Submitted 2 weeks ago by ryujin470@fedia.io to gaming@beehaw.org
Here’s the actual source, I don’t think the article really adds anything
gist.github.com/…/c66bf3dca62a5ac63785714f686e60a…
Enter Monthly Subscription Game Libraries and DRM-free → Exit Steam
I strongly disagree with this paragraph, as we saw with Netflix and video streaming monthly subscriptions are a trap which allows a massive increase tot he cost to the consumer and a noticeable drop in the quality of the content.
The author of this article reflexively and illogically defends Steam (like usual):
But at least some of what Kaldaien complains about isn’t necessarily on Steam’s shoulders. It’s well within devs’ powers to provide players with access to older game versions on Steam (KOTOR 2, which I recently replayed, lets you access its pre-Aspyr version via a beta branch, for instance), but many of them elect not to. That strikes me as an issue with individual devs rather than Steam as a whole, and as for Steam Input? Well, again, if there’s a problem there it’s with developers electing to use that API over OS-native ones that’s the issue.
He literally completely misses the modder’s point. Steam itself will not run on the original machine you purchased KOTOR 2 on. You can buy a gaming machine, purchase a game through steam and 6 years suddenly no longer be able to simply because Valve has decided that the version of Steam that you bought the game through is no longer ok and now you need to upgrade your hardware and OS to play the same game you’ve been playing for years.
This issue has multiple facets and the answer changes depending on the end result you want.
The author of the article sees the problem as “Old games you bought on steam are unplayable on modern hardware”. Kaldaien sees the problem as “Steam cannot run on older hardware anymore, even if the games I bought still work there”. Both people want the same thing (To be able to play the games they bought) but are looking at it from different angles.
Ultimately, Steam is a DRM tool that has a very good storefront attached to it. If you want true ownership of the software, buy the game in a way that will let you run the software by itself. Valve expects that the overwhelming majority of its users will keep up with semi-modern hardware (In this case, a machine capable of running windows 10/SteamOS) which I don’t feel is is an unreasonable ask. However, expecting Valve to retain support for an OS that hit end of life 20 years ago is unreasonable.
I agree with the opinions of the article’s author. It would be far better to ensure that support for the old titles you bought are accessible on modern hardware rather than making sure Steam is still accessible on a PC running windows 98. This is one of those corner-cases where piracy is acceptable. You already paid for the game, you just need to jump through some hoops to play it on your 30 year old PC.
Valve expects that the overwhelming majority of its users will keep up with semi-modern hardware (In this case, a machine capable of running windows 10/SteamOS) which I don’t feel is is an unreasonable ask.
Valve is forcing them to upgrade their software and hardware to keep playing games they already purchased.
However, expecting Valve to retain support for an OS that hit end of life 20 years ago is unreasonable.
It is very reasonable. No one forced Valve to build their business model this way, and they are one of the most profitable companies per employee, ever. It would not be onerous for them to continue supporting a couple of old versions of Windows, they would just have to hire a few more people to do it.
In my opinion, that’s not on Steam to support their client on a long past EOL operating system. Not withstanding the added development workload and costs, there is also significantly more risk associated with supporting an OS that isn’t receiving security patches.
Not to mention the modder’s example Windows fucking 98. Steam still supports Windows 7, which was released in 2009. Your 6 year old PC will be fine.
In my opinion, that’s not on Steam to support their client on a long past EOL operating system.
It is on them since they “sold” you a game. They didn’t have to build a business model that popularized always checking in DRM, but it was more profitable for them to do so.
I’ve been running steam on an unsupported OS (osx 10.13.6) for almost a year and a half now, and the only issue is a banner at the stop claiming that steam will stop working in 0 days.
I don’t remember what if anything I did to make this happen, but I’ve had no trouble buying, downloading, or playing games in that time.
They immediately lost me with props to the Microsoft store with what a pain it was to even access the game directory in the past. And even if it is improving is something that just locks you into having to use Windows OS as opposed to being able play the purchased game on other OS.
Hell with stuff like recall and Windows moving to trying to force OS online accounts compared to how clean Winows 7 used to be they just lose credibility for whatever they are trying to argue.
There is a valid argument against the DRM being that your ancient air-gapped system should be able to run the game still but can’t run the DRM due to the requirements changing after the point of purchase. Perhaps there is a discussion to be had about whether DRM should be removed once you change the system requirements drastically, but this feels like a rare circumstance.
The simple solution is to get DRM-free copies from GOG where possible. Archive the installers if you’re worried about future compatibility. That way you can have a nostalgic Windows 98 machine or whatever that only plays games and won’t bug you with random unprovoked changes and updates from day to day.
“You no longer have the liberty of buying a game from wherever you want. You must consider whether your store is going to continue receiving patches, whether the store itself is going to continue supporting your hardware and software, and whether your friends online bought the game from the same store.”
So are we pissed at the entire industry, or just Steam? You don’t have the liberty to buy anything from wherever you want. Here’s hoping he deleted the rest of his online accounts while he was at it, but online blowhards tend to be hypocrites.
You’re only underscoring Kaldaien’s point about Steam by bringing up Fortnite, given that Epic is willing to release their products on other stores, whether it’s mobile or Microsoft Store on PC, as long as the terms are reasonable, not junk fees, as Sweeney puts it.
Enter Monthly Subscription Game Libraries and DRM-free → Exit Steam
In lieu of even the simplest commitment by Valve to keep their DRM client free of system requirement creep, business models like Ubisoft+, EA Access and Game Pass represent far greater value to consumers. The claim is often made that you “do not own the game” with these services, but you do not own them on Steam either; Valve stops pretending to care if their store’s software breaks your game after you have played it for two hours.
I would rather pay a fraction of the price to play a game for one month than pretend digitally distributed games have the lifespan of a boxed physical product. You can consume the entirety of a game within one month and pay an appropriate amount of money for the ephemeral service offered.
this person is extremely misguided. the a copy if the game files, drop in the goldberg emu dll, and done. works forever, in as many copies as you feel like. DRMs can stand in the way, but that’s exactly what makes it even worse on subscription platforms. and online only, or strictly multiplayer games? these won’t work whatever you do, but that’s not valve’s fault.
valve is careless but today other than GOG, it’s still the best (read: least bad) popular storefront, and subscription based systems are simply just the worst.
I don’t necessarily agree with all of Kaldaien’s points, but I can’t say they aren’t well argued. Their opinions are valid if you’re willing to accept and consider their perspective.
I personally don’t see the point playing games on the original hardware, and I think keeping them updated for modern systems is a good thing, but I can see why someone might disagree and prefer running them in a VM on a traditional operating system, especially in terms of keeping the original way the game ran intact. I also disagree about the value of Microsoft’s game rental service, but I also see the value in saying “if I don’t actually own my games anyway, why not take it to it’s logical conclusion of just renting them.”
As I said, their points are well argued, even if I don’t necessarily agree on them.
Monetarily it doesn’t even make sense, since it’s just cheaper to buy the game then rent them through gamepass lot of the times. Like I got Yakuza 0 steam key humble bundle and it took me a year to finish. Renting that on Gamepass to playthrough would have cost me 12 times the cost of what it cost to buy the Humble Bundle monthly that had Yakuza 0, and unlike Gamepass it is still in my steam account and not continued payment to retain access.
pcgamesn.com/…/yakuza-0-the-division-humble-month…
Why would I spend more renting and something that just stops working immediately once my subscription is up even if I don’t “own” the game on steam? Just bad money mangement.
Yeah, monetarily it doesn’t even make sense, since it’s just cheaper to buy the game then rent them through gamepass lot of the times.
Did you know that the main policy of Steam is its Subscriber Agreement? You never buy the games. Moreover, most people play games shortly after they come out, so they don’t care about something like Yakuza 0 in 2025. A new AAA game costs $60 to $70, but you can pay for a month of Game Pass for $12 and play through multiple new AAA or other games.
Kaldaien in need of more attention? How is this news?
You have (at the moment I’m writing this) 8 hours: www.gog.com
Zozano@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Reposting my comment from the other post:
But earlier:
So, DRM is bad… but acceptable if it’s only DRM?
If DRM is a critical failure point for game preservation and ownership, then a store providing only DRM is still part of the problem.
Game Pass is the epitome of temporary, self-updating, DRM-heavy software that you can’t patch, mod, or preserve. Yet it’s presented as a solution?
Then:
Wait, isn’t it contradictory to say they didn’t expect users to delete accounts while criticizing their policy on deleted accounts?
That shit is 25 years old. Does this goober really think it’s reasonable to expect support for an obsolete operating system?
Also, is this really a steam-only issue?
This is typical behavior of API abstraction layers.
If Steam Input replaces lower-level APIs, that’s exactly what it’s designed to do. Epic, Microsoft, and others do the same. The difference is the option to disable it - not the architectural behavior itself.
In summation: This dingbat is a walking contradiction with an axe to grind.
MBech@feddit.dk 2 weeks ago
I would field a guess, that this person is super angry about being left behind in the ever growing tech industry. Some of the complaints are valid, but directing them at specifically Valve seems super weird, since they are currently the best company concerning user-experience.
Zozano@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Some of the complaints are valid, but their solutions are just as baffling as their targets.
It seems evident that they’ve either got a case of cognitive dissonance flowing out their ears, or they’re dishonest in their motivation.
In any case, you’re right, it is weird to point the finger at valve, especially since they’ve done so much for gaming as a whole;