Steam games will now need to fully disclose kernel-level anti-cheat on store pages

i miss read i thought i had to unlock a module in the kernel to be able to play game with anti-cheat

And also, when we're fully done with the game, all we need to do is delete the prefix and any remnant traces of the anti-cheat crap will get thrown to the bin along with everything else. We really do have it better than Windows peeps in that regard :)

And in many other regards too.


Last edited by melkemind on 31 October 2024 at 12:57 pm UTC

Time to boycott those kernel anti-cheat games.

We can't play them anyway, so I guess we're ahead of the curve...

This is a good step, of course. But my only real problem with all this anti-cheat stuff is when it's added after release, after many people have purchased the game already, and then it makes it incompatible with Linux. I don't run Windows on my personal computers, and have not for over 22 years. If valve wants us to continue buying Windows games, when they allow the developer/publisher to implement stuff that completely breaks it on Linux, they should enable refunds in these circumstances, regardless of amount of play time or how long ago the purchase was. That's my opinion. And valve shouldn't be the ones to put that bill either, but the publisher who made that decision. It's the least they can do for taking away a game that I am enjoying. If they say, we don't support Linux so you shouldn't have bought it, then you wouldn't have had my money in the first place, so then just give it back and pretend like I never bought it in the first place then.

This is a good step, of course. But my only real problem with all this anti-cheat stuff is when it's added after release, after many people have purchased the game already, and then it makes it incompatible with Linux. I don't run Windows on my personal computers, and have not for over 22 years. If valve wants us to continue buying Windows games, when they allow the developer/publisher to implement stuff that completely breaks it on Linux, they should enable refunds in these circumstances, regardless of amount of play time or how long ago the purchase was. That's my opinion. And valve shouldn't be the ones to put that bill either, but the publisher who made that decision. It's the least they can do for taking away a game that I am enjoying. If they say, we don't support Linux so you shouldn't have bought it, then you wouldn't have had my money in the first place, so then just give it back and pretend like I never bought it in the first place then.

Just keep submitting refund requests with valve until eventually you get a real person. If that fails, open a support ticket. If that fails, social media.

You have been legally prevented from using a product you have paid for with updates which intentionally block your usage, this is no fault of your own and thus you should demand a refund until you get one.

Remember the terms of sale changed *after* you paid your money, not before. Thus, you were unaware this change was going to occur.

Regarding the store page anti-cheat disclosure:
That's a fantastic change. Guess there's no chance to make it a bright red box?

I recommend using the open-source, customizable AugmentedSteam browser extension and committing (or requesting) the feature you mentioned. However, it will only work in your browser, so you might need to change a few of your Steam-related habits.

I personally use it to augment my Steam store experience with price history, tux for Linux icon, text notes on wishlisted (or not) games, and quick extra external links (e.g. PC Gaming Wiki, ProtonDB, SteamDB).

More transparency is always a good thing
Wish others would follow a similar path lol

You have been legally prevented from using a product you have paid for with updates which intentionally block your usage, this is no fault of your own and thus you should demand a refund until you get one.

The problem is that the product that you purchased is a licence to download and execute a piece of software, at the forbearance of the seller.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

"Content and Services are licensed, not sold" and your "license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services".

You don't own the piece of software itself. There is nothing, legally, preventing them from utterly revoking your access at any time and for any or no reason, let alone making any changes to it they wish, regardless of their effects on you.

:-|

You have been legally prevented from using a product you have paid for with updates which intentionally block your usage, this is no fault of your own and thus you should demand a refund until you get one.

The problem is that the product that you purchased is a licence to download and execute a piece of software, at the forbearance of the seller.

So they say, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it would stand up in court, so they often prefer not to push it too hard.

So they say, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it would stand up in court, so they often prefer not to push it too hard.

They don't push it too hard because it would be terrible publicity. People only pay current prices because they *think* it's a true purchase, and they think that because storefronts largely treat it as such in practice, in order to maintain that status quo.

But if that tacit agreement broke down and it came to the courts, I don't see that going well. Have they done anything about revoked "permanent access" to movies on streaming platforms?

Maybe you have more hope for the courts than I do. But my point was that if even the most basic right to access anything at all you paid for is in question, and sadly it is, then "an update broke the game on my Linux and this is bad because, legally, I paid for it" is unlikely to have any impact, and certainly not from the legal angle, because it's a strictly weaker argument.


Last edited by Gamall on 5 November 2024 at 4:58 pm UTC

You have been legally prevented from using a product you have paid for with updates which intentionally block your usage, this is no fault of your own and thus you should demand a refund until you get one.

The problem is that the product that you purchased is a licence to download and execute a piece of software, at the forbearance of the seller.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

"Content and Services are licensed, not sold" and your "license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services".

You don't own the piece of software itself. There is nothing, legally, preventing them from utterly revoking your access at any time and for any or no reason, let alone making any changes to it they wish, regardless of their effects on you.

:-|

I didn't say anything about ownership. I'm aware of that. You are however still being prevented from using something you paid for and you'd be a fool to not fight for a refund in that case. Steam will probably side with you in this case if explained calmly and firmly.

Why let the companies walk over you like dirt?

Although honestly recent anti-consumer tactics like this are why I'm slowly moving away from Steam and games which abuse the consumer in general (such as revoking access). They can't keep money you didn't give them.


Last edited by BlackBloodRum on 5 November 2024 at 5:49 pm UTC

So they say, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it would stand up in court, so they often prefer not to push it too hard.

They don't push it too hard because it would be terrible publicity.

That too, certainly.

Maybe you have more hope for the courts than I do. But my point was that if even the most basic right to access anything at all you paid for is in question, and sadly it is, then "an update broke the game on my Linux and this is bad because, legally, I paid for it" is unlikely to have any impact, and certainly not from the legal angle, because it's a strictly weaker argument.

There's no simple answer to this--it depends very much on the country. And in some countries where strict "property" arguments would fail, there would still be applicable consumer protection laws . . . even if something isn't your "property", someone selling you something and then taking it away could still be violating some law.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 5 November 2024 at 5:53 pm UTC

So they say, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it would stand up in court, so they often prefer not to push it too hard.

They don't push it too hard because it would be terrible publicity.

That too, certainly.

Maybe you have more hope for the courts than I do. But my point was that if even the most basic right to access anything at all you paid for is in question, and sadly it is, then "an update broke the game on my Linux and this is bad because, legally, I paid for it" is unlikely to have any impact, and certainly not from the legal angle, because it's a strictly weaker argument.

There's no simple answer to this--it depends very much on the country. And in some countries where strict "property" arguments would fail, there would still be applicable consumer protection laws . . . even if something isn't your "property", someone selling you something and then taking it away could still be violating some law.

The question is, how different is that from fraud?

"Pay X money for this product" (you pay)
"We're taking the product away from you, but keeping your money. Thanks for the money, sucker!"



I jest, I jest!