Steam should force games to disclose if they require an always online connection

[Charember]

Before you say something like "oh you're online 90% of the time anyways, who cares, shut up and move on", my counterpoint would be the Steam Deck. For example, if someone's taking a vacation in the countryside where there's no internet or poor internet, they can't play those games anymore until they get back to somewhere with better Wi-Fi. Having no SIM card trays means that the steam deck would require network tethering from a mobile phone to play those online games, which could have a data limit for the pre-paid cards often purchased by tourists. They'd have to choose between playing an online game and keeping their phones online. This leads to unnecessary frustration, people demanding refunds and wastes the support staff's time. Making companies disclose their always online requirements shifts the burden onto game publishers instead, and creates a better experience for customers.

[Nx Machina]

Postat inițial de Charember:

Someone requested examples of games with always-on DRM, and I was listing the examples off the top of my head. If you want to dismiss Outriders being unplayable on the Steam Deck anyway, sure, you'd be technically correct that Outriders currently isn't a relevant example with regards to the Steam Deck.

Your OP post was about Steam Deck and online and they asked for examples.

Postat inițial de Charember:

Claiming that Elite Dangerous is an MMO would be very misleading. While the game does have a server, the game itself relies on P2P networking, and only allows around 30 or so people in one instance. If you're just trying to say that just because it has an "MMO" tag it implies that the game needs online connection to play the single player mode, Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 also has this tag, and yet offline mode works completely fine. It's even Deck Verified. If anything, this proves that we need an explicit warning that signals this distinction clearly to customers.

It is listed on the store page as an mmo and any game with multiple players in the same instance is an mmo.

Secondly you obviously chose not to read the articles i linked, so to repeat, Elite Dangerous needs an online connection because there is not nor has there ever been an offline mode.

Single player is simply a private solo online instance.

Postat inițial de Charember:

You've droned on and on about "do your research", but why couldn't a warning about always-on DRM be a part of that research process? You've relied on the information from multiple sources, including information on a game's store page to make your arguments, so what exactly is the harm in adding one more line that says "this game requires a constant online internet connection"? If publishers are already cool with declaring that they have other forms of DRM, such as Denuvo or EAC on their games, why not declare an always-online requirement as well?

And you haven't given a single viable reason why in the "information age" you cannot research games you intend to buy or already have and would rather Valve and Devs hold your hand.

Simple questions in any search engine:

Can Elite Dangerous be played offline?

Answer: No.

Can Elite Dangerous be played on Steam Deck?

Answer: No.

Why does Vermintide 2 need to be online?

Answer: because all characters are stored online including gear etc.

[cinedine]

Just give it up. He's just on the forums to argue for tthe sake of him arguing without having any stake in the discussion.
Not worth the time of anyone nor the mental breakdown of disbelieve exposure to this person can cause.

[Start_Running]

Postat inițial de cinedine:

Just give it up. He's just on the forums to argue for tthe sake of him arguing without having any stake in the discussion.
Not worth the time of anyone nor the mental breakdown of disbelieve exposure to this person can cause.

One does not need to have a stake to have insight you know.
Funnily enough that usually grants the clearest insight since the lack of stake removes bias towards or against any argument.

[Quackzilla]

I'm extremely upset about Red Dead Redemption 2 as a Steam Deck owner. Just bought it and got back into PC gaming after many years only to find that I'm tethered to an internet connection with DRM on my HANDHELD CONSOLE.

[Mad Scientist]

Postat inițial de Quackzilla:

I'm extremely upset about Red Dead Redemption 2 as a Steam Deck owner. Just bought it and got back into PC gaming after many years only to find that I'm tethered to an internet connection with DRM on my HANDHELD CONSOLE.

You already made a thread about this, you don't need to say it twice
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/3283695222725459182/

[cinedine]

Postat inițial de Start_Running:

Postat inițial de cinedine:

Just give it up. He's just on the forums to argue for tthe sake of him arguing without having any stake in the discussion.
Not worth the time of anyone nor the mental breakdown of disbelieve exposure to this person can cause.

One does not need to have a stake to have insight you know.
Funnily enough that usually grants the clearest insight since the lack of stake removes bias towards or against any argument.

Funny enough it does not. If you don't argue for or against anything it simply makes it obvious that you don't have a bloody clue about what you are talking. Some users acknowledge it. Some users leave quietly. And then you have a handfull of users who indulge in their ingorance, start ot derail discussions and start arguments about specific wording because the topic is far too highbrow for them.

It is extremely obvious that this suggestion is not all about Steam Deck and it was only used a recent reason why it would come in handy. Upon naming games where this information is not already clearly disclosed it suddenly becomes all about these two example and how you can assume this information from other palces on the store page. After providing examples how this is not universal for all games it revolves back into the most stupid of arguments that is repeated ad nauseum by a few people here: we don't have it, so we don't need it!!!

It doesn't matter that there is plenty of precedence of Valve including information in a clear visibile manner to the store page already. Ranging from the aggregated user "score" to third party EULA and DRM disclosures, whether people refunded games after a review, or actual gameplay screenshots and videos. Although the later seems to be completely forgotten by now and is not or losely enforced. Similar to the "no trolling" ruling.

What's the "opinion" he defends? Do your research elsewhere.
No! That's exactly what yo do not want as a store. You want to keep people on your site and not lose them to Google. Where they might find the information you are not providing to them. On another store page. You also don't want them to refund the pruchase later. Or even worse: tell them they can no longer get a refund and mar their experience on yoru store even more after they already bought a product because you didn't clearly indicate what they were looking for.
Also most people buy games on Steam for one simple reason: because that's all they know of. They neither know of sites like pcgamingwiki nor have any interest in that nerd stuff. They just want to buy games. Handholding is something GOOD! It helps the conversion rate. It makes for a good store experience and bring people back. The easier it is to purchase something and feel like you made an informed decission, the better.
Imagine going to literally *any* shop IRL, asking a employee about a product and getting "like, can't you look that up for yourself, like on your phone or something? We live in an age of information after all, duh."

That's a new level for being completely out of touch with the realtiy most users live in. And aparrently I should not assume that this is just a persona for the sole purpose of trolling other users..

[Start_Running]

Postat inițial de cinedine:

Postat inițial de Start_Running:

One does not need to have a stake to have insight you know.
Funnily enough that usually grants the clearest insight since the lack of stake removes bias towards or against any argument.

Funny enough it does not. If you don't argue for or against anything it simply makes it obvious that you don't have a bloody clue about what you are talking.

Nope. You don't have to be for or against something to point out flaws in the arguments of either side. In fact as said, being without stake puts you in a better position to do so. It also doesn't mean you're any less knowlegable than the other two. because again blinders are a thing.

Postat inițial de cinedine:

Imagine going to literally *any* shop IRL, asking a employee about a product and getting "like, can't you look that up for yourself, like on your phone or something? We live in an age of information after all, duh."

Considering i've walked into a computer store, asked for a sound card and got handed a graphics card...and had to explain to the salesperson that it was not a a soundcard and how I could tell it was a graphics card.

Yeah I never assume the people selling me the stuff no anything about what they're selling beyond what they get the best margin/commission on.

Postat inițial de cinedine:

That's a new level for being completely out of touch with the realtiy most users live in. And aparrently I should not assume that this is just a persona for the sole purpose of trolling other users..

Yeah again you show your own weakness here Cinedine..

As for the topic at hand...yeah here's the thing . It would be nice if such information was there but dev/pubs are the ones to put it there and we are the ones with the power to force dev/pubs into it. I mean if the information isn't there...don't buy it. simple.

[RiO]

Postat inițial de cinedine:

Imagine going to literally *any* shop IRL, asking a employee about a product and getting "like, can't you look that up for yourself, like on your phone or something? We live in an age of information after all, duh."

I had that happen once, actually. Another guy in the store actually was in earshot and picked up on what that employee had told me. After trading words with that same employee over their conduct they promptly literally shouted through the store to collect his spouse, telling her they were leaving because of terrible service.

Floor manager walked up from their posting to come check up on the situation as well. And I just backed off with a "yeah, you kind of did that to yourself, friend"-gesture before leaving.

So it does happen IRL as well, sadly. You just don't always get away with it, as above story shows.

Postat inițial de Start_Running:

Nope. You don't have to be for or against something to point out flaws in the arguments of either side. In fact as said, being without stake puts you in a better position to do so. It also doesn't mean you're any less knowlegable than the other two. because again blinders are a thing.

FWIW, not being on either side of the argument does not mean you have no stake. Even when you do not hold a stake in the topic being discussed, but can still hold a stake in the discussion itself: i.e. wanting to win the argument and be proven right. And if not that, there are those that enjoy to simply argue for the sake of arguing. Their stake is to prolong an argument.


I do have to agree with cinedine here that if the basic counter-argument to not having a dedicated UI affordance for an always-online connection like the third-party EULA; DRM; etc. notices, is a case of "we don't have it now either, so we can get by without it" ... then that is an extremely weak argument. In fact, to defer to the status quo as being 'right' simply because it is the status quo is literally a form of bandwagon argument -- i.e. it is hollow.

In contrast to that cinedine did a great job summing up what such an affordance would actually bring to the table should it be added to the platform. Namely, clarity towards customers; and convenience for customers. Which translates into happier customers; less refunds; and lower odds of customers looking for information elsewhere and leaving your store. It's a win for all parties involved.

Well, except for those publishers that use always-online DRM; are aware that it's not popular; but consciously remain hush-hush about it, in the hopes of it flying under the radar and thus being able to 'sneak one by.' But if you're opposed to those business practices being discouraged, then that raises questions about your moral alignment and ethics more than anything else.

[cinedine]

Postat inițial de RiO:

So it does happen IRL as well, sadly. You just don't always get away with it, as above story shows.

Yes, it does happen. Not saying it doesn't. And when it happens, are you just told to take it and think it's normal behaviour? Well, the guy in your story obviously didn't.
And if it keeps happening, you simply stop shopping there.

So you have basically have users(!) on Steam arguing against an improvement that would help not only other users but also the store by providing a better experience that might lead to actually making the sale.
#OnlyOnSteam

[Brian9824]

Postat inițial de Start_Running:

Postat inițial de cinedine:

Imagine going to literally *any* shop IRL, asking a employee about a product and getting "like, can't you look that up for yourself, like on your phone or something? We live in an age of information after all, duh."

Considering i've walked into a computer store, asked for a sound card and got handed a graphics card...and had to explain to the salesperson that it was not a a soundcard and how I could tell it was a graphics card.

Wow I know Cinedine twists arguments around but that is a doozy. I mean talk about some serious mental gymnastics. That example is NOTHING at all like what is being discussed. It would be more akin to going into a store and then demanding that store force its suppliers to change the labeling on all their packages. Would love to see someone walk into best buy and complain that an item doesn't have enough details on it, and demand the store force the supplier to add more details.....

Please let us know how that turns out when you do.

I mean the entire issue that people pointing out is that Steam doesn't make it a habit to FORCE developers to do anything. Doing so is a slippery slope and an easy way to ruin your business and drive away the very customers you need.

Just like the guy who wants Steam to FORCE developers to design games in a way so he can play every game in offline mode. FORCING your customers to do something almost never ends well.

[Start_Running]

Postat inițial de brian9824:

Postat inițial de Start_Running:

Considering i've walked into a computer store, asked for a sound card and got handed a graphics card...and had to explain to the salesperson that it was not a a soundcard and how I could tell it was a graphics card.

Wow I know Cinedine twists arguments around but that is a doozy. I mean talk about some serious mental gymnastics. That example is NOTHING at all like what is being discussed. It would be more akin to going into a store and then demanding that store force its suppliers to change the labeling on all their packages. Would love to see someone walk into best buy and complain that an item doesn't have enough details on it, and demand the store force the supplier to add more details.....

The most a store could do is request and decline to carry the product until rthe changes are made. But they can't FORCE rthem and remember typical stores function differently than STeam,.

Postat inițial de brian9824:

I mean the entire issue that people pointing out is that Steam doesn't make it a habit to FORCE developers to do anything. Doing so is a slippery slope and an easy way to ruin your business and drive away the very customers you need.

Plus thats a very thin linee that could land them on the 'abusing monopolistic powers' and that would basically get so many governments on their cases.

Postat inițial de brian9824:

Just like the guy who wants Steam to FORCE developers to design games in a way so he can play every game in offline mode. FORCING your customers to do something almost never ends well.

And worse forcing them also basically brings up the whoele abuse of powers things that make governments take note..

[RiO]

Postat inițial de brian9824:

That example is NOTHING at all like what is being discussed. It would be more akin to going into a store and then demanding that store force its suppliers to change the labeling on all their packages.

It's a bit of both really.

There is no real-time chat or similar feature to turn to -- i.e. no equivalent to the store clerk able to offer you answers to questions; etc. -- so whatever is placed on the storefront page pretty much has to fill both roles.

That said, my beat on it is that cinedine is less in the camp of: "Valve has to force publishers/developers to adhere to this!" and is more in the camp of: "Why would upstanding publishers that have nothing to hide, not want to use this?" believing that if Valve would add support for a better UI affordance for it to the platform, those publishers would start using it of their own volition - so as to better inform their customers.

Postat inițial de Start_Running:

Plus thats a very thin linee that could land them on the 'abusing monopolistic powers' and that would basically get so many governments on their cases.

[..]

And worse forcing them also basically brings up the whoele abuse of powers things that make governments take note..

I'm not directly buying that though. Abuse of power in what way?
It's not anti-competitive in nature; it does not put undue burden on publishers, financial or otherwise; it does not directly gain Valve any profit (other than through increase of sales - which benefits the publishers more so); and it doesn't constitute deplatforming or other types of non state-originating censorship.

[cinedine]

Postat inițial de brian9824:

That example is NOTHING at all like what is being discussed.

It's not an example of what is being discussed. It's an example of displaying the same mindset that Nx Machina displays in another environment. Namely: you can find that information elsewhere, there is no need for us, the store you want to buy the item at, to give it to you.
But I guess that's a step too much abstraction for some users ...

You want an example that is *exactly* like the one being discussed?
Steam "forcing" (seriously, though, stop arguing about words people use and start discussing the actual suggestion) studios to disclose:
- having to agree to a third party EULA
- including third party DRM and/or Denuvo
You know. Stuff that got ask for before and has been added to the store front. Unless you want to argue that "requires a constant online connection" is somehow completely different and not at all comparable. Oh boy, please do.

And Steam has a "habit of not forcing developers" ...
Yeah ... like not asking for price parity or simultanous release on all platforms. Or labeling content age appropriately. And they totally do not enforce the usage of their payment gate for microtransactions.
It's like Steam doesn't enforce any rules at all apart from the ones they do.
But having to disclose an always-online requirement. That's taking it too far. They are taking our freeduhm! What's next? Communism?!

Postat inițial de RiO:

That said, my beat on it is that cinedine is less in the camp of: "Valve has to force publishers/developers to adhere to this!" and is more in the camp of: "Why would upstanding publishers that have nothing to hide, not want to use this?" believing that if Valve would add support for a better UI affordance for it to the platform, those publishers would start using it of their own volition - so as to better inform their customers.

I am firmly in two camps:
-Mmore information more readily available is good for everyone involved. (Unless your business model revovles around duping customers, in which case, kindly ♥♥♥♥ off from society completely).
- It's ridiculous that a handful of regulars keep banging on completely reasonable suggestions and making the posters feel like they ask for the rights on their first borne or something similar outrageous.

[Start_Running]

Postat inițial de RiO:

Postat inițial de Start_Running:

Plus thats a very thin linee that could land them on the 'abusing monopolistic powers' and that would basically get so many governments on their cases.

[..]

And worse forcing them also basically brings up the whoele abuse of powers things that make governments take note..

I'm not directly buying that though. Abuse of power in what way?

Ask Apple.

Postat inițial de RiO:

It's not anti-competitive in nature; it does not put undue burden on publishers, financial or otherwise; it does not directly gain Valve any profit (other than through increase of sales - which benefits the publishers more so); and it doesn't constitute deplatforming or other types of non state-originating censorship.

DOes it lead to an increase in sales?

[M100T]

I've read through some of the comments here, and I've gotta ask: why is this suggestion even a remotely controversial thing? It's not like Steam making games' store pages tell you whether or not they have always-online DRM is a federal crime or something lol. It would only help people make a more informed purchase. +1