Re: Kickstarter: It’s always odd to me to see people clamouring for worker unions. Here those things are essentially a mafia and I’ve never heard anything but complaints from employees being forced to join unions and being strong-armed and bullied by them. They get rich off of protection money which they then use to lobby governments for their own purposes. It’s hard not to be sympathetic with KS’s stance coming from this background, although I imagine things are different in the US.

Re: MacOS: Anything that puts a nail in Apple’s coffin is good news to me. On the other hand, if it gets any end users to free themselves from Apple, they’re just as likely to move (back) to Windows, so it makes little difference beyond cheaper computers for them. I suppose one can hope that the Mac gaming market shrinking might lead to better odds of support for Linux as the only viable PC OS for game devs to support besides Windows, but it seems just as likely that they will simply focus on Windows and consoles.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WorMzyThe only possibly grey area to my mind, is how this was developed. If it was ground-up trial and error, then I'm pretty sure it's untouchable from a legal perspective (though Sony could be arseholes and change the protocol involved), but if the dev somehow got ahold of an existing client and reverse-engineered it to create their own client, then it could be open to legal attacks (depending on local laws and license agreements).

Florian does call it reverse engineering on Twitter (though he mentions the protocol specifically rather than the client, if that makes a difference).

And one could say that Sony weren’t losing revenue either when they patched the PS3 to make it impossible to install Linux on it. (On the contrary, I might have bought one if not for that, but that’s another story.) Some companies are quite strict about not letting people use their products in ways that they don’t control.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is in-home only, right? I couldn’t run a friend’s console while they’re at work?

Edit: From that twitter thread:

Quoting: Florian Märkl @thestr4ng3r

Quoting: wayne@puffpuff @matshayinyokaThanks for this, can we use it outside of home network with a static IP?

Yes, just run registration once, forward tcp 9295 and udp 9296 and 9297 and connect. Dyndns should work too. Theoretically you can also forward tcp 987 for wakeup, but I wouldn't recommend it because the way Sony did the authentication allows for a trivial replay attack.

I’m very curious to try this out if I can figure out what that means...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chancho_zombieI think the article needs more clarification some news site are saying that the ruling is forcing to allow to sell games inside steam.Like this one:

https://malditosnerds.com/noticias/La-justicia-francesa-obliga-a-Valve-a-habilitar-la-reventa-de-juegos-en-Steam-20190919-0006.html

Is not the same to force the creation of a marketplace inside steam or outside steam.

My Spanish isn't perfect, but where does that article say that? I don't see it there nor in the French articles that I've read about this ruling. Is it just the headline?

By the way, having read a bit more now, it's interesting to mention that according to the court, contrary to what Valve claim in their terms, they don't sell game subscriptions but actual game copies, on the basis that the "licence" is perpetual, which is contrary to the nature of a subscription service (recurring payment for time-limited service). This, in turn, makes those games subject to normal French laws regarding resale, i.e. Valve cannot prevent it. I wonder if Valve might counter that argument by changing its terms of sale to provide time-limited access instead (perhaps only in France).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KlausWith digital sales there is a additionally the aspects of continuous service. Updates, support, downloads... I could see Valve splitting game prices into a service fee and a game price.

That sounds really clever actually, and I’m surprised no one has commented on this idea. Valve could sell game keys for a pittance, say 5$. When you buy them on the store, a key activation fee that makes up the bulk of current game prices (say 25$) is added to your order and lets you download and use the game right away.

You might then be able to resell your key, but the buyer would still need to order a key activation from Valve for the same 25$ to download it and use Steam features for that game. Presumably Valve would pay a cut of those fees to publishers based on the game being unlocked.

There’s something inherently dirty about making the key worthless this way, but it does emphasize the fact that Valve provide several services and commodities that have to be made profitable somehow. Currently Steam is free and they make their money on game sales without disclosing it explicitly on your bills, but going forward there could be an explicit cost on using Steam and that would hardly be a product that can be resold. The effect of such an approach on refunds would also be interesting to say the least.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: SalvatosOne could argue that you can’t actually sell files. What you have on your drive, whether you got it from Steam or a second-hand reseller, is a copy of the seller’s files. And you can’t resell your files for the same reason.

That's moot. Printed book is also called a copy, except it's a physical one.

Precisely. Whether it’s a copy or an original, you have to part with a book to sell it, which is not the case with digital files; thus the can of worms.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chancho_zombie

Quoting: NibelheimIf someone interested, there is the full court ruling available here : (in french ofc) :
https://cdn2.nextinpact.com/medias/16-01008-ufc-que-choisir-c--valve.pdf

I wish I knew french the ruling seems pretty extensive. There are a bunch of pages that talk about Cheats.. woot that would be really surprising! a judge ruling about cheats and exploits on fortnite :P

They’re just quoting the Steam terms of use.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlThis whole "license" thing is messed up. What you are buying are files. Something that contains digital goods. Attempts to frame it as "licensing" are just dumb methods to reduce user's rights.

One could argue that you can’t actually sell files. What you have on your drive, whether you got it from Steam or a second-hand reseller, is a copy of the seller’s files. And you can’t resell your files for the same reason. You can destroy them, but you can’t hand them over short of parting with the actual medium they’re on. You can accept money to send a copy and then choose to delete your own, but the actual files never change hands. It’s just data on a medium and that data doesn’t actually move through the sale. That’s why the only perspective that makes sense to me is selling rights/licenses to do certain things with that data and its copies; namely to execute, copy, redistribute, etc.

As you pointed out yourself, you wouldn’t be buying used goods by any definition. In the case of Steam, you would be getting a fresh new license to access certain content via Steam, and the reseller would have their license removed, but could easily keep the actual software on their system and if it’s not DRM-protected, keep using it.

If this became law, I can only imagine the entire industry shifting to a Stadia-like approach where the distributors make it very clear that you’re only renting access to a stream that you can influence to some extent (via controller input during gameplay and via payment for specific content [games] being streamed to you), not any sort of tangible product. As others have said, that sounds like the ultimate DRM.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pbThat's it, I'm telling my son right now to stop dreaming of developing games. This basically legalises keyshops and now even allowing you to sell the games you're already played and finished, if it wasn't bad enough before... Piracy killed Amiga gaming, socialism will kill PC gaming?

Can we maybe not be so dramatic? Some of us are old enough to remember that that’s how it was for the majority of video gaming’s existence. And books, DVDs, cars, etc. Sure it would be a disruptive change, but as long as it doesn’t open the door to duplication (piracy), the market can adapt. It might not be pretty for a while, but it won’t just die like that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chancho_zombieI don't think valve will allow copies to sell in their own marketplace, stupid politicians they want valve to shoot at their own legs.

But there’s no other sensible way to do it. What Valve sell is already licenses, not self-contained products. The same argument used in favour of piracy (it’s not stealing because it doesn’t take anything away from the seller) applies here in reverse: if a gamer sells an executable, they can also keep it and keep selling more copies. There’s no way to manage that if you look at it this way. A single person could buy a game from Valve then resell it for 1$ less to every other gamer in the world. That’s an extreme example, but it’s the kind of unsustainable opportunity you would create with this kind of law (not that we’re talking about an actual law at this point).

As much as I want to have control over the software I buy, by not being hindered by DRM, it has to be considered a license for it to be commercially practicable. It doesn’t matter that it’s a perpetual, permissive license, just as long as it protects the rights of the content creators and authorized distributors. Valve need to retain control over what is being sold somehow, otherwise it’s really just piracy with benefits since now the pirates get to make money off of it.

So if you’re selling licenses to download and use software via a Steam account, where else are you going to resell them but on Valve’s own systems where they can manage who rightfully owns those licenses?

View this comment - View article - View full comments