It's a bit strange to me to read these complaints about Steam/Valve, then have the author... switch to Microsoft Store and advocate for Game Pass?
It's a bit strange to me to read these complaints about Steam/Valve, then have the author... switch to Microsoft Store and advocate for Game Pass?
What Kaldaien is trying to say is like:
"DRM means you don't own the product, and you'll eventually lose acces to it. Therefore, subscription based gaming plans are a preferred option, as they don't attempt to deceive you into thinking you're buying an ownable game, often with a real, ownable game price tag. The subscription starts at a given date, has a defined expiration date that depends on the offering you choose, and provides a clearer statement of non-ownership of games."
Personally I get the point, but this take is missing lots of important details that should've been considered before making such an impactful decision:
- Think, for instance, of some of the policies that are already present in some services, such as restrictions for offline play.
- And how much this opinion actually benefits videogame lobbies that are looking into pushing game-as-a-service practices that, very coincidentally, we're attempting to fight against in Europe with initiatives like "Stop Killing Games".
In fact, this message, at this time, could have counterproductive consequences for the non DRM market and overall customer rights exactly because of the surrounding situation.
Yea.... He goes on about how you dont own the game on steam because valve can... patch it so that it doesnt work.
But then says well lets play a game on gamepass. I mean I guess that DOES solve the "patch it so that the game no longer works" problem. Just dont own anything.
The point is that when using a subscription service to access a game, like Microsoft's gamepass, you explicitly know that what you're paying for is temporary access to a game. Where as when you buy a game on many of these store fronts it doesn't seem like like you are only buying temporary access, but it is in fact what you are getting just with possibly a slightly longer timeframe.
I mean... Maybe? He's talking about games that no longer work on windows 98. But how many games are on microsoft's gamepass that are from 25-30 years ago? Does Microsoft support old games like that?
Or is this an apples and oranges situation where microsoft doesn't "break trust" because they dont even offer you the ability to play the game.
Also I would love a example of a game that no longer works at all.
Yes, it's the latter. I know I'm getting temporary access to some games, whereas with Steam it looks like I'm getting permanent access when I'm really not.
Tbf, it’s a totally valid argument. It’s a bit like going to a library that costs monthly fee rather than buying books that get auto-disabled arbitrarily in the future (hmm Bezos?).
It’s false advertising when you ”buy” things with modern DRM, no? Maybe he’s tired of the hypocrisy.
That feels like the sort of opinion money has changed hands for.
He seems a bit unhinged and has a personal vendetta here. Misplaced outrage. Microsoft has done more damage to the industry than good
Modders really seem to get into a lot of personal drama