam and they are a cool and good monopoly.
I mean, clicking the 'free game' button on Epic every time it popped up whenever I loaded up Fortnight gave me a library that easily rivals my Steam library. Yet I almost never play any game on it, even games that were on my wishlist from Steam, and some which I later bought on Steam anyway. Their attempt to jumpstart giant game libraties is almost definitive proof that it's not *just" about the game library.
Because Steam invested the time for Linux in a way that no other company did. They developed an amazing control accessibility framework that works with literally any game that lets the Steam Overlay work.
Blizzard was the second-closest because all their titles worked virtually flawlessly in Wine.
GoG had my business for awhile. But not supporting Galaxy on Linux basically further entrenched me on Steam.
Uplay? Origin? Any store from Microsoft? Hot garbage. I refuse to trust any Microsoft game store after losing several games.
The barrier to releasing a new game storefront is huge now, especially since I have one simple requirement: It has to work on Linux (the Steam Deck in particular) with virtually 0 futzing.
Last I checked,Valve isn't throwing their dominance as a storefront to force adoptions of other products like Microsoft, Google, or Apple do. They're (to the best of my knowledge) not mandating exclusively contracts for developers to sell their game on Steam. They're not even stopping someone from flashing their own OS on the Steam hardware, Epic could swoop in tomorrow and deploy "Epic OS" if they so chose.
Valve is seemingly the one company that has not succumbed to enshittification, and I think their relative openess is no small part of that.
Is Steam a monopoly (from a consumer's perspective)? I've never had any issues buying games on GOG or itch.io.
From a developer's perspective, though, I agree it's a lot closer to a monopoly.
Not to say it's the same thing, but it's a little ironic to see this discussion play out on a site with a Benevolent Dictator for Life.
I dont know, it's not very surprising that people like the monopoly that treats them well and has for decades. Steam is probably one of the most consumer friendly companies in the industry, and by far the most consumer friendly platform in gaming among the major players. Not to mention how entrenched people are in its ecosystem/communites after said decades. Most people arent thinking about it that deeply or at all, and Steam isn't obviously harmful at a glance. Even though it does still do harmful monopoly things, it's usually not harmful to their users.
They are "consumer friendly" . . . for now. As I mentioned elsewhere, they were taken heavily to task by Australian regulators in Federal court and were found to have been not particularly consumer friendly. I like Valve. I love Steam. I use it daily. I believe they are consumer friendly in the same way that any company is: it makes better financial sense at this point in time to be consumer friendly.
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million-in-penalties-for-misrepresenting-gamers-consumer-guarantee-rights
This a good point, I remembered the case but never actually read the full media release. Thanks for bringing it back up. Here's hoping we get better consumer rights before they decide its no longer worth it.
Only because in 2014 ACCC took them to court in Australia and Valve lost the case. Worth noting that Valve’s current refund policy still technically doesn’t comply with Australian consumer law but it bandaid-covers the majority of cases.
Huh, TIL. So, does Sony’s PSN refund policies fully comply with Australian law?
I should probably caveat that both Steam and PSN have (true as at today at least) added arse-covering clauses so that they’re not explicitly breaking the law:
Steam
Valve will, upon request via help.steampowered.com, issue a refund for any reason, if the request is made within the required return period, and, in the case of games, if the title has been played for less than two hours.
There are more details below, but even if you fall outside of the refund rules we’ve described, you can ask for a refund anyway and we’ll take a look. Consumers in some jurisdictions may have additional rights to a refund in circumstances where the game is faulty.
PlayStation
Depending on the type of product, you may be able to request a refund if you’ve changed your mind about a PlayStation Store purchase.
In addition to the below, you may have additional rights under applicable local law, such as if your content is faulty. Nothing in the below limits or replaces any such rights under local law.
(added emphasis to arse-covering)
However, I’ve had a game fail to meet my (I would like to claim “reasonable”) expectations and be denied a refund because it didn’t fall under Steam’s general policy. I don’t have the time or money to take the issue to court, but perhaps if it happens enough in similar situations, someday I might see a class action. Probably unlikely to actually happen.
It’s pretty clever (if also insidious) to have a refund policy that’s technically more generous in most situations as a way to placate 90% of your user base, so that the people genuinely ripped off are dispersed enough that you don’t have to deal with them. If they tried the same refund policy trick in a bricks-and-mortar store I think the outcome would be different.
Steam was taken to court in Australia by the federal consumer affairs department and ordered to pay a significant fine over their misleading refund policies.
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million-in-penalties-for-misrepresenting-gamers-consumer-guarantee-rights
So was Sony.
The result: Everyone in the world gets Australia's refund policy when they buy from Steam, but only Australian customers get Australia's refund policy when they buy from Sony (and they have to jump through hoops to prove it, like providing an ACCC ticket number).
The most infuriating thing in the USA is clauses that are like "You have these rights if you live in one of these three states, or fuck off."
As a PC gamer I did find it a little strange just how pissed everyone was about the no disk thing. I think the lasy physical game I bought was something for the wii.
But seeing court cases like this where they're saying "well obviously no one owns the game they buy. Everyone knows that!" is making things a lot clearer
As someone who owns all the Playstations, from an original PS1 through a PS5 with disk, and plays only games on disk on them, I am just not planning to buy another Playstation after this decision. I am not outraged, upset, or posting about it online.
Sony just removed the only advantage to having a console for me, which was that I could at any time hook it up, turn it on, insert the game disc I want to play, and play it. With that feature gone, there's nothing that makes a Playstation better than a PC.
It’s mostly a vocal minority. Most people don’t buy physical games.
Good thing legal precedent is rarely set by the apathetic majority
I'm convinced that half of all consumer protection laws only exist because the company pissed off the wrong person on the wrong day, who then took a solumn vow to get justice no matter the cost.
They didnt offer a meaningful benefit for customers in return. Its only net negatives for everybody but Sony, and they arent even trying to hide it. I suspect if they made a disc to digital program like Xbox and a resale market on digital copies then there would be less pushback from consumers, but retail game businesses would still pushback.
It has been an issue before, but again, people eventually succumbed and accepted it because what other option did they have? It doesn’t mean it’s good.
If steam wiped your games library because of various contractual and licensing issues developers and publishers had, I am sure all the PC gamers would calmly say “Well, I always knew I was only renting these games. Sucks, but that’s in the TOS.”
I find it interesting that so many people are completely fine with renting things (even when the shopping button say “buy”) in some areas but completely against it others. Steam good, Adobe evil.
I think that has a lot more to do with Valve being generally seen as an overall hugely positive force in gaming, with a history of very few anti-consumer decisions versus basically any company in the world with the same amount of revenue.
People generally trust Valve not to fuck them over. They don't trust Adobe, or Sony, or Microsoft to do the same. A lot of that is that Valve is privately owned unlike all of those other companies, but just as importantly is who is running it. Gabe Newell has spent decades at this point consistently building up the trust of its customers in a way that few modern companies have.
Valve has always been an absolute anomaly, not only in the gaming space, but for a business as a whole, almost entirely because of Gabe Newell.
Once Gabe retires or god forbid, passes away, I think a lot of PC gamers will view their Steam libraries much more skeptically.
I for one would pirate every title I cared about, then do what I do for audiobooks and music: buy from my preferred DRM-free source, and pirate it otherwise.
I'm convinced Valve is only as good as they are because they know they stand on a house of cards.
The big difference there is that photoshop was a product you bought that later switched to a subscription.
If you suddenly had to pay a monthly fee to keep your steam library, people would be pretty pissed
Consoles (were) far ahead (or behind, depending how you look at it) of PC when it comes to game ownership.
There's historically been far less of a need for software DRM in consoles because they control both the platform and the media, so very effective hardware DRM could be implemented that made owning a disc synonymous with owning a game.
That hasn't been the case with PC games since... Ever really, so publishers had to invent new ways to do DRM like CD keys or online DRM platforms.
One of the beauties of console gaming has always been that if your friend wants to check out a game you owned, you could just give them the disc. If you no longer played a game, you could just sell it on eBay or trade it in.
On consoles, games were physical objects. On PC, they never really were.
If I was a console gamer, I would be pretty pissed off if that paradigm changed.
As a PC gamer, I'm frankly a little jealous of how good they'd had it for so long. I have probably tens of thousands of dollars of games on steam that I don't play, and likely will never play again. It would be nice to be able to sell them to someone who would.
I mean, they were if you go back far enough.
Eh, in small pockets, but not predominantly. There were discs that were sold of course, but there's been a very strong culture of sharing game code among PC gaming independent of the media it was on from the very beginning. Spacewar was freely distributed amongst university staff. Commodore 64 games were given out as source code in the backs of magazines. Shareware was an extremely popular software distribution model. You just gave the disks to your friend to copy, and if they liked it, they'd buy a license key.
Consoles never worked that way. They had cartridges you bought, and that was the game. The game didn't exist independently of the media it was on.
Looking back its crazy how many of my childhood game choices were just one of my dad's friends giving him a copy of a game he bought.
It honestly reeks of net-wide astroturf. The hoopla started around the time Microsoft announced their major layoffs, and that got buried in this...despite the fact that has more far reaching consequences.
The last PC game I bought on a disc would have been around 2008, and I bought many more online in subsequent years. Since switching to Sony and Nintendo over the past ~5 years, I've bought some, if I know it's something I want to lend to other people, but mostly it's just a worse experience: PSN has better sales than retail, and you can switch games quickly without changing a disc. It also takes longer to install from a disc than download, because 100Mb+ exceeds BluRay transfer speed.
Sony also has been selling games online since the PS3, so there's a twenty year track record: all PS4 games seamlessly are downloadable to a PS5 (same architecture) years later. PS3s are wildly different hardware architecture, but all purchased games are still downloadable. (The store is closed and you can't buy new PS3 games though.)
And money is fake as well, going by that logic. At least, as of 1973 in my country.
They get a license to grab zeroes and ones from a server. So yes, it has value in that utility.
I wouldn't call myself a PC gamer per se. I have a PC collection, but it's "only" maybe a few hundred games spread throughout a dozen vendors over the course of 15 years. My physcial collection is not far off in size from my digital one.
So it's not "symbolic" for me. Being able to own a disc for media I cared about was a large draw in how I shaped my shopping habits.
Okay. I'm not really here because I'm "the vast majority of people".
I can only speak for myself on the matter.
But I think it goes beyond childish when it's up in courts and we regularly use "reasonable person standard" worldwide. It's what makes court systems ones run by humans, not strict legal definitions (which are made by humans).
They’re definitely using digital-not-physical, but I think you’re reading this as digital-not-analogue
https://www.eeeguide.com/what-is-tristate-logic-or-three-state-logic-circuit/
Another article here about using the oft forced arbitration clause to try to escape responsibility. I have zero idea how that is legal by the way.
I simply wish to highlight the following
I've have seen this argument a few times and simply do not understand how it is not dismissed immediately. There is ownership of the game which includes all the rights to it. Then there is ownership ower the sole copy of the game.
There really needs to be a clarification appended before any claims such as these are made it seems. Owning the full rights to digital products upon store purchase is not reasonable. I think expecting rights over the copy is.