Steam is as much de facto a seller of DRM-free games as a electric appliances store is a seller of quake games machines: some people with the right skills might get quake to work in some of the smart fridges or smart TVs they sell, but they’re definitelly not made for it, definitelly not sold as supporting that feature and definitelly no support whatsoever is provided for that feature.
When you’re making a purchasing decision on their store, Steam doesn’t tell you upfront if the game has or not their DRM hence you cannot make an informed decision on that factor: Steam most definitelly do not want potential customers to select games on the basis or absence of DRM.
Also the install process of a game in a new machine with Steam is always via their store which can arbitrarily refuse you access to the games you supposedly bought (only according to Steam, you only “licensed” them) whilst with GOG once you downloaded the offline installer it’s de facto yours (even in legal environments where such sales are not treated the same as sales of games in physical media - which are treated as owned). The copying over of a Steam game is a hack, which even without the Steam phone-home DRM might not work, for example, if the game won’t run properly when certain registry keys created during install are not present.
You pointed out that Steam sells games without DRM.
I pointed out that for the customer that’s just a side effect of Steam selling games, since the absence of DRM is not pitched as a feature or even listed by the Steam store.
It seems to me that my point just adds to your point to make a more complete picture that better informs readers.
Your point is confused and all over the place, partly because you’re trying to attribute your own point to something I said.
The issue is you’re completely missing the point that I’m making, which is that Steam isn’t pushing DRM, it merely doesn’t prevent publishers from using it or implementing their own.
This goes back to OP’s post where they’re trying to suggest that Steam is bad because of DRM, when really Steam merely allows it rather than pushes for it.
You then tried to make a point about being beholden to Steam’s platform to download your games because it’s less convenient than backing them up yourself or downloading the DRM-free installer from GoG but all that is moot because the discussion was DRM vs not DRM. Saying that GoG giving you an offline installer that does the heavy lifting is a plus point in GoG’s favour from a consumer ease of use standpoint but if the only thing that’s stopping you from copying and pasting the folder of the game is not necessarily knowing what the dependencies are, well that’s just convenience rather than stripping away your rights.
And speaking of rights, you have the right to choose whatever platform you like based on the features that platform has.
Steam is pushing DRM, to publishers and makers, just the soft sales push rather than forcing them to use it.
It’s not even heavy DRM - it’s designed as a single DLL and there are literally freely available implementations out there of the API as DLLs which allow running most Steam games offline and Steam has done nothing to try and have them pulled down - so at the moment it’s not at all done in a nasty forceful way.
The end result is still that most Steam games do have Steam DRM, most gamers out there don’t know how to work around it, and if tomorrow Steam wants to force update all games to have nasty DRM, they can.
(And, as we’ve seen from how they caved to payment processors on the whole Adult Games front, Steam can be even be pushed to do things they don’t intend to do)
It’s kinda like it’s possible to configure Windows 11 to not run with all the eavesdropping shit, but people have to be aware of it, care about in and go out of their way to make it happen (though, unlike Steam, MS will actually periodically switch back ON that stuff which people switched OFF).
It’s not a nasty “authoritarian” forcing of DRM but it’s still the relentless soft sales push that in practice results in almost everybody by default buying and running games with DRM, whilst with GOG the default is no DRM so most people run DRM free games (one would have to really go out of their way to run a GOG game with DRM).
If there is one thing almost 4 decades as a gamer have taught me is that often DRM is fine until it isn’t, and you don’t really know which ones will be a problem until they are a problem and by then it’s too late and a game you love is now unplayable. If this is bad on a game, it’s many times worse when it applies to a collection of hundreds of games - if Steam turns evil or goes bankrupt it will be many times worse than just one game not running on an OS version later than the max supported when the game was shipped (or something like that).
In risk management terms, with games purchased from Steam de facto there are risks which are not in games with an offline installer and which don’t have DRM (needs not be bough in GOG, and GOG too has some of those risks if you don’t proactivelly download the offline installers), and a couple of decades in gaming (and Tech in general) have taught me that sometimes you get bitten by such risks.
Well no, your metaphor is based on the premise that copy and paste is difficult. You can compare it to something ridiculous, but it doesn’t change that copying and pasting something is something actual children master.
My methaphor is explained in the pharagraph immediatelly following that first one:
When you’re making a purchasing decision on their store, Steam doesn’t tell you upfront if the game has or not their DRM hence you cannot make an informed decision on that factor: Steam most definitelly do not want potential customers to select games on the basis or absence of DRM.
I hoped this made it obvious that I was making an analogy about the way both things are sold, by, you know, me talking only about the way things are sold in the following paragraph and not at all about other things.
It’s you who chose to treat the thing as a comparison between the details of characteristics I mentioned in passing and did not at all mention further in my explanation.
Your claim that my premise is about the technical difficulty in making one or the other support making them do something they are not officially supported to do is a Strawman.
Step 1 - Put up the strawman by stating that the other person was trying to do something they explicitly said they were not trying to do when they actually explained exactly what they were trying to do:
your metaphor is based on the premise that copy and paste is difficult.
(No. My methaphor is based on how in multiple domains “selling things which can be altered to do something else by those who know how to do such alterations is not the same as selling things for that specific purpose”, as I already explained before and you pointedly ignored. PS: anybody in doubt can just read my other posts here as they’re all consistently about how things are sold, not how things are hacked)
–
Step 2 - Totally trash the very strawman you put up:
You can compare it to something ridiculous, but it doesn’t change that copying and pasting something is something actual children master.
(Absolutely right! I was doing totally wrong that which you claimed I was trying to do. In fact, so totally and completely wrong was the way I was trying to do what you claimed I was trying to do, that intelligent individuals might even suspect I was not in fact trying to do that which you claim, but something else for which what I wrote wasn’t such a mismatched comparison).
–
PS: Loved in this latest post the throwing of vague aspersions about my education level as a counter whilst not in fact addressing my argument. Really shows the strength of your argument and depth of reasoning.
Steam is as much de facto a seller of DRM-free games as a electric appliances store is a seller of quake games machines: some people with the right skills might get quake to work in some of the smart fridges or smart TVs they sell, but they’re definitelly not made for it, definitelly not sold as supporting that feature and definitelly no support whatsoever is provided for that feature.
When you’re making a purchasing decision on their store, Steam doesn’t tell you upfront if the game has or not their DRM hence you cannot make an informed decision on that factor: Steam most definitelly do not want potential customers to select games on the basis or absence of DRM.
Also the install process of a game in a new machine with Steam is always via their store which can arbitrarily refuse you access to the games you supposedly bought (only according to Steam, you only “licensed” them) whilst with GOG once you downloaded the offline installer it’s de facto yours (even in legal environments where such sales are not treated the same as sales of games in physical media - which are treated as owned). The copying over of a Steam game is a hack, which even without the Steam phone-home DRM might not work, for example, if the game won’t run properly when certain registry keys created during install are not present.
Who’s claiming Steam is a “de facto” seller of DRM-Free games?
What was the purpose of you writting as the very first sentence of your post:
If not to tell us that Steam also sells DRM-free games?
If Steam also sells DRM-free games (even if alongside games with DRM) then de facto Steam is a seller of DRM-free games.
Being a “seller of” doesn’t mean just selling that and nothing else.
The purpose was to tell you exactly what I stated - that Steam does not enforce the use of DRM and nothing more.
You’re the one that wants to extrapolate that statement to mean much more than it does.
The point you missed is that the use of DRM is on the publisher/developer and not Steam itself.
You pointed out that Steam sells games without DRM.
I pointed out that for the customer that’s just a side effect of Steam selling games, since the absence of DRM is not pitched as a feature or even listed by the Steam store.
It seems to me that my point just adds to your point to make a more complete picture that better informs readers.
Are not both our points true?
Your point is confused and all over the place, partly because you’re trying to attribute your own point to something I said.
The issue is you’re completely missing the point that I’m making, which is that Steam isn’t pushing DRM, it merely doesn’t prevent publishers from using it or implementing their own.
This goes back to OP’s post where they’re trying to suggest that Steam is bad because of DRM, when really Steam merely allows it rather than pushes for it.
You then tried to make a point about being beholden to Steam’s platform to download your games because it’s less convenient than backing them up yourself or downloading the DRM-free installer from GoG but all that is moot because the discussion was DRM vs not DRM. Saying that GoG giving you an offline installer that does the heavy lifting is a plus point in GoG’s favour from a consumer ease of use standpoint but if the only thing that’s stopping you from copying and pasting the folder of the game is not necessarily knowing what the dependencies are, well that’s just convenience rather than stripping away your rights.
And speaking of rights, you have the right to choose whatever platform you like based on the features that platform has.
Steam is pushing DRM, to publishers and makers, just the soft sales push rather than forcing them to use it.
It’s not even heavy DRM - it’s designed as a single DLL and there are literally freely available implementations out there of the API as DLLs which allow running most Steam games offline and Steam has done nothing to try and have them pulled down - so at the moment it’s not at all done in a nasty forceful way.
The end result is still that most Steam games do have Steam DRM, most gamers out there don’t know how to work around it, and if tomorrow Steam wants to force update all games to have nasty DRM, they can.
(And, as we’ve seen from how they caved to payment processors on the whole Adult Games front, Steam can be even be pushed to do things they don’t intend to do)
It’s kinda like it’s possible to configure Windows 11 to not run with all the eavesdropping shit, but people have to be aware of it, care about in and go out of their way to make it happen (though, unlike Steam, MS will actually periodically switch back ON that stuff which people switched OFF).
It’s not a nasty “authoritarian” forcing of DRM but it’s still the relentless soft sales push that in practice results in almost everybody by default buying and running games with DRM, whilst with GOG the default is no DRM so most people run DRM free games (one would have to really go out of their way to run a GOG game with DRM).
If there is one thing almost 4 decades as a gamer have taught me is that often DRM is fine until it isn’t, and you don’t really know which ones will be a problem until they are a problem and by then it’s too late and a game you love is now unplayable. If this is bad on a game, it’s many times worse when it applies to a collection of hundreds of games - if Steam turns evil or goes bankrupt it will be many times worse than just one game not running on an OS version later than the max supported when the game was shipped (or something like that).
In risk management terms, with games purchased from Steam de facto there are risks which are not in games with an offline installer and which don’t have DRM (needs not be bough in GOG, and GOG too has some of those risks if you don’t proactivelly download the offline installers), and a couple of decades in gaming (and Tech in general) have taught me that sometimes you get bitten by such risks.
At this stage we’re just going around in circles. Agree to disagree.
Edit: wrong place
Did you just compare copying and pasting files to running Quake on a smart fridge?
From all that I wrote, somebody having that take is the equivalent for metaphors of being a Grammar Nazi.
Well no, your metaphor is based on the premise that copy and paste is difficult. You can compare it to something ridiculous, but it doesn’t change that copying and pasting something is something actual children master.
My methaphor is explained in the pharagraph immediatelly following that first one:
I hoped this made it obvious that I was making an analogy about the way both things are sold, by, you know, me talking only about the way things are sold in the following paragraph and not at all about other things.
It’s you who chose to treat the thing as a comparison between the details of characteristics I mentioned in passing and did not at all mention further in my explanation.
Your claim that my premise is about the technical difficulty in making one or the other support making them do something they are not officially supported to do is a Strawman.
Me answering the first paragraph you wrote of rambling screed is a ‘strawman’? Who taught you to write?
Strawman recipe
Step 1 - Put up the strawman by stating that the other person was trying to do something they explicitly said they were not trying to do when they actually explained exactly what they were trying to do:
(No. My methaphor is based on how in multiple domains “selling things which can be altered to do something else by those who know how to do such alterations is not the same as selling things for that specific purpose”, as I already explained before and you pointedly ignored. PS: anybody in doubt can just read my other posts here as they’re all consistently about how things are sold, not how things are hacked)
–
Step 2 - Totally trash the very strawman you put up:
(Absolutely right! I was doing totally wrong that which you claimed I was trying to do. In fact, so totally and completely wrong was the way I was trying to do what you claimed I was trying to do, that intelligent individuals might even suspect I was not in fact trying to do that which you claim, but something else for which what I wrote wasn’t such a mismatched comparison).
–
PS: Loved in this latest post the throwing of vague aspersions about my education level as a counter whilst not in fact addressing my argument. Really shows the strength of your argument and depth of reasoning.