I sincerely believe Congress keeps authorizing this so they know if the American public ( beyond j6 types, whom they think they control) decides to come for them. They know they're greedy snakes.
It would be great to have government-funded groups of people auditing open source software world-wide.
Not any one government, but what if 50 countries put together a team of like… ten people to do the tedious work of constantly checking code. That would be 500 people who could regularly put out releases about what they’ve found, which could be verified by anyone world-wide.
In exchange, we all get free secure software for our tax dollars.
I feel like you missed the biggest issue with Valve and that’s the fact that they have essentially a monopoly on PC game sales because no one wants to use the competition and they take a 30% cut of every sale… why should they get all that money? Gabe is our gaming landlord. It’s rent seeking economics, pure parasitism but no one calls it out.
Valve is obviously complicit in enabling gambling habits with lootboxes and whatnot, but I’d say that’s more of a general gambling issue that affects a wide slew of people, not just the younger audience
Roblox is far more heinous in terms of exploiting their younger audience, check out some of the videos from People Make Games
Wait. They’ll ban accounts that you give or sell to someone else? WTF? You paid for the games on those accounts. They’re yours. I doubt that would hold up in court. Someone should sue them.
It's for fraud reasons. Steam is a storefront, first and foremost. Your Steam account has a payment method attached to it, and that requires some level of identification in order for them to be compliant with credit processors, so giving away your account is essentially a very low level of fraud. Most services like this have similar terms in their contracts that make accounts nontransferable.
I don't think it's that; I feel like Valve isn't interested in doing anything to destroy the second-hand market. If anything, Valve is in a unique position (as both a developer and a retailer) to revolutionize the second-hand PC game market and capitalize off of it if they felt so inclined. The fact that they haven't yet leads me to believe that the second-hand market isn't nearly as large as people may assume.
If Valve killed the used games market, Netflix is the death of the used video market. Take the common element between them, and cheap, common Internet connectivity was the downfall of our ownership rights.
To be honest, we can blame the company we see has pulled it off, but if you think about it, it was inevitable.
I don’t think this is true. You can still buy movies on Blu-ray and I don’t think you need internet access to watch them. They have DRM, so it still sucks that you can’t make copies, but people sell used movies.
Sure, it might happen. I’m not going to pay for something that has DRM anyway, so for me nothing will change. I’m pretty sure movies have had DRM longer than games.
People should fight for their rights, though. It doesn’t matter if it’s Valve taking them away or somebody else. Gamers have been screwed over pretty badly over the years and it’s sad to see they don’t care. They even praise the companies that are abusing them.
I think we need to take that fight right to the top then. Until the DMCA is challenged, this is our lot, as that is the Act used to justify and preserve DRM of all kinds, even internationally.
Of course there’s also piracy in which case Valve has actually been a tremendous help. A majority of releases it seems are actually just Steam bypasses, because Valve has made a majority of developers content with just Steam DRM, and has done nothing to combat the issue. Now there’s Denuvo to fight that but that’s not Valve special…
I’ve been seeing people defend those practices for years, though. They are doing that under this very post. They are telling me how it helped the games market or that it’s convenient or that it can’t be avoided. It’s like watching people defend their abuser. So unless we can somehow make people realize that this is terrible, I don’t see how things could change.
Of course there’s also piracy in which case Valve has actually been a tremendous help. A majority of releases it seems are actually just Steam bypasses, because Valve has made a majority of developers content with just Steam DRM, and has done nothing to combat the issue. Now there’s Denuvo to fight that but that’s not Valve special…
Yeah, most of DRM is useless at preventing piracy. Blu-ray might be even easier, since people crack it on their own to make backups. GOG releases don’t have DRM, so they are also often pirated too. I suspect the goal of DRM is mainly to destroy the second hand market.
People have been defending a lot of abusive practices in a lot of fields of late, it’s not unique to gaming or even digital media.
I also think you narrow your scope too tightly, Valve is hardly the sole offender and this post is picking on them particularly, not the industry as a whole. Valve may have been first, may be the biggest, but they are not the only and frankly if it were up to the publishers I think it could be so much worse. And once you find that nuance, it’s hard to blame Valve alone, and you look to see how they may be putting the brakes on it getting worse. Do not ignore what little is good simply because it is not perfect and all. I feel you, man, but I’m not sure what to do about any of it.
I could abstain from (Steam/EA/Ubisoft) video game purchases but, frankly I already do that. Work doesn’t leave me as much time as my youth…
Back to piracy, sure, all DRM is broken eventually, hell even Denuvo for a time, but…Valve makes it too easy IMO. They could be constantly working on improving the DRM, keep the pirates on their toes having to put real work in and per-game unique hacks but, they don’t. I have it on good authority that bypassing Steam DRM is not only easy, but the same methods from years ago work today. They are certainly pulling their punches on this, probably because Gaben is willing to die on the hill that piracy is a service issue only, and will not give it any mind.
Some of your Valve supporters may actually be closeted pirates happy with the status quo, I think, because of that.
I’m picking on Valve, because their fans defend them so much and act like they are some kind of savior. It’s ridiculous, especially in a community dedicated to free software. They deserve criticism and I don’t care that they are not the only ones. That doesn’t justify their behavior. I want people to recognize that Valve is a bad company. But their fans behave just like Apple fans.
Valve may have been first, may be the biggest, but they are not the only and frankly if it were up to the publishers I think it could be so much worse.
This is doesn’t matter, it’s not an argument. I’m not going to stop criticizing them, because they could abuse us more if they wanted to.
And once you find that nuance, it’s hard to blame Valve alone
That is not an excuse for their behavior. You are defending this company for no good reason. That’s exactly why I made this post.
and you look to see how they may be putting the brakes on it
How? I’m not seeing that at all.
I could abstain from (Steam/EA/Ubisoft) video game purchases but, frankly I already do that. Work doesn’t leave me as much time as my youth…
That would be a good thing. I only buy from GOG and itch.io. Those platforms aren’t perfect either, but they are a big improvement.
Back to piracy, sure, all DRM is broken eventually, hell even Denuvo for a time, but…Valve makes it too easy IMO. They could be constantly working on improving the DRM, keep the pirates on their toes having to put real work in and per-game unique hacks but, they don’t. I have it on good authority that bypassing Steam DRM is not only easy, but the same methods from years ago work today. They are certainly pulling their punches on this, probably because Gaben is willing to die on the hill that piracy is a service issue only, and will not give it any mind.
They have no problem with distributing games that have Denuvo, though. So they are willing to distribute spyware via their store.
Are you saying PC still has a used games market? Last time I checked almost all physical copies of games had DRM and Steam made that popular. This isn’t the case on consoles.
pretends they invented wine
Ok, I admit that this is what their fans do, not Valve itself.
forces updates
Are you saying you can ignore Steam updates or game updates now?
That’s not what you claimed, you said Valve killed the used PC games market. Valve made a system where selling old copies is not currently viable/popular. You can still buy physical PC games, and you can still sell them. Finding used copies is hard, though- but great news, before Steam existed, finding used PC games was still hard. In fact, it is now arguably easier to find used PC games on the internet.
Ok, I admit that this is what their fans do, not Valve itself.
I’ve never once heard a claim remotely similar to this, sounds 100% made up
Are you saying you can ignore Steam updates or game updates now?
Always could.
Every one of your bullet points is an extreme stretch. The only one I could see as a negative- instead of just you making good practices sound evil- is selling accounts. But they ban the selling of accounts due to other legal ramifications. It isn’t unusual for any site to ban the selling of accounts.
You can still buy physical PC games, and you can still sell them.
Dude, almost all of them have DRM now. What are you talking about? What am I gonna sell a Steam key that is already assigned to my Steam account? This is something that Valve made happen and no, it wasn’t like this before Steam became popular. Consoles still have a used games market, because physical games don’t have DRM there. It used to be the same on PC.
I’ve never once heard a claim remotely similar to this, sounds 100% made up
What are you talking about? What am I gonna sell a Steam key that is already assigned to my Steam account? Steam keys are physical, now? That amount that you are spewing out of your ass is immense. Plenty of console games have DRM, The Xbox One had huge backlash coming out because of always-online DRM. But Valve didn’t invent nor pioneer DRM. Steam’s DRM is the same, easily bypassed one from 20 years ago. Hell, Valve did more work on Wine making Proton than they did on making DRM, but you’re claiming they invented DRM and “[Steam] pretends that they invented Wine”.
All three of those links show your plain inability to read. Not one claimed that Valve invented Wine.
No, on Steam games are updated automatically.
TURN IT OFF, THEN, DIPSHIT. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND CLICK “DON’T UPDATE”. You’re so goddammed enticed with the smell of your own shit you can’t even google “how to turn off auto update”.
All three of those links show your plain inability to read. Not one claimed that Valve invented Wine.
They claimed that we should praise Valve for inventing Proton. Proton is just a fork of Wine… It’s hilarious how much you want to defend this company. It’s messing with your ability to think critically.
TURN IT OFF, THEN, DIPSHIT. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND CLICK “DON’T UPDATE”. You’re so goddammed enticed with the smell of your own shit you can’t even google “how to turn off auto update”.
I knew most Valve fans had no dignity, but this pathetic even for them.
Yeah out of all the shitty behavior in the games industry how are you pickin on Valve
In my view, the absolute publisher-slams-the-developer-over-a-barrel shit show that was the "before digital distribution" landscape was vastly improved by the advent of Steam. The fact that we're now on a nice new little hillock where we can see some elements of how much better than this it could potentially be, doesn't mean it's all the hillock's fault that we're not there yet.
(How would a libre distribution system for presumably-still-sometimes-proprietary games even work? Wouldn't that make it trivial to crack the games, since you have access to the purchasing code and can modify it to just give yourself all the games?)
Yeah out of all the shitty behavior in the games industry how are you pickin on Valve
Why not? It’s an unethical company, which has been abusing its users for many years. But for some reason it has a lot of fans.
In my view, the absolute publisher-slams-the-developer-over-a-barrel shit show that was the “before digital distribution” landscape was vastly improved by the advent of Steam. The fact that we’re now on a nice new little hillock where we can see some elements of how much better than this it could potentially be, doesn’t mean it’s all the hillock’s fault that we’re not there yet.
You can have digital distribution without DRM and forcing proprietary software on people. GOG and itch.io are examples of that.
(How would a libre distribution system for presumably-still-sometimes-proprietary games even work? Wouldn’t that make it trivial to crack the games, since you have access to the purchasing code and can modify it to just give yourself all the games?)
You don’t own their servers, so you can’t just add all the games to your account. Itch.io has a libre client and I don’t think you can give yourself all the games.
I guess I just don't really see GOG and Itch.io as the same thing as Steam. Number one, it's impossible for me to imagine that big-name publishers would be okay with putting their games on a "go to the web site and download the binary" thing. Presumably they have DRM in the package you download, so you have to "activate" it or something and can't just send the same binary to 10 friends, at which point... you have avoided having proprietary DRM-encumbered software on your system as part of the steps involved in getting proprietary DRM-encumbered software onto your system.
(So Steam works by peer-to-peer file transfer; part of how it's able to function is sending around binaries between the users. It kind of has to have a client of some sort in order to function the way it does; there are technical reasons why for the model they chose it can't just be a web site like GOG, even if the developers would be okay with that model, which of course, a lot of the bigger ones wouldn't.)
Number two, a lot of that indie game landscape that is available on GOG and Itch.io, Valve created over the years right after they created Steam. That's what I was saying about the hillock. It used to be either your games were shareware, or you found a publisher and probably got denied or else maybe they took control of a lot of the process and kept a lot of the money, and so as a result there really weren't that many options as far as small games. This little profusion of small indie games just didn't exist. Valve created a feasible financial and distributional model for it to all work, and at the time it was like a godsend both in terms of who could make games and what variety of games were available.
I kinda get what you're saying -- just because their system was better than what came before doesn't mean it doesn't have some flaws that should get fixed. But yeah I think some of what you're listing as flaws aren't really flaws and I don't see what the bad things about Steam are. Like it seems like it mostly boils down to "it's not libre software"... which is understandable, but games is just inherently a proprietary type of landscape anyway, so I don't see that as a bad thing in the same way that like a proprietary-only web browser would be.
Number one, it’s impossible for me to imagine that big-name publishers would be okay with putting their games on a “go to the web site and download the binary” thing. Presumably they have DRM in the package you download, so you have to “activate” it or something and can’t just send the same binary to 10 friends, at which point… you have avoided having proprietary DRM-encumbered software on your system as part of the steps involved in getting proprietary DRM-encumbered software onto your system.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to imagine for you. I have bought multiple games on GOG. For every game you can download an offline installer and yes you can give it to other people. It is truly DRM-free.
(So Steam works by peer-to-peer file transfer; part of how it’s able to function is sending around binaries between the users. It kind of has to have a client of some sort in order to function the way it does; there are technical reasons why for the model they chose it can’t just be a web site like GOG, even if the developers would be okay with that model, which of course, a lot of the bigger ones wouldn’t.)
Alright, make the client free software then. There would be no ethical issue then, just inconvenience.
Number two, a lot of that indie game landscape that is available on GOG and Itch.io, Valve created over the years right after they created Steam. That’s what I was saying about the hillock. It used to be either your games were shareware, or you found a publisher and probably got denied or else maybe they took control of a lot of the process and kept a lot of the money, and so as a result there really weren’t that many options as far as small games. This little profusion of small indie games just didn’t exist. Valve created a feasible financial and distributional model for it to all work, and at the time it was like a godsend both in terms of who could make games and what variety of games were available.
So you are saying that digital distribution has helped indie developers grow. I don’t deny that and I’m not against digital distribution.
I kinda get what you’re saying – just because their system was better than what came before doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some flaws that should get fixed. But yeah I think some of what you’re listing as flaws aren’t really flaws and I don’t see what the bad things about Steam are. Like it seems like it mostly boils down to “it’s not libre software”… which is understandable, but games is just inherently a proprietary type of landscape anyway, so I don’t see that as a bad thing in the same way that like a proprietary-only web browser would be.
DRM and proprietary software are bad for us. It doesn’t make sense to defend a company that does those things. We should criticize it, so that we can get something better. You are right that most games are proprietary, but maybe some day we will be able to change that too. Right now I see that gamers don’t care about their rights, so they have no chance to change anything. It’s sad.
I'll cut to the chase: I get what you're saying that proprietary software by some standards is unethical, and so Valve dealing in proprietary software means they're unethical... I think surely you would acknowledge that that's an unusual view though. If what you mean is "Valve, Intuit, Atlassian, Microsoft, Apple, Team Cherry, and every single other manufacturer of proprietary software or games is unethical because of it," I think you should say so. Nothing wrong with it, you'd be in some good company with it, but that's a little different than coming at it backwards and saying Valve is abusing their users because every vendor of any type of proprietary software is abusing their users, and Steam is proprietary.
You are right that most games are proprietary, but maybe some day we will be able to change that too. Right now I see that gamers don't care about their rights, so they have no chance to change anything. It's sad.
I mean, I think the real answer is like so many things in the money. GNU/Linux can easily be developed as truly free software because the people using it are themselves highly motivated to make it and keep it functioning, but games don't really work like that (outside of some specific niches like Tagpro, or a little labor of love that someone wants to make e.g. Dwarf Fortress). If there's no DRM, some significant number of copies are gonna get copied around without the authors getting paid, and not a lot of people are going to be willing to invest as much effort as a modern game takes and then be ok with that happening. I think it's rare under this system that you're gonna see Elden Ring on GOG. That's not really anything to do on the users' side; it's how the incentives are set up for the developers.
To me the most logical thing if you wanted truly libre games beyond a little niche, would be publicly funding them (or crowdfunding them) and then releasing the results as open source once it's done and everyone got paid. Honestly, I think a lot of developers and a lot of users would be happier with that system, if there were a way to work out to do it.
I’ll cut to the chase: I get what you’re saying that proprietary software by some standards is unethical, and so Valve dealing in proprietary software means they’re unethical… I think surely you would acknowledge that that’s an unusual view though.
It’s not a popular view, but most people haven’t even heard of the free software movement. This community is dedicated to free software, so I expected it to be common here. Proprietary software is incompatible with the mission of the free software movement. You can’t have freedom when someone is actively trying to take it away from you. So we must get rid of non free software.
If what you mean is “Valve, Intuit, Atlassian, Microsoft, Apple, Team Cherry, and every single other manufacturer of proprietary software or games is unethical because of it,” I think you should say so. Nothing wrong with it, you’d be in some good company with it, but that’s a little different than coming at it backwards and saying Valve is abusing their users because every vendor of any type of proprietary software is abusing their users, and Steam is proprietary.
Every developer of proprietary software takes away their user’s freedom and that’s unethical, because people deserve to have control over their computers. Valve is just one of many companies that do it. DRM is also unethical, but Valve isn’t the only company that uses that either. What surprises me though is that people aggressively defend Valve, even in places like this community. It’s strange and it makes no sense. Why defend someone who is taking away your freedom? It’s like watching people defend their own jailer. I think a lot of people here would agree that Microsoft is bad, but they aren’t willing to admit that about Valve. Talking to Valve fans also reminds me of Apple fans, which is why I made this post.
I mean, I think the real answer is like so many things in the money. GNU/Linux can easily be developed as truly free software because the people using it are themselves highly motivated to make it and keep it functioning, but games don’t really work like that (outside of some specific niches like Tagpro, or a little labor of love that someone wants to make e.g. Dwarf Fortress).
You can sell free software. Nothing prevents anyone from making commercial libre games. There are a few games like that one Steam. We just need to make more people realize that this is an option. Indie developers can make this happen. I don’t know if big studios would then do it too, but we have to start somewhere.
If there’s no DRM, some significant number of copies are gonna get copied around without the authors getting paid, and not a lot of people are going to be willing to invest as much effort as a modern game takes and then be ok with that happening. I think it’s rare under this system that you’re gonna see Elden Ring on GOG. That’s not really anything to do on the users’ side; it’s how the incentives are set up for the developers.
If developers think that, then they are wrong. Games with DRM get pirated all the time. Torrents are full of Steam games. The Witcher 3 has been sold on GOG since its launch and it sold very well despite being available in a DRM-free version.
To me the most logical thing if you wanted truly libre games beyond a little niche, would be publicly funding them (or crowdfunding them) and then releasing the results as open source once it’s done and everyone got paid. Honestly, I think a lot of developers and a lot of users would be happier with that system, if there were a way to work out to do it.
That could work, but you can also just sell them like any other game or app. It’s way simpler, but people often forget that option for some reason.
I mean, I'm sort of poking fun... the two things I'll say are, one, games as a medium are very different from computing software that someone depends on for their work. They are (at least most modern-day games are) inherently kind of an end-user-centered product. A lot of the philosophies behind it being evil for someone to restrict your computing environment legally and technically don't apply in exactly the same way to games, because they're sort of half program half movie. So like someone might creative-commons license a book, but a copyrighted book doesn't have that same anti-freedom nature like copyrighted software. In my opinion. You might feel differently.
Two, I think you gotta be the change here if you want it to be that way. One really notable thing about Stallman is he really worked for the future that he wanted. And look! We have GNU/Linux. It's pretty unusual for one individual to have an idea like that and decide to follow it through and for it to literally have a worldwide impact on the exact problem he was trying to work on solving.
That sounds like a lot of information. Not just about the free software movement, but also tutorials? And if I understand correctly, you want some kind of list of libre apps and programs?
I think there should be a website that answers the most common questions and explains common misconceptions. So that we could always send somebody a link to a specific answer when they appear to be confused about the movement. But I’m not sure about the other stuff, since it seems like a big project.
It should have content about other non-free operating systems and how to make them a little more free
It could just list free software replacements for common proprietary software. For example: use Firefox instead of Chrome or use Signal instead of Whatsapp. This could be sorted by level of difficulty. Replacing Windows/MacOS with GNU/Linux could be one of the last things on that list, because it’s probably one of the hardest. But that’s probably not the type of content that’s right for a wiki.
I would like there to be some website about GNU/Linux phones, since it’s hard to find information about them on the internet. But there aren’t many people with experience in this area, so keeping that stuff up to date would be difficult.
The software or service
Libre Planet’s wiki seems to be running on MediaWiki.
Firefox and signal do not really respect your freedom. Its true that they are mostly free software but Firefox ships DRM, sends data back to Mozilla and runs “studies” by default. Signal depends on a bunch of proprietary software that is not only non-free but also spyware. Part of the wiki would be to give end users the information they need to decide there level of risk. Using Firefox is better than using chrome but some users may opt for even better alternatives.
As far as content goes, I hope to get members of the community to do research on topics they are interested in and then write a page about what they researched. At the bottom of the page they can dump all of there research for others to use.
Thanks for the suggestion on software and domains. That is really helpful. Since this post hasn’t received a ton a of activity I’m going to go ahead and put creating a wiki on the back burner.
Ah, I didn’t know about that. That’s really good to know! A lot of libre software has issues with freedom and they need to be documented. I think Libre Planet wiki has some page about that (can’t find a link to their wiki, though) and there is a small section in Pure OS’s bugtracker.
Thanks for the suggestion on software and domains. That is really helpful. Since this post hasn’t received a ton a of activity I’m going to go ahead and put creating a wiki on the back burner.
Not many people hang out here in general (yet). But there is also a free software subreddit (if you are fine with using Reddit or maybe there is some libre frontend? there used to be Teddit) and some channels on Matrix. If you post about it in multiple places, it might be doable. But also I guess it will be easier to get people involved once the website is actually running.
freesoftware
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.