An update to publishing a game to Steam's ToS

[Uncle⁧⁧Sam]

Can the ToS please get updated to ban a mandatory launcher that isn't Steam if the game is bought on Steam. Example: You download Apex Legends, not only does it require Steam but also the Origin launcher, and more and more publishers/ developers are updating older games to require their launcher as well to play games we've bought on Steam. It's getting really irritating that I need to have multiple launchers for games that I've bought on Steam.

[Brian9824]

Yeah a big no. Having another launcher isn't exactly an issue. If you don't like games that have them, then simply don't buy them. No reason to remove them from being accessible for millions of people that have no issue with them

[Start_Running]

Origineel geplaatst door legit:

Origineel geplaatst door Tito Shivan:

Consider Steam IS the 'external' launcher for those games.

Devs aren't going to maintain two game clients for the sake of selling in one store. They'll simply sell elsewhere.

That confirms my fears... I'm afraid steam is losing influence... :(

Has nothing to do with fears. Its a matter of convenience for the devs. They sell their game across multiple store fronts and multiple platforms. It makes sense to be able to you know, have a one stop thing where they can manage updates, version controls, etc.

Origineel geplaatst door brian9824:

Yeah a big no. Having another launcher isn't exactly an issue. If you don't like games that have them, then simply don't buy them. No reason to remove them from being accessible for millions of people that have no issue with them

When you consider its a very small number of games that do this, it becoems even more absurd.

[RiO]

Origineel geplaatst door Tito Shivan:

Origineel geplaatst door Yasahi:

Now then, which one is more likely? Valve adds a rule that drives developers/publishers away meaning they get zero sales for those games OR Valve does not interfere and some consumers do not buy said products?

From a business perspective it's not hard to guess which stance Valve might take.

Let's get to the real core of the suggestion:

OP wants Steam to strongarm developers into removing their own launchers in order to be able to sell on Steam. Theoretically resulting in developers caving in and removing those launchers.

My take on it? It might have worked 15 years ago when Steam was basically the only venue for digital game sales. Nowadays? It'd only result in those games selling elsewhere.

I tend to agree with that.
However; there is also a middle-ground here. And that is to disallow addition of launchers post-release. Especially those that suddenly require use of a third-party account.

[loppantorkel]

Origineel geplaatst door Start_Running:

Origineel geplaatst door legit:

That confirms my fears... I'm afraid steam is losing influence... :(

Has nothing to do with fears. Its a matter of convenience for the devs. They sell their game across multiple store fronts and multiple platforms. It makes sense to be able to you know, have a one stop thing where they can manage updates, version controls, etc.

Origineel geplaatst door brian9824:

Yeah a big no. Having another launcher isn't exactly an issue. If you don't like games that have them, then simply don't buy them. No reason to remove them from being accessible for millions of people that have no issue with them

When you consider its a very small number of games that do this, it becoems even more absurd.

This is only one part of the argument though. It's the low hanging fruit. The easy to win argument. The argument all the opposing posters go after. I also doubt Valve will try to limit publishers using their own launchers.

..but the OP also questions another thing. Old games bought without a launcher, that the devs haven't updated for years are now being retrofitted with the publisher's own launcher. This is another matter that is more of a grey area. It's not done due to necessity or conveniency of updating the game. It's also done without the users' direct consent of a launcher, at the time of purchase.

Live service games or games with longer life spans like Skyrim - I can see a point here, but pushing launchers on old single player games..? I believe the publishers are well within their right here too, but bringing this up as an unnecessary inconvenience for their customers is also reasonable.

[Start_Running]

Nothing grey about that. Dev/P{ubs have been free to do that, and some times when games pass hands from one publisher to another, this happens.

As pointed out. CValve isn't going to strong arm devs like that. That'd just bee a needless and honestly dangerous hassle.

[Brian9824]

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

Origineel geplaatst door Start_Running:

Has nothing to do with fears. Its a matter of convenience for the devs. They sell their game across multiple store fronts and multiple platforms. It makes sense to be able to you know, have a one stop thing where they can manage updates, version controls, etc.




When you consider its a very small number of games that do this, it becoems even more absurd.

This is only one part of the argument though. It's the low hanging fruit. The easy to win argument. The argument all the opposing posters go after. I also doubt Valve will try to limit publishers using their own launchers.

..but the OP also questions another thing. Old games bought without a launcher, that the devs haven't updated for years are now being retrofitted with the publisher's own launcher. This is another matter that is more of a grey area. It's not done due to necessity or conveniency of updating the game. It's also done without the users' direct consent of a launcher, at the time of purchase.

Live service games or games with longer life spans like Skyrim - I can see a point here, but pushing launchers on old single player games..? I believe the publishers are well within their right here too, but bringing this up as an unnecessary inconvenience for their customers is also reasonable.

Its not really a grey area, its their game, and their right to do so. As someone who has done software development its perfectly logical as it makes their game version across all platforms the same and simplify's management.

In the end, its their right like you said, so if people are unhappy they can voice it to the developers, but don't expect Steam to wage that fight as its a no win scenario for them. They either strong arm developers and force them to do it pissing them off, or the developers pull their games from steam and they lose sales. Either way Steam loses.

[Tito Shivan]

Origineel geplaatst door RiO:

However; there is also a middle-ground here. And that is to disallow addition of launchers post-release. Especially those that suddenly require use of a third-party account.

We're gettin into a (way) bigger can of worms there though. Starting from defining what constitutes a 'launcher' and following by the devloper's right to decide how their software needs to operate (IE: A launcher with a third party login may be a decision taken by the developer to curb software piracy) and what happens with the already sold software in Steam (Version freeze for Steam owners?) if the dev follows development with a launcher outside of Steam.

It's a though nut to crack.

All in all the result we'd get would be likely the same. Devs would follow the path of less resistance, which will likely be selling out of Steam. And they're not short of options nowadays.

[Nx Machina]

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

..but the OP also questions another thing. Old games bought without a launcher, that the devs haven't updated for years are now being retrofitted with the publisher's own launcher. This is another matter that is more of a grey area.

Grey area?

They own the game you own a licence and you were never promised nothing will change.

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

Live service games or games with longer life spans like Skyrim - I can see a point here, but pushing launchers on old single player games..? I believe the publishers are well within their right here too, but bringing this up as an unnecessary inconvenience for their customers is also reasonable.

Skyrim's longevity is down to mods and not the game itself even Todd Howard admits that.

Secondly unnecessary inconvenience is simply "i do not what it" and in not inclusive of everyone who do not see it as an issue.

[loppantorkel]

Well, it's most likely covered legally as far as it's written, but there's a reason for why they make the big note at the store page that the game needs another launcher to run. As far as I know, it goes for all games on Steam.

I'm not sure how far you could go about downgrading the user experience - adding denuvo, launchers or whatever, post purchase, before you could argue that the product has been altered enough to warrant a refund. Probably different for different countries.

As far as Valve strong arming any publishers.. I don't think we'll see it, but Valve has earned a lot of customers through the convenience of Steam, and I think that convenience should be protected. I also believe Electronic Arts and Blizzard have suffered more than Valve during their periods of exclusivity.

[Brian9824]

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

I'm not sure how far you could go about downgrading the user experience - adding denuvo, launchers or whatever, post purchase, before you could argue that the product has been altered enough to warrant a refund. Probably different for different countries.

You couldn't really argue that adding a 3rd party launcher downgrades the experience at all. Its also part of every games EULA you agree to that they can update their software.

The rights of software holders to update and modify their software is extremely well protected by the courts. It would be basically impossible to prove in court that the addition of a launcher renders the software fundamentally different then what you bought as its just a different platform for obtaining the software.

[loppantorkel]

Origineel geplaatst door brian9824:

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

I'm not sure how far you could go about downgrading the user experience - adding denuvo, launchers or whatever, post purchase, before you could argue that the product has been altered enough to warrant a refund. Probably different for different countries.

You couldn't really argue that adding a 3rd party launcher downgrades the experience at all. Its also part of every games EULA you agree to that they can update their software.

The rights of software holders to update and modify their software is extremely well protected by the courts. It would be basically impossible to prove in court that the addition of a launcher renders the software fundamentally different then what you bought as its just a different platform for obtaining the software.

Yea, it's not here yet, but I think it's well within reason to assume that user protections also will be upgraded in the upcoming years. Updating isn't the issue here. It's downgrading the user experience. I think we've seen a few cases involving Apple and other manufacturers. Yea, they just 'upgraded' their software. Within their rights. The users 'agreed' to it.

[RiO]

Origineel geplaatst door Tito Shivan:

Origineel geplaatst door RiO:

However; there is also a middle-ground here. And that is to disallow addition of launchers post-release. Especially those that suddenly require use of a third-party account.

We're gettin into a (way) bigger can of worms there though. Starting from defining what constitutes a 'launcher' and following by the devloper's right to decide how their software needs to operate (IE: A launcher with a third party login may be a decision taken by the developer to curb software piracy) and what happens with the already sold software in Steam (Version freeze for Steam owners?) if the dev follows development with a launcher outside of Steam.

It's a though nut to crack.

All in all the result we'd get would be likely the same. Devs would follow the path of less resistance, which will likely be selling out of Steam. And they're not short of options nowadays.

For what it's worth; in at least the EU territories the addition of the requirement for use of a third party account post-sale at least isn't even morally or legally grey anymore. It's just plain pitch black. By way of the EU directive that covers distance selling.

Traders are legally required to meet certain requirements wrt information they must actively present to consumers before purchase. Among those is the presence and purpose of any technical protection measures, which the consumer wouldn't evidently inherently be aware of. This includes DRM; anti-cheat; anti-tamperware; and also online account requirements. (Where on Steam the requirement of the Steam account is one of those things each consumer would be evidently aware of.)

These informational requirements are precontractual information that becomes part of the contract of sale and can't be changed without express mutual agreement. This is also mandatory law, i.e. cannot be diverged from through e.g. general terms of service.

If a publisher adds a third-party account requirement to content for existing purchases through a mandatory update, then that means they've created a non-conformance with the original contract of sale.

Non-conformance there is something which the trader - i.e. Valve/Steam - would be liable to resolve. Furthermore, as of Jan 2022 there's new legislation which also states that for platforms where supply is continuous, e.g. where you have on-demand access to and installation of the content available, said period of liability lasts as long as the contract of sale lasts. Which for purchases on Steam is a contract of indefinite time, which lasts until you close your Steam account. In other words: even if you bought a title as far back as the first days of Steam as a platform and the publisher for that title adds a launcher to it now, then Steam would still be liable for that occurrence of non-conformance.

Ultimately Steam can't directly do anything about it though, since they're not in control of the software itself. The only thing they can do is pressure publishers to not engage in such shenanigans; or to pressure them to undo them when non-conformance claims arise. Failing that, they will have failed to restore conformance with contract. Which means consumers could be within their legal rights to terminate contract and saddle Valve with the cost of refunds.


All in all this is all a very, very precarious situation.
The only reason this hasn't blown up thus far, is because this legislation isn't being enforced pro-actively; but either requires consumers to sue -- which rarely if ever happens over the amount of money we're talking here; literally peanuts -- or to mass-report to appointed market-authorities and hope they make enough noise that those will prioritize turning it into a case instead -- which takes forever and is unlikely to ever get off the ground to begin with, considering how notoriously chronically underfunded these market authorities are known to be.

The big publishers that commit to adding these launchers post-release, pretty much know and bank on these being a thing and remaining a thing. And even if things would go sideways; they are not the legally liable party in the first place. So why care in the first place? It's Steam/Valve that would be in that incredibly unfortunate situation; not them.

[Start_Running]

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

Well, it's most likely covered legally as far as it's written, but there's a reason for why they make the big note at the store page that the game needs another launcher to run. As far as I know, it goes for all games on Steam.

That I do believe is the publisher's doing.. not Valve. I checked the pages of several games I know to have third party launchers and unless I was looking in the wriong place.. there was no such notice.

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

I'm not sure how far you could go about downgrading the user experience - adding denuvo, launchers or whatever, post purchase, before you could argue that the product has been altered enough to warrant a refund. Probably different for different countries.

First thing is to prove its a downgrade. Removing features doesn't necessarily make things a downgrade. But there are laws that allow for refunds in the case of extensive changes to the product ...That only holds up for 1-6 months depending on the country, And that's from time of purchase, not from the time of the change.

[Nx Machina]

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

Yea, it's not here yet, but I think it's well within reason to assume that user protections also will be upgraded in the upcoming years. Updating isn't the issue here. It's downgrading the user experience. I think we've seen a few cases involving Apple and other manufacturers. Yea, they just 'upgraded' their software. Within their rights. The users 'agreed' to it.

You haven't proven it downgrades the user experience, you simply make a blanket statement to be inclusive of everyone.

I have never had an issue with Denuvo related to performance. Example Deathloop and my cpu is below the minimum spec. I have also never had issue with launchers such as the 2k launcher.

[RiO]

Origineel geplaatst door Start_Running:

Origineel geplaatst door loppantorkel:

Well, it's most likely covered legally as far as it's written, but there's a reason for why they make the big note at the store page that the game needs another launcher to run. As far as I know, it goes for all games on Steam.

That I do believe is the publisher's doing.. not Valve. I checked the pages of several games I know to have third party launchers and unless I was looking in the wriong place.. there was no such notice.

It's technically only a legal requirement if the launcher requires use of a third-party account.
At that point it'd become part of what traders in the EU are legally required to inform consumers of, under the 'technical protection measures' for a piece of digital content. (Required use of an online account counts as a technical protection measure.)

Many launchers don't have such an account requirement; or they make it optional - which removes the legal necessity for the notice.

Origineel geplaatst door Nx Machina:

I have also never had issue with launchers such as the 2k launcher.

Fun thing about the 2K launcher:
There's currently some people on the BioShock Infinite forums that are reporting the game crashing after the addition of the 2K launcher. On both desktop PCs and Steam Deck. And apparently the native Linux version doesn't work at all anymore, but just black-screens.

Others can't launch the game because the path to the launcher executable doesn't exist.
And it doesn't exist because the file was flagged by their anti-virus based on heuristics commonly associated with spyware, in the literal sense of eavesdropping and key-logging.

Probably because rather than spend the effort to properly integrate the launcher into an older game, 2K uses process injection to hook into it instead - in ways which may resemble malware.