185
Study finds 72% of Developers View Steam as Monopoly [from the overall pool, 75% of respondents were senior managers] (steamdeckhq.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

I've been gaming on Linux for a year now and I have (and run) way more games from GOG than Steam.

Historically I avoided Steam because of the whole "you don't own the games, you just license them at full price" nature of the "phone home" validation they have for most games, so I had a much larger collection in GOG than Steam to begin with since I would only get from Steam the really interesting games which I wouldn't find in GOG (plenty of games I simply did not buy because they were Steam only).

That said, running GOG games in Linux is as least as simple as Steam games, thanks to me using Lutris which does all the heavy lifting of properly configuring Wine and VKDX to run my games and even integrates with GOG to directly download the installers: in practice I have about the same chance of success with click-and-play installing and running a game in Linux from the Steam Store via the Steam App as I do from GOG via Lutris.

Then on top of that, because I'm a techie, I actually prefer Lutris + Wine because it's so much more open for configuration than Steam and to figure out yourself how to run games for which there are no pre-made configuration scripts, such as pirated ones - for example, for one of my Steam games I couldn't at all find a way to run the official version of the game in Linux via the Steam App, but I could get the pirated version of that game to run just fine via Lutris.

I even have a default setting in Lutris which will run my games inside a Firejail sandbox with networking disabled plus a bunch of other security settings, something I can't do in Steam (were I can only do it for the entire Steam App, which won't function with disabled networking).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You don't own gog games either. Not using drm doesn't grant ownership.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Two things:

    1. ..

    You're confusing ownership of the "copyright of a game" with ownership of the actual instance of a game.

    In jurisdictions were the Law is not just bought and paid for by industry lobbyists, you definitely own that copy you got when you downloaded the offline installer from GOG same as you would a game CD. What you don't own is the copyright of the game.

    Further, even in the jurisdictions were IP Law is thoroughly bought and thus has been subverted to serve media industry interests, you de facto own that copy you got when you downloaded the offline installer from GOG: because the way things are set up with GOG (meaning, no DRM), the copyright owner would have no recourse but to literally take you to court to take away that copy, which they won't because it's too expensive so not worth the cost - unlike with Steam they can't just switch off you access to it by toggling a flag in a database.

    Curiously, with Steam they can block you from accessing the copy of the game you bought even in the non-corrupt legal jurisdictions, because if they just block you from accessing it even if they legally can't, it's now up to you to take them to court to restore access to something you legally should have access to, and you won't do it because it's "too expensive so not worth the cost".

    1. ..

    Whilst the whole thing is a bit of a mess with multiple takes on multiple jurisdictions, the praxis side is the same everywhere: "Possession is 9/10 of the law" as the saying goes - so if you have it fully under your control (so, no "phone home" system that can lock you out from using it) THEY have to take you to Court and justify to the Judge why they should be allowed to take it away from you, whilst if it's not under your control and they just take your access to it away from you, YOU have to take them to Court and justify why they should have to restore you access.

    Even were you do not have legal ownership of a copy of a game, the way the GOG stuff is set up, once you've downloaded the offline installer you have de facto ownership which is pretty costly for them to overturn.

    Meanwhile, the way the Steam stuff is set up you do not have control over that instance of the game and they can just take it away from you, and then it's you who will have trouble overturning it even in jurisdictions were you're legally in the right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Many of my favorite games don't have drm, and you can just copy the install folder and boom, you own a copy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, but the store doesn't actually tell you which is which when you're looking to buy a new game, now does it?!

    Further, will that copy of an install folder work if you copy it into a new machine? Maybe, but probably not (it depends on things like how the game handles missing registry keys and/or the graphics card changing whilst there's already a shader cache for the previous graphics cards).

    When you're making a purchasing decision, if that factor is very important to you, Steam's possibility that maybe it can be done in an unofficial non-supported way, but you don't get told upfront if it does work, and you're not sure if it will work if you change machines, doesn't count as a real "I get to keep the game no matter what" feature - it's a hack, that sometimes works, usually doesn't.

    In GOG that feature is standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •