DRM policy and visibility

[peterS]

Yes, it's another one of these posts, but support told me to go here.

Most of the discussions I've read are also missing the point and are full of pointless back and forth about refunds and consumer rights. Obviously Steam can't just refund money and we might have agreed to some EULA when buying the game, blah, blah...

But nothing prevents Steam from having a consumer-friendly policy. GOG games won't get updated to suddenly contain DRM. Yes, I know this will never happen because of the friction this would create with publishers, but that's usually the cost for being consumer-friendly.

As it stands now, the information on the store page is completely pointless for consumers. Why is Steam even showing third-party DRM and login-requirements, if these can be patched-in at any time after the sale has happened. I've seen games add Denuvo a year after the initial release.

At the very least such updates should be made more visible without relying on curators or review bombing. DRM and launcher installations should also be mentioned before the installation starts. Even questionable bundleware is less malicious than Steam and usually lists the additionally installed software.

[peterS]

Nah, you just regurgitated the usual points everyone already knows in an attempt to look smarter, while not actually saying anything of value. Why you feel the need to defend anti-consumer practices is also beyond me; Must be an US thing. I'm not asking for anything besides informing the customer when certain changes are made to the software they've purchased.

Valve could easily implement this should a body like the EU require it. They already list these things on the store page for one reason or another. It's just absolutely ineffective with the current policies and might as well be removed. GOG is also doing fine, and probably partly because people noticed what I've noticed. Not even decades old games are safe here.

[Ben Lubar]

What exactly would Valve be implementing? Some kind of magical computer program that can determine whether an update adds DRM or a launcher to a game? What happens if it misses one? What happens if there's a false positive? Both of those extremely likely outcomes sound much worse than just not having an automated announcement system in the first place.

[William Shakesman]

Автор сообщения: peterS

Автор сообщения: Gwarsbane

Support told you to post here to get rid of you, because they don't touch anything to do with suggestions.

People are already warned about DRM in games, if they don't read the pages its their own fault. The recent thing that happened with the PSN login, WAS ON THERE FROM DAY ONE. People just didn't bother reading. So no, this was not suddenly added, it just wasn't being enforced at the time because of server issues. Sony should have been more then clear that once the servers were back up, that the requirement would be back.

Valve is not going to force game makers to not use DRM. Its 100% up to them. There is a reason why there are so few games on GOG, its because of their long standing no DRM stance... which is actually no more, because they have been allowing games with DRM to be sold on there.

Game Developers/publishers already have the ability to add older versions, Valve is not going to force that on them. Just like they won't force being able to not update a game onto the developers/publishers. If they ever add a more direct ability to "not update" I very much doubt they will force developers/publishers to use it. It will be optional for them to use.

Should game makers add DRM after they have launched. Absolutely not. I lost the ability to play a game I bought because over a year after after I bought it and had over 100 hours in the game, a requirement to log into epic was added. Something I wanted no part of.

If a game adds a launcher or some sort of DRM long after they have launched, they should have to give people a 100% refund that comes out of the publishers pockets, not Valves.


So if you want GOG style stuff, go buy there, if you can find it.

You know how I said most of these threads are full of pointless discussions? You are the perfect example. First you incorrectly assume I'm talking about Helldivers and Sony, which I never played, nor care about.

Next you argue against a strawman argument I never made and explain points I already acknowledged by saying it won't happen because of the friction with publishers.

And finally you go on a tirade about publishers adding DRM and launchers after the sale, as if that wasn't the sole reason reason for my post in the first place, and poison the discussion with refund nonsense I explicitly mentioned in my third sentence.

That's a really common issue on this board, sadly. People around here have a nasty habit of shoving words into your mouth so they can derail the thread to make it all about themselves to avoid actually saying anything about your problem.

As a reminder, Valve employees never post here. Nobody you are addressing is a Valve employee. The people who are running interference here are quite literally, to borrow a phrase, "doing it for free." If you win an argument and show that the OP was justified, or you successfully demonstrate you meant what you said and not the creative fanfic interpretation matching the grudge of the week, the best prize you can squeeze out of them is they silently leave the thread without so much as an "Oh... sorry." Because they can't help you in this matter. Don't let them get to you and don't fall for the bait. The whole game is to derail the thread.

[peterS]

Автор сообщения: Ben Lubar

What exactly would Valve be implementing? Some kind of magical computer program that can determine whether an update adds DRM or a launcher to a game? What happens if it misses one? What happens if there's a false positive? Both of those extremely likely outcomes sound much worse than just not having an automated announcement system in the first place.

This information would obviously have to be disclosed by the publisher. You people seem to think Valve has no power at all. You forget that publishers want to be on Steam. Why do you think they all came back after their failed attempts at their own stores and launchers? Why do you think they accept the huge cut Steam takes? Not being on Steam is basically not an option nowadays, and yet Steam is apparently so powerless they can't demand the tiniest thing like disclosing DRM and launcher installations.

[Ben Lubar]

Well, third party DRM needs to be listed on the store page. Which it already is.

What would sending a message to every owner of a game every time a specific field of the store page changes accomplish? What are they supposed to do, cry? They can't exactly get a refund if they've played the game for hundreds of hours already.

A launcher isn't something that needs to be listed on the store page because it's just a launcher. Games have had launchers in various forms for basically as long as there have been PC games.

[peterS]

Автор сообщения: Ben Lubar

Well, third party DRM needs to be listed on the store page. Which it already is.

Which is absolutely pointless if the publisher can add DRM at any time. Go ask the people who bought Ghostwire: Tokyo at release how the store page disclosure helped them, when Bethesda decided to add Denuvo a year later.

[Ben Lubar]

Автор сообщения: peterS

Автор сообщения: Ben Lubar

Well, third party DRM needs to be listed on the store page. Which it already is.

Which is absolutely pointless if the publisher can add DRM at any time. Go ask the people who bought Ghostwire: Tokyo at release how the store page disclosure helped them, when Bethesda decided to add Denuvo a year later.

Is your suggestion that games be taken off the store and automatically deleted from everyone's account if a publisher adds DRM to the game post-launch?

And if not, what is your suggestion for what would happen if a publisher added DRM post-launch?

[peterS]

My suggestion is that we get informed about these changes without relying on curators and review bombing. If I'm about to install a game I bought 10 years ago, I want to be informed that it's going to install third-party DRM, launchers, etc., especially when these weren't present when I bought the game.

Steam should always inform us about what is going to be installed. When publishers add these things with updates, these updates should not be installed automatically without consent, even if the only alternative is to remove the game. Without such a policy, listing anything on the store page is utterly pointless.

While these wouldn't really fix the problem that buying on Steam is basically a gamble, it's the absolute minimum we should expect. Unless they take more drastic measures I'm avoiding the platform since publishers get more idiotic with each year. Just look at Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak for a recent example.

[Crazy Tiger]

Автор сообщения: peterS

But nothing prevents Steam from having a consumer-friendly policy. GOG games won't get updated to suddenly contain DRM. Yes, I know this will never happen because of the friction this would create with publishers, but that's usually the cost for being consumer-friendly.

Depends on the perspective people have on "consumer-friendly". Steam offering a very large catalog, including games that have or get DRM, can also be considered "consumer-friendly" after all.

I'm all for clear information, btw. So yeah, store pages should clearly list what DRM is in them.

[kitty]

I agree with OP.
steam does bad job at informing about DRM or 3d party requirements. game page might have up-to-date information or not. happens too often for DRM in games. right now you cannot trust game page info because Valve doesn't hold game publisher accountable for lying on game page.

multiple examples where publisher "forgot" to add DRM notice or added DRM to already released game. same goes for games that eventually remove DRM but the game page still shows DRM notice.

Valve should handle it better. Publishers should disclose DRM or 3d party requirements and if they fail to do so people should be able to get a refund.

[Start_Running]

Автор сообщения: {draconian} kitty

I agree with OP.
steam does bad job at informing about DRM or 3d party requirements. game page might have up-to-date information or not. happens too often for DRM in games. right now you cannot trust game page info because Valve doesn't hold game publisher accountable for lying on game page.

Oh but game dev pubs are held accountable. WHere there is an actual breach.
Outdated information is considered false advertising. And in such cases that warrants immediate refund as well as other actions.

Автор сообщения: {draconian} kitty

multiple examples where publisher "forgot" to add DRM notice or added DRM to already released game. same goes for games that eventually remove DRM but the game page still shows DRM notice.

I've yet to see a game that did not have reasonably up to date information in those regards, though you or the op are free to provide citation/evidence of such.

Though keep in mind. Last I checked there was no actual requirement for the duisclosure of whether or not additional DRM is included or what drm is included. Such information is voluntary.

Автор сообщения: {draconian} kitty

Valve should handle it better. Publishers should disclose DRM or 3d party requirements and if they fail to do so people should be able to get a refund.

[/quote]
And
That would be possible if the consumer didn't already grant consent to the addition of such at the dev/pubs discration no less than three times.

See how that works?

Автор сообщения: peterS

My suggestion is that we get informed about these changes without relying on curators and review bombing. If I'm about to install a game I bought 10 years ago, I want to be informed that it's going to install third-party DRM, launchers, etc., especially when these weren't present when I bought the game.

Read the store pages.
The informationm is there.

[William Shakesman]

Why are people assuming the puke yellow DRM box is required? To my knowledge it was only ever required for Denuvo. Enigma was on Capcom game for months well before the RER1 debacle made it a household name and it was never required to be stated there by Steam. Was there a change in policy? I have not seen it.

[peterS]

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

Though keep in mind. Last I checked there was no actual requirement for the duisclosure of whether or not additional DRM is included or what drm is included. Such information is voluntary.

The whole thread is about improving that situation, so maybe you should keep in mind what the thread is actually about or in what forum you are posting. There is no point in you regurgitating the status quo, as if we're all confused about the whole situation.

[kitty]

Автор сообщения: William Shakesman

Was there a change in policy? I have not seen it.

I doubt it. they might list Denuvo but smaller DRM can go without a notice on game page. same for always online requirement - you won't find any official notice about that.

[William Shakesman]

Автор сообщения: {draconian} kitty

Автор сообщения: William Shakesman

Was there a change in policy? I have not seen it.

I doubt it. they might list Denuvo but smaller DRM can go without a notice on game page. same for always online requirement - you won't find any official notice about that.

Oh yeah I own a game with no multiplayer or online component at all that literally will not launch without an internet connection and there is no mention of that requirement anywhere on the store page. There is no requirement on Steam to disclose that sort of information.