Valve/Steam needs to take a stance on quality gaming and commit to: [Safeguarding Digital Games Libraries] + Compromises going forward...

[Histfire]

WARNING: Long post. If you don't like to read, skidaddle!


Okay so, it's one of those posts, but there's so many of them because people are rightfully concerned and angry. I'd say that it is within Valve's own interest to make a statement to the media regarding the future of digital game purchases and endeavour to change digital gaming for the better.


We went into this digital world reluctant to part from discs which despite their waste, the logistics and storage, would last a very long time if looked after and give us exactly what we wanted, save for the convenience of having to actually pick the game up. Yet here we are a little beyond a decade later and the majority of PC content is digital. Within that time we've seen prices rise for no discernible reason besides wanting more, a slew of unfinished indie trash that left many broken promises, incompatibility, abandoned projects, a plethora of now normalised microtransactions affecting game experiences and the normalisation of gambling in games.

However despite all of this, we were largely safe knowing our content would be there. Unfortunately developers can now, despite soaring profits and minimal costs to server up-time for ancient games, decide to just give you the finger and take away access to it, probably so they can remaster a title and have you buy it for 10x the price later on ORRRR push their monthly passes (because come on, we live in a subscription-everything society now). Every day we read more and more about greed this, corruption that, price rises here, no respite there. It's never ending. It never goes backwards. It's always growth, growth, growth or somehow your business has screwed up (don't spook your investors, folks!) This greed has led to this point and aside from the greed itself are the inherent dangers of digital content and digital certification. No servers for validating your downloaded, offline DLC? "Tee-hee-hee, too bad chump! None for you!". Who are you to complain to when they take it away? There isn't any body or group that has your back. You just have to buy it again.

This act of removing support entire support for content delivery (ahem Nintendo), multiplayer services (ahem EA, Ubisoft, others) or revoking access to things you paid for is becoming more common, even though it seems like it has only just begun it has been happening for a good number of years now - though this was primarily centred around the justification of the running costs versus that of a totally dead multiplayer game. The digital gaming world was never about truly owning something and many of us knew this because of course you cannot really own binary or the idea of something - somebody always takes it from you. If it's physical, that's as close as it is going to be to belonging to you as you can get (as a consumer anyway). Unfortunately, games companies including Steam and Microsoft ensured the swift death of disc-based media (partly by stripping out support from the OS level for DVDs and Blu-Rays, using redemption codes instead of games in games boxes, large patches for disc-based games to fix or remedy unfinished content, etc). But if companies like Ubisoft, EA, Nintendo, Microsoft, etc, can just take things away and not let you access the content you paid for (reimbursement for their own store or MT in-game stores is not fair or adequate recompense and is self-serving), and the uproar isn't loud enough, the push to make your $60 purchases are inevitably going to be considered temporary yearly access purchases from the outset, making your "library" not really a library but a dystopian Blockbuster. This of course can further play into the hands of OS makers, content and games distributors and developers by making online game renting and streaming look more appealing. It isn't - it's just a further reduction in your idea of ownership and your access to said content is not guaranteed (but hey the convenience is nice, right?). Also it starts off at great value but they have you by the balls from day 1.

Don't support this nonsense if you care about the future of gaming. Stop buying Ubisoft, EA, Nintendo and Microsoft titles, etc or whoever has shady ass practices, even if you get all giddy about an upcoming release. How many more times do people have to be warned of an impending doom before they actually listen and take action? Stop relying on the it's-too-good-value Game Pass (this is classic lure you in, flip the deal trap), and stop letting companies walk all over you.

Did you ever hear the saying? Don't put all your eggs in one basket? It's what I live by, even if it is a little inconvenient at times. The same goes for digital libraries too. Don't buy all of your games from one digital content delivery network if they're not going to set your interests in stone. Just be warned about the Steam Multiplayer API detracting away from multiplayer experiences on games from third party platforms. Perhaps buy your single player titles elsewhere where you can actually run your installers offline? Just a thought.

Similar story for the constraints of the Windows OS, but I won't get into that here.


This part may seem overly juvenile or theatric or petty or attention-grabbing (it isn't), but I am legitimately concerned and have enough games to see me through for several years (or more) by which time I'll either be too bored of gaming in general or I'll be hooked up to the Matrix itself... or dead... probably dead:

I am no longer buying Steam games or games from other content delivery networks where offline installers are not a thing, UNTIL Steam takes a stance and puts out a statement and changes to their agreement safeguarding the future of digital content purchases on this platform. Not enough is done currently to prevent developers/publishers from pulling paid content at any time.


Here is a potential compromise, which is more a quick idea I've cooked up just now and may ultimately end up giving other developers ideas to resell years down the line or avoid responsibility , but it's just an idea to work from:



Safeguarding the integrity of content delivery for users who purchase on your platform, by ensuring that games remain in users libraries per the following:


Games:

A) Indefinitely* (regardless of price / account status) / the life of the content delivery network

B) for a set amount of time; minimum 10 years or beyond

C) for a set amount of time / considering initial purchase price and/or type of content (MMO buffs, boosters, keys, passes, etc)


DLC: (will require multiple letters for multiple DLC types)

A or a) Indefinitely* / the life of the content delivery network

B or b) for a set amount of time within the game; minimum 10 years from initial game release or beyond (including verification)

C or c) for a set amount of time / considering initial purchase price and/or type of content (MMO buffs, boosters, keys, passes, etc)

D or d) Tied with multiplayer server life; minimum of 10 years and beyond (must also be clearly stated on the store page - separate of user agreement - content separate from A) must be highlighted).


Multiplayer:

A) Indefinitely*

B) for a set amount of time; minimum 10 years or beyond

C) time limited content (i.e. multiplayer modes, special events) ( must be clearly stated)


* This can be interpreted in many ways, so 'permanently' may be more appropriate.

Example of code:

A-ACD-AC or AacdAC) which is: A) An indefinitely hosted game with A) indefinite access DLC, C) some time limited purchases / boosters, D) some purchases tied to multiplayer lifespan (permanent upgrades will be lost in the event multiplayer servers are closed. A) Indefinite multiplayer designs, C) with some time limited multiplayer modes.

Another example:

BC-BCD-BC or BCbcdBC or however you want to stylise it.

Another example (the holy grail):

A-A-A or AAA or AaA

A rough example really.

OR GDM scores (Game, DLC, Multiplayer) and the subsequent points numbered: So, G1D2M3).


Mark each game and categorise them as such with big ass letter codes (or numbers) in the top left of the page. If someone sees a AAA stamped game (rather unintentionally as I was writing, that comes out as a triple A game), they know, immediately, without having to dive into the purposely long-winded, soul-sucking, convoluted terms of agreement, that the content they are purchasing is safe for as long as the platform lives. Steam have the power to enable this and hold developers/publishers to account and have them contractually adhere to and provide what they have stated. Everyone gets paid, everyone know what they're buying without being mislead or lead down a rabbit hole and then people can't complain when a typical company does some of it's usual evil bs.

Hash it our with your developers and partners. Get to work.

I'll enjoy my tsunami of games. Those Steam Sales, Humble Bundles and GOG Connect really did work out. Thanks dudes.


Peace

[my new friend]

It isn't Valve's job to do this. Perhaps you should join the other 2 threads on the subject instead.
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/7/3421063428082471299/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/3421063428082895008/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/3421063428081455267/

[fluxtorrent]

There is literally no reason for a store to do those things. Hell even GOVERNMENTS don't enforce this kind of nonsense on things that actually need regulation.

[my new friend]

It's nothing new anyways. Ubi left Steam a while ago. Why the would you support them in the first place?

[Crazy Tiger]

You overestimate the power and reach of Valve/Steam. Seriously.

[Brian9824]

You also failed to actually read whats going on, games aren't being removed from people's accounts, the online servers for them are being turned off. Valve can't force companies to keep online servers open.

You can't legally require a company pay money to maintain a product. That is 100% up to the company that owns the product.

[Histfire]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

You overestimate the power and reach of Valve/Steam. Seriously.

Not hard really. Put out a statement say we believe gamers who pay for their content have access to it indefinitely unless clearly labelled otherwise, blah blah blah. Reassure gamers. Something along those lines. Encourage developers to do it. Not have sales for content that is about to be discontinued lol. Real classy.

It's okay for the kids who are stuck in their 3 game loop who don't give a toss, but if you have a library of hundreds of games... let's say a bunch of those are Ubisoft games...within the next few years, totally down to Ubisoft or whoever else, can just decide, yeee we're not supporting those anymore because... we can and we want you to buy it again.

I'm not saying Steam is an overruling authority, but as the leading digital content delivery platform it's in their interests to do something. At least say something.

The problem with gradual change is nobody seems to care. Enjoy paying to have the luxury of even accessing your games library n future, dubbed server access charges.

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

Today's "I dont' know what i'm talking about" post

[Brian9824]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Histfire:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

You overestimate the power and reach of Valve/Steam. Seriously.

Not hard really. Put out a statement say we believe gamers who pay for their content have access to it indefinitely unless clearly labelled otherwise, blah blah blah. Reassure gamers. Something along those lines. Encourage developers to do it. Not have sales for content that is about to be discontinued lol. Real classy.

It's okay for the kids who are stuck in their 3 game loop who don't give a toss, but if you have a library of hundreds of games... let's say a bunch of those are Ubisoft games...within the next few years, totally down to Ubisoft or whoever else, can just decide, yeee we're not supporting those anymore because... we can and we want you to buy it again.

I'm not saying Steam is an overruling authority, but as the leading digital content delivery platform it's in their interests to do something. At least say something.

The problem with gradual change is nobody seems to care. Enjoy paying to have the luxury of even accessing your games library n future, dubbed server access charges.

Again, fake news. ubisoft isn't removing SP access, just MP servers. Same thing as every game in history.

Already confirmed on their site - https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/gameplay/article/decommissioning-of-online-services-september-2022/000102396

And confirmed on Steam
https://steamcommunity.com/app/260210/discussions/0/3410930328916820614/

[Mad Scientist]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

You overestimate the power and reach of Valve/Steam. Seriously.

This.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Histfire:

Not hard really. Put out a statement say we believe gamers who pay for their content have access to it indefinitely unless clearly labelled otherwise, blah blah blah.

Except any Dev/Pub can take games they have rights to off of the Steam Store, at their request.

Online only games shutting down, also mean they are unplayable unless they choose to release the server programs. That's not Steams place to make a statement or to get involved in. You can still in almost all cases still DL a game you got on Steam, through Steam. It being able to be played, not so much especially if it's an online only game. I can currently DL a shutdown online-only game, but obviously without the server apps, it's just there (was F2P anyway no loss).

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Histfire:

Encourage developers to do it. Not have sales for content that is about to be discontinued lol. Real classy.

Valve is known to have a hands-off policy in regard to Devs unless they do something wrong. Devs can choose to be generous to users in the end, or to just let the game die/be shutdown and be done with it.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Histfire:

I'm not saying Steam is an overruling authority, but as the leading digital content delivery platform it's in their interests to do something. At least say something.

If anything, it would likely prove it's in their best interest to sit and do nothing. They do what they do, Devs will do what they do. They cannot "just do" something on behalf of Devs, having no right to the properties without permission especially when rights owners revoke it.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Histfire:

The problem with gradual change is nobody seems to care. Enjoy paying to have the luxury of even accessing your games library n future, dubbed server access charges.

If you don't want to worry, have more caution of what you're buying and when you buy it. F2P will likely shutdown, MMOs/online only games will likely shutdown. Play it while you can enjoy it, SP games likely wont go anywhere and are still accessible via Steam even if removed from the store.

[Haruspex]

I don't disagree. Ultimately though it boils down to this; What can we do about it?.. Individually as consumers I mean.

It's said often; "Vote with your wallet." I've been doing that for years now. The problem is my vote, and the votes of others who actually care about this topic and have legitimate concerns about it. We're in the minority. For everyone one of us calling for action regarding digital game ownership, there are 1000 people who don't care and happily throw their money at multiplayer games that will be shut down in a year, loot boxes, live services, and other atrocities.

In light of our powerlessness, it might seem like a good idea to try and appeal to the largest PC gaming platform. Someone with some pull and weight, since we as gamers seem to have none. The trouble with that is, we're not Valve's only customers, and even among those of us here who care, again, we're in the minority. Valve also has to keep publishers and developers happy, or they'll just take their business elsewhere. There's plenty of competition out there looking to gain market share at Valve's expense. If Valve were to offer publishers what they would perceive as a worse deal, even in the name of being more consumer friendly, a dozen alternative platforms would swoop in with more publisher friendly offerings. Epic is taking this approach, and they're pushing hard.

It's a delicate balancing act. Piss off the publishers, they'll go elsewhere. Piss off the customers, they'll go elsewhere. You're not going to 100% satisfy either group 100% of the time, so compromises are necessary.

Meanwhile, I'm going to just continue to vote with my wallet, as useless as that feels sometimes.

[Brian9824]

Please read - https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/gameplay/article/decommissioning-of-online-services-september-2022/000102396

Unsubbing to all these as no one is reading

[Crazy Tiger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Histfire:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

You overestimate the power and reach of Valve/Steam. Seriously.

Not hard really. Put out a statement say we believe gamers who pay for their content have access to it indefinitely unless clearly labelled otherwise, blah blah blah. Reassure gamers. Something along those lines. Encourage developers to do it. Not have sales for content that is about to be discontinued lol. Real classy.

It's okay for the kids who are stuck in their 3 game loop who don't give a toss, but if you have a library of hundreds of games... let's say a bunch of those are Ubisoft games...within the next few years, totally down to Ubisoft or whoever else, can just decide, yeee we're not supporting those anymore because... we can and we want you to buy it again.

I'm not saying Steam is an overruling authority, but as the leading digital content delivery platform it's in their interests to do something. At least say something.

The problem with gradual change is nobody seems to care. Enjoy paying to have the luxury of even accessing your games library n future, dubbed server access charges.

It's in their interest to sell games that people want. It's not in their interest to do things that upset their partners (developers/publishers).

Not buying their products is something that might help, but the issue is that such boycotts aren't carried broadly. The average gamer doesn't give a crap about all this. They play their game, finish it once and then forget about it. Good luck trying to unite them.

[Brian9824]

Already confirmed false

https://www.gamesradar.com/four-more-ubisoft-games-affected-by-delistings-on-steam/

Update: Ubisoft has confirmed four games are being "decommissioned" in September, but only DLC and online features will be removed from each.

"Current owners of those games will still be able to access, play or redownload them.

[Start_Running]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Big Bridge.mp4:

Today's "I dont' know what i'm talking about" post

Sounds more like aan 'I never read the EULA' post.
OP. All games that rely on online servers for stuff are invariably going to shut down. At no point were you going to maintain access indefinitely. At no point were you promised such access either.

You still have the Single PLayer base game at any rate. HOw the matter of DLC gets handled will be a thing to see. Perhaps where possible the DLC will be patched in as part of the base game (which would give them an excuse to jack up the price)

[ShelLuser]

The last thing Valve should be doing here is to involve themselves with what other developers do with their own games. They run a store, not some kind of gaming committee. The only ones who should be doing something if they don't agree with the upcoming changes are us customers.

For example... while Ubisoft states that this won't affect single player I'm going for seeing is believing, but in the mean time I'm also considering to put 'm on ignore in order to remind me about this.

But Valve should definitely not get involved.