this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54669 readers
417 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

They could have easily crammed the Steam Deck full of stuff to make it hard to use for piracy - locking down everything, making it usable only to play games you legitimately own, force you to go through who knows what hoops in order to play games on it. That's what Nintendo or Apple or most other companies do.

But they didn't, because they realized they didn't have to. It's 100% possible to put pirated games on the Steam Deck - in fact, it's as easy as it could reasonably be. You copy it over, you wire it up to Steam, if it's a non-Linux game you set it up with Proton or whatever else you want to use to run it, bam. You can now run it in Steam just as easily as a normal Steam game (usually.) If you want something similar to cloud saves you can even set up SyncThing for that.

But all of that is a lot of work, and after all that you still don't have automatic updates, and some games won't run this way for one reason or another even though they'll run if you own them (usually, I assume, because of Steam Deck specific tweaks or install stuff that are only used when you're running them on the Deck via the normal method.) Some of this you can work around but it's even more hoops.

Whereas if you own a game it's just push a button and play. They made legitimately owning a game more convenient than piracy, and they did it without relying on DRM or anything that restricts or annoys legitimate users at all - even if a game has a DRM-free GOG version, owning it on Steam will still make it easier to play on the Steam Deck.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Morgikan@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Valve argued in court that you do not own any title in your library and that they are a subscription based service. That's not very ethical.

[–] Jako301@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

You never owned any software, even before valve. All you ever purchased was a license key that could be revoked at any time.

That isn't a problem made by valve, it existed far before the whole company was even founded. The underlying issue is the way digital mediums are licensed and the corresponding copyright laws.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Is that not true though? As much as we hate it, until you get given some transferrable proof of ownership of the game (like an NFT) and ability to play without being tied to one service, it's the unfortunate reality of online game services.

It's easy to go buy a physical game but when it's online, you don't own anything - yet

[–] xep@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's true. Pragmatically speaking if you don't have access to the server software you can't play it if the servers go down, and besides reverse engineering or the goodwill of the developers I'm not aware of any games with online components that continue to be playable after their servers are taken down.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago

Well then allow me to name a few:

  • Battlefront 2 (the original), still active when the servers have been down for years

  • Titanfall 2. Official servers aren't technically down, but pretty much unusable and NorthStar is the alternative

  • Counter strike 1.6 is pretty much just community-run servers, same with day of defeat: source. I don't know if they are tied with valve that if valve shut them down, they wouldn't be searchable.

  • Supreme commander: Forged Alliance

Hell, Battle for Middle Earth II still has a small community

  • Valheim has never had official servers. I run my own via docker on debian

  • Unreal Tournament 1999

  • Minecraft (official servers aren't down, but if they shutdown there would still be 2000 servers)

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Back in 2000-2012, a good lot of mainly singleplayer games had optional multiplayer modes. Think Halo, Starcraft, TRON, Titanfall, etc. Even DOOM 2016 had it. These games function with the servers down.

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Something I haven't thought about in a while: In the early 2000s games where you made a direct connection to the other player without an intervening, third-party server were still a thing. You still see it in things like netplay functionality in emulators.

Is this still a thing at all in 2023? Imagine it would be very niche, but this comment made me curious.

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

It's still in Team Fortress 2 and Factorio

[–] seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fundamentally I don't really know how it'd be viable to truly "own" a specific copy of something, when it's always possible to make infinitely many copies of it. Any such "ownership" is at best essentially just conceptual, aside from perhaps the legal right to annoy other people about the copies they are in possession of.

So instead my personal take is that I'd rather everything just be offered DRM-free. I don't necessarily need transferable ownership as much as I just need proper and guaranteed access under my own control after I purchase the product.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

NFTs cannot have copies made (apart from by the publisher) and are ideally suited to this problem

[–] seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But anything that exists as digital data can be copied. The same applies to NFTs. Make an NFT image or game or whatever, and it can be copied by whoever has access to it. The only way to prevent such copying is to not release it at all.

The only stipulation is that copies made without authorization of whoever holds the rights to it would not be "official" instances of the thing, and there are potential copyright restrictions on the use of such copies...but that's using NFTs to justify copyright law, and aside from "lol copyright", legal of ownership of an NFT is even more of a mess than traditional legal ownership of an IP.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're talking about media linked to by existing NFTs. You can't copy an NFT and use it, you don't have the cryptographic keys to mint more. There is a finite number.

[–] seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And what exactly is that NFT, as distinct from the media it's linked to, useful for? Aside from simply saying that it is unique and one can have ownership of it.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Cryptographic licence verification so you can play the game, say for example to use online services. Allows you to trade that licence to other people directly, no third party involvement to facilitate the trade. The game would pick it up and work. Anyone could download the game files but they only work if you own the game either by buying off someone directly or an official publisher

[–] seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

Any such verification depends on some other party to verify it. If the game requires online services, then the verification is dependent on the online services; the verification can't stand alone. But we already have existing systems for that without the need for NFTs.

On the other hand, if the game is a standalone game that doesn't require connecting to online services, then if the game can be made to run on one computer it can be made to run on another computer. No matter how you choose to assign ownership, you can't get around this. Videogames are fundamentally data, and data can be copied.

Besides...inventing a new NFT-based DRM? No matter how you do it, it's not going to be as convenient as simply not having DRM. A DRM-free game is one that anyone can just pick up and it'll work, too. You're proposing a "solution" that doesn't offer anything new, while opening up other cans of worms along the way.

Also, we already have peer to peer game trades/sales anyway, and we've had these, long before NFTs were a thing.