Valve announced a change for Steam today that will make things a lot clearer for everyone, as developers will now need to clearly list the kernel-level anti-cheat used on Steam store pages.
In the Steamworks Developer post Valve said: "We've heard from more and more developers recently that they're looking for the right way to share anti-cheat information about their game with players. At the same time, players have been requesting more transparency around the anti-cheat services used in games, as well as the existence of any additional software that will be installed within the game."
Developers with games already on Steam will also need to do this, as it's not just for new games coming up for release, and it is also part of the release process now too. So Valve will be doing checks on games to ensure the notices are there and correct.
However, it's only being forced for kernel-level anti-cheat. If it's only client-side or server-side, it's optional, but Valve say "we generally think that any game that makes use of anti-cheat technology would benefit from letting players know".
Valve's example pictured below:
Some games don't properly remove everything when you uninstall either, with Valve noting this happens with older games, so it's nice to also see this will be noted too.
This should make it a bit easier knowing what to avoid on Steam Deck / Desktop Linux now too, since kernel-level anti-cheat games are usually blocked by the developer from running with Proton.
Valve have done a few rather interesting Steam updates lately like dealing with publisher banner spam, implementing improvements for Native Linux games, actually noting clearly when you go to purchase a game it's just a license and removing the need for individual arbitration.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
BlackBloodRum Nov 5
Quoting: GamallI 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.Quoting: BlackBloodRumYou 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/
Quote"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.
:-|
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
Quoting: GamallThat too, certainly.Quoting: Purple Library GuySo 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.
Quoting: GamallMaybe 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
BlackBloodRum Nov 5
Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe question is, how different is that from fraud?Quoting: GamallThat too, certainly.Quoting: Purple Library GuySo 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.
Quoting: GamallMaybe 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.
"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!
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me