They could have easily crammed the Steam Deck full of stuff to make it hard to use for piracy - locking down everything, making it usable only to play games you legitimately own, force you to go through who knows what hoops in order to play games on it. That’s what Nintendo or Apple or most other companies do.

But they didn’t, because they realized they didn’t have to. It’s 100% possible to put pirated games on the Steam Deck - in fact, it’s as easy as it could reasonably be. You copy it over, you wire it up to Steam, if it’s a non-Linux game you set it up with Proton or whatever else you want to use to run it, bam. You can now run it in Steam just as easily as a normal Steam game (usually.) If you want something similar to cloud saves you can even set up SyncThing for that.

But all of that is a lot of work, and after all that you still don’t have automatic updates, and some games won’t run this way for one reason or another even though they’ll run if you own them (usually, I assume, because of Steam Deck specific tweaks or install stuff that are only used when you’re running them on the Deck via the normal method.) Some of this you can work around but it’s even more hoops.

Whereas if you own a game it’s just push a button and play. They made legitimately owning a game more convenient than piracy, and they did it without relying on DRM or anything that restricts or annoys legitimate users at all - even if a game has a DRM-free GOG version, owning it on Steam will still make it easier to play on the Steam Deck.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      103
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Valve is one of those companies that I genuinely believe makes a strong argument for ethical capitalism being possible. Sure, they have some shitty things, but overall they do treat developers and customers reasonably well, they provide hardware and software that is easy to use and non-abusive (not filled with spyware and data harvesters, doesn’t use advertising, is well maintained, etc.). If we could obliterate all of the other major conglomerates and replace them with people/companies that understand that you don’t have to be a massive pile of shit to make money the world would be better off.

      • Morgikan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Valve argued in court that you do not own any title in your library and that they are a subscription based service. That’s not very ethical.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is that not true though? As much as we hate it, until you get given some transferrable proof of ownership of the game (like an NFT) and ability to play without being tied to one service, it’s the unfortunate reality of online game services.

          It’s easy to go buy a physical game but when it’s online, you don’t own anything - yet

          • xep@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s true. Pragmatically speaking if you don’t have access to the server software you can’t play it if the servers go down, and besides reverse engineering or the goodwill of the developers I’m not aware of any games with online components that continue to be playable after their servers are taken down.

            • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well then allow me to name a few:

              • Battlefront 2 (the original), still active when the servers have been down for years

              • Titanfall 2. Official servers aren’t technically down, but pretty much unusable and NorthStar is the alternative

              • Counter strike 1.6 is pretty much just community-run servers, same with day of defeat: source. I don’t know if they are tied with valve that if valve shut them down, they wouldn’t be searchable.

              • Supreme commander: Forged Alliance

              Hell, Battle for Middle Earth II still has a small community

              • Valheim has never had official servers. I run my own via docker on debian

              • Unreal Tournament 1999

              • Minecraft (official servers aren’t down, but if they shutdown there would still be 2000 servers)

            • DroneRights [it/its]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Back in 2000-2012, a good lot of mainly singleplayer games had optional multiplayer modes. Think Halo, Starcraft, TRON, Titanfall, etc. Even DOOM 2016 had it. These games function with the servers down.

              • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Something I haven’t thought about in a while: In the early 2000s games where you made a direct connection to the other player without an intervening, third-party server were still a thing. You still see it in things like netplay functionality in emulators.

                Is this still a thing at all in 2023? Imagine it would be very niche, but this comment made me curious.

          • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fundamentally I don’t really know how it’d be viable to truly “own” a specific copy of something, when it’s always possible to make infinitely many copies of it. Any such “ownership” is at best essentially just conceptual, aside from perhaps the legal right to annoy other people about the copies they are in possession of.

            So instead my personal take is that I’d rather everything just be offered DRM-free. I don’t necessarily need transferable ownership as much as I just need proper and guaranteed access under my own control after I purchase the product.

            • ryannathans@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              NFTs cannot have copies made (apart from by the publisher) and are ideally suited to this problem

              • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But anything that exists as digital data can be copied. The same applies to NFTs. Make an NFT image or game or whatever, and it can be copied by whoever has access to it. The only way to prevent such copying is to not release it at all.

                The only stipulation is that copies made without authorization of whoever holds the rights to it would not be “official” instances of the thing, and there are potential copyright restrictions on the use of such copies…but that’s using NFTs to justify copyright law, and aside from “lol copyright”, legal of ownership of an NFT is even more of a mess than traditional legal ownership of an IP.

                • ryannathans@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re talking about media linked to by existing NFTs. You can’t copy an NFT and use it, you don’t have the cryptographic keys to mint more. There is a finite number.

                  • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    And what exactly is that NFT, as distinct from the media it’s linked to, useful for? Aside from simply saying that it is unique and one can have ownership of it.

        • Pepsi@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          sure they have done some shitty things

          Here’s to throwing the baby out with the bathwater I guess

          • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can agree that Valve has done some good things, such as making digital distribution go big, making indie games viable, and doing a lot to advance gaming on Linux.

            But I’d also argue that that doesn’t obligate me to spend money to patronize them, particularly when I can get a better (by virtue of being DRM-free) product elsewhere.

        • Jako301@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You never owned any software, even before valve. All you ever purchased was a license key that could be revoked at any time.

          That isn’t a problem made by valve, it existed far before the whole company was even founded. The underlying issue is the way digital mediums are licensed and the corresponding copyright laws.

          • Morgikan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not really true. I still have physical media that I’ve purchased as a teenager. That’s not a license key that I own that’s physical media. It was independent of any licensing servers or anything like that. Digital media licensing didn’t really start taking effect until about 2010ish en masse. Prior to that most streaming services like Netflix weren’t really streaming services as internet infrastructure didn’t quite exist to that degree yet.

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They would probably have issues with publishers if you actually owned the titles.

          It’d probably make them very heavily liable if for some reason Steam shut down, they had to make something unavailable for some reason, whatever.

          • Morgikan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is exactly what happened actually in one of Valve’s court cases. It wasn’t that Steam went down, but rather the user was permabanned. When that ban happened he lost access to his game library. However, he had purchased those games so he argued successfully that he had a right to download what he purchased. Valve attempted to argue that they were a subscription service so that they would not have to provide anything to him. In the end since he won the case, he was allowed to download what he purchased. I’m sure that created a weird situation for those publishers and I’m not sure whether or not Steam had to remove the Steam DRM prior to allowing him to download.

        • Kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They also forced developers to never price lower on any other platform than steam as a condition fire selling on steam. Which is not only unethical, it’s illegal. Also the secret hardware changes to steam deck which people usually try to justify, but was shady no matter what.

          • Jako301@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not entirely true. Valve forces devs to not sell Steam keys lower on other sites without also going on sale on Steam in a reasonable close amount of time.

            I know it sounds the same at first, but it’s a drastic difference. You can generate as many Steam keys as you like and sell then on other sites, Valve won’t see a single cent from these sales. They however still provide their online services and servers for free for all those keys sold on other sites. It is quite reasonable that they force you to match prices since they literally are losing money (albeit not much) if you sell on other platforms. And I don’t mean lost sales, but infrastructure cost.

            And additionally is this rule pretty much never enforced. AAA studios have special deals and indi devs aren’t worth the hassle.

            • Kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I can’t speak to whether or not that is true, because it’s not necessarily exclusive. Both can be correct. It’s not what’s in the antitrust lawsuit. it’s not what I’m talking about either. The issue outlined in the antitrust suit is: *“Valve has for years maintained its dominance and thwarted effective competition by engaging in various anticompetitive acts. For example, Valve forces game publishers to agree to a Platform Most-Favored-Nations Clause (the “Valve PMFN”) as a requirement to access Steam. Valve explicitly requires that publishers agree that games sold elsewhere must be sold “in a similar way to how you sell your game on Steam” and publishers cannot “give Steam customers a worse deal” for games sold elsewhere,2 i.e., Valve prohibits publishers from giving consumers a better deal on other stores that compete with Steam. Valve interprets and enforces this language to encompass price parity, forcing game publishers to charge the inflated Steam Store price across the marketplace, on all game sales, even sales of games that are not enabled for Steam. Valve thus uses its PMFN to control the prices of games sold in the Steam Store and in other stores. Rather than lowering prices to Steam customers, Valve’s PMFN has the effect of reducing price competition and raising game prices.” That’s one of several complaints against Valve." * I’m really surprised so many people here of all places believe any corporation gives a shit about anything but their money. Corporations are never your friend. If they helped make piracy necessary it wasn’t done for our benefit, it was done because it is profitable for them. Here’s the complaint in case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC in it’s entirety: https://www.steamclaims.com/_files/ugd/5210fb_80b19705e27549158fea02a16055b0e4.pdf

              • Jako301@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m really surprised so many people here of all places believe any corporation gives a shit about anything but their money. Corporations are never your friend.

                I never said valve is a friend, they simply are the more trustworthy party in this lawsuit. Two things about this:

                1. I’ve never seen any proof of this MFN clause. I’ve read the Steamworks distribution agreement (which is hidden behind an NDA), I’ve read the steam TOS, I’ve looked through the steamworks documentation that is declared as legally binding in the contract, I’ve looked for screenshots or citations. There is nothing that would even suggest they are interfering with non-steamkey prices apart from what Wolfire games tells the court. (Who are, of course, coincidentally using the same Lawfirm as epic does, which makes this whole thing even more suspicious.)

                2. This is the second time this lawsuit is brought up and there are pretty much no complaints from other devs, not even anonymous. Usually when lawsuits like this happen a bandwagon full of people come out to complain, twitter descends into a shitstorm and reddit digs out their aluminium foil hats. But there is absolutely nothing at the moment.

                You are free to post any links with proof you have. Maybe the lawsuit will dig up something in Valve’s basement. But as of now, everything we’ve seen is just one big accusation from Wolfire games.

                • Kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You did not that’s correct, that was meant more towards all of the people in the thread in general worshiping steam as a corporate savior. That was poor writing on my part. The things you mentioned are almost word for word the conjecture you find on Reddit and has not proof itself. I would love to see a copy of the MFN myself. Valve definitely admits they ask developers to offer similar prices according to their responses to other users, but won’t deny it or produce a copy themselves of any MFN. All I’m saying is they’re in a well deserved anti-trust suit that covers several topics beyond the MFN as detailed in the links I did provide. Their motions to dismissed have been slapped down because the judges feels there’s enough evidence to proceed on at least some of the claims. I guess we’ll see whether the case can prove itself or not and neither of us will really know until all of the evidence is presented. I’m not blindly believing they must be guilty, but it’s hard to say Steam isn’t a monopoly. There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Steam, but arguing that with the other people here is a bit like arguing with gun owners. People are willing to dismiss their principles about things that affect the macrocosm quickly when it could deprive them of something they personally enjoy.

        • CountVon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not convinced that Valve will go down the tubes when Gabe shuffles off this moral coil (praise gaben may he live a thousand years). It would require a strong company culture that believes as he does that piracy is a service issue and is thus willing to adhere to his vision in his absence, but that can happen in a privately held company if there’s a strong succession plan in place.

          Now, if Gabe dies and Valve goes public, then it’s pretty much over. Platform monetization, proft-taking and short-term thinking would enshittify Steam in short order.

          • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Damn I hope they become a worker collective.

            “We just care about providing for our employees, keeping the servers running, and stashing away a percentage in a rainy day fund”. Employees having debate on whether to hire a translator or build a breastfeeding room this year. Some saying why not both?

        • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Came looking for this.

          Get rid of Gabe and put in the Unity board, and we’ll be paying extra for every Mb we download…

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        since the alternative is being kicked out at 18 without anywhere to go or money.

        More like socialism. Valve is privately owmed company that is run like half-company half-coop.

        • giggling_engine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This.

          Their strength comes from having zero management and all projects are born and lead by the devs themselves. As close to communism as you could get in a capitalistic world. It does come with some problems but they’re totally manageable - like having a strictly homogeneous workforce (which, one could argue, isn’t a bad thing)

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Costco has seemingly done it as well.

        At the very least they are night and day compared to the vast majority of scummy employers out there.

        I always find it fascinating that almost all their profit is simply membership fees.

    • theangryseal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s funny. I’m dirt poor and I really want to play The Last of Us again. I could easily download it and get it going through piracy. Heck, it’s crossed my mind a time or two.

      But you know what I’m doing? I’m waiting for it to go on sale and I’ll grab it then if the time is right. If not I’ll wait until it is.

      I have plenty to do until then.

      It’s definitely a service issue. I haven’t pirated a single game on Steam Deck.