Quoting: MohandevirBut Stadia doesn't rent you games. It sells a monthly access to their game library. You totally have the right to think otherwise and not be interrested in that kind of service, but sorry, I just don't get your point.

Where does games with subscription services like WoW or EQ stands, in your logic? Might help me figure it out.

I'm completely fine with "monthly access" so long as you can download the game and run it on your computer, with all the implications: you can make a backup, you can play offline, you can modify the game, you can stop it from calling home using a firewall, etc. After the month ends, you no longer can download the game, you can't play it on the cloud, you can't get any other games. You might even be legally/contractually obligated to uninstall and not play after this time (though this is obviously unenforceable, I'm fine with doing it); I would not be ok with "destroying all copies", for preservation reasons.

Subscriptions are not a problem per se. In an MMO, or a multiplayer game in general, it makes sense that you would pay to use the game servers and the associated social environment. You don't even need DRM in this case - you could theoretically run the game at home DRM-free, but it makes sense to pay for a subscription to gain access to this feature. (I mean, in an ideal world where games are FOSS, you would also have access to the server software and you could self-host a game server instead of the developer's subscription being the only option, but this is ok enough.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't think DRM depends on whether it is bought or anything. It is "Digital Rights Management" (or "Digital Restrictions Management"), or a digital system ostensibly to prevent people from making unauthorized copies. You could rent a physical DVD with copy protection, and that is a form of DRM. You could stream videos with DRM, some software, that prevents you from making a copy of that video, or without any DRM and people can just download it and keep a copy.

If game streaming prevents you from making copies of the game, it is DRM. You could use game streaming to restrict your users from having copies, both legal and illegal, of your game, so DRM. And that is bad because there are obvious use cases that are completely legitimate and require having a local copy - for example, "I don't have unlimited bandwidth all the time" or "preservation of games". You are allowed to play that game, but the system is (to borrow EFFs slogan) defective by design.

Renting DRM-free digital media is a silly idea because of how digital files works (copying is so intrinsic that you can't transfer it without making a copy). There is nothing to be returned after the rental, nothing stopping the person from keeping a copy forever. It makes no sense... unless you start to use DRM. Which is terrible and shouldn't be done. So, don't "rent" digital goods. If you want a subscription-based service, rely on something else - on continued access to your hardware, on getting new content - but not on the person having to pay again and again for the same thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShabbyXBesides, you are not buying games individually to play on Stadia (if you did, yes your concern would be totally valid). If you pay a 10$ subscription fee, you can't expect to be able to download and play every game Stadia offers outside of it as if you owned all of them.

And that is the problem. Not the "you don't own the game"; rentals are not necessarily bad (though I am not a fan). The "outside of it". Yeah, you are paying, you should be able to run it however you want. If this is not possible, then this rental model is a bad thing.

If 15 years ago they described Netflix, there would have probably been similar reactions: "Can't own the movie anymore. I can only watch on Netflix. That's bad". But here we are, and I don't care at all if I don't have the DVD to something I once watched on Netflix and moved on.

I don't consider Netflix a good thing. It has introduced DRM into internet standards, among other harm it has caused. It is convenient, I use it, but on the big scale the movie distribution market is just dystopian. We put up with it because they killed the better alternatives, and because it was even worse before (premium cable and region-locked dvds). For games, we already have something better (though not good enough), and moving into a "people don't own games anymore", "let's bake DRM into browsers" market would be a huge step back.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShabbyXWhat's with all the DRM talk? You're not "buying" games with Stadia for DRM to apply. DRM is only meaningful (and bullshit) when you buy something, because DRM restricts what you can do with it.

With Stadia, you are paying for play time. If you go to the cinema, you don't think about DRM because you are not buying the movie, just watching it. Same with Netflix. If you ever played games at a game café, it was a similar situation to Stadia; you paid to play games the café owned, not you, and DRM didn't apply.

If you are not convinced, try to think what you could have done differently as an anti-DRM person if you were the lead of Stadia.

Netflix absolutely has DRM, and you might be unable to use the service if your browser doesn't support DRM. Mostly, they have copy prevention systems that prevent (or at least limit) you from downloading their movies. This interferes with perfectly legitimate uses of the service (i.e., it not only people who want to redistribute the content for non-paying users): for example, downloading a movie once, when you have fast and reliable internet and then you can watch it without reliable internet, as many times as you want.

As for the cinema or game café... those are physical locations. They have their own restrictions, which might or might not be good, but they can't be DRM because they are not a piece of software. Online streaming services, however, can have DRM. And talking about games, that are software and not just media, there is a lot more about it that can (but shouldn't!) be restricted.

As for what might be done differently... mostly, the users need to be able to download the game to their machines and use it as they would any other software (including modifying it, controlling how it runs, etc). You are paying a subscription (I assume) to pay certain games, but you can only run those games by using a particular service = DRM. The facts that this service is always online, doesn't allow for modification of game files, and facilitates running malicious software (including data collection) just make it particularly obnoxious DRM.

But being DRM is just the tip of the iceberg. "Software as a service" (or "service as a software substitute") has its own host of issues regarding freedom and user rights. So much that it makes any FOSS software used in the infrastructure moot. Frankly, the best option (ethics and freedom-wise, not in terms of profit) would just be an user-friendly "rent server time" service, where the client has access to the infrastructure but is in control of what actually runs in the server. Get a powerful computer to run your games, but don't make it a "game streaming service".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPNobody really cares as long as you can run the game.

Well, obviously false, as I clearly I care. xD And frankly... like free software and open platforms and privacy, people should care more. People not caring because "they just want it to work (on the surface)" is what has led to Windows dominance in the desktop, to proprietary drivers, to closed standards, to DRM, to malware-grade "advertising", to Facebook data leaks.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ugh, gaming "as a service". Frankly, this is worse than games not supporting Linux. Games might be developed for Linux (servers)... but then we can't buy the games to run in our Linux systems. This is the antithesis of FOSS - we don't even have the freedom to run the software ourselves. It's like the most intrusive always online DRM ever coupled with the least software freedom technology allows.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is a really great bundle for strategy fans. Civ 6, Stellaris and OTC on the same bundle? Wow.

And it is amazing that even though I only want a few cheap games and one DLC, it is still cheaper to get the third level than to buy all those games on sale and with regional pricing (for my country, regional pricing is a lot cheaper than buying on USD). Guess my friends will get a few keys for the games I already have.

I'll wait to redeem Ashes of the Singularity after they deliver the Linux version, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That's a shame, a friend showed this game to me a few weeks back and it looks quite cool. Seems like they jumped the gun a little by "releasing" it on GOG before it was ready, but it's still early enough to fix it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

GOG Galaxy support is a big deal, if for no other reason because it is their flagship feature right now. They advertise like hell the thing, it is obviously important for them, but then they don't even release it as a beta for Linux users. It says a lot. But there are plenty of features associated with a client besides just downloading and updating games - multiplayer, access to betas, achievements and social features... All features Steam already has, mind you; even with Galaxy they aren't at feature parity yet.

Plus, something else that is very relevant is that games often have inferior/outdated/incomplete versions on GOG. Including, for example, a Linux version on Steam but not GOG (talking specifically about Age of Wonders 3). And that is not entirely their fault, I would blame it entirely on developers if it were not for a recent article about how their upload system is horrible and in particular for Linux, but still makes it a less attractive option.

The thing is that it is simply too hard for GOG to compete with Steam right now, or even with super-crap stores like Origin that have exclusives. Which sucks a lot, because they have strong selling points: besides the DRM freedom and old games they have some nice initiatives like GOG Connect and cool features like the lists of games. And I really like the interface they have for downloading "extras" for the games (such as soundtracks, manuals, etc), the wishlists, the client being optional (I like the client, but having it as an option is even better), etc. But network effects are too strong for this kind of online business - the bigger Steam is, the better it is to sell your game there (and less opportunity cost for not selling it somewhere else), the more games someone has there the more convenient to get games from there moving on, the more likely you hear about it or get your first game there... Steam doesn't even have to do anything bad to keep their dominance, because that's how the market is. And as for the big publishers, who can leverage their deep pockets to use noncompetitive practices, they might cause a minor inconvenience to Steam but can really hurt smaller stores like GOG and Humble and even itch. Which are the ones who could offer real, quality competition. Imagine if GOG and Steam were head-to-head, and Steam had to take a stand against DRM? But no, it is Steam against Origin and Uplay and Blizzard store and Epic store, and instead of competing against DRM-free Steam has to compete with exclusives. Ugh.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"Epic store will increase competition, stores will have to innovate or improve" - price gouging screws smaller (i.e. non-Steam) stores, forcing them to remove novel and positive features and lay off employees. Cheers for "competition" through non-competitive means, yay!

View this comment - View article - View full comments