Syphon Filter
Member
steam is drm, i wouldn't say that is freedom.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How can Steam offer such freedom, ex; free cloud saves and online play but console still can't?
- Thread starter Anthony Soprano
- Start date
- Opinion
Buggy Loop
Member
Again with bullshit
That's dev dependent
Most of “DRM” on Steam is basically a logon and license handshake. It’s keeping achievements/cloud saves. It’s DRM light.
In fact most games allows the removal of “steamworks” which effectively makes it DRM free. Witcher 3 for example is DRM free once steamwork is disabled, you can copy that game folders to an USB drive, go to your friend's house and play it there. In fact steamwork is entirely up to devs and Steam does not enforce it, but why would devs opt out if a —no-steamworks argument will remove it?
Valve doesn't give a fuck if devs go DRM free.
options HOW DOES IT WORK
Consoles are the very definition of DRM lol, please I hope peoples aren't gullible enough to think in modern days that consoles are not DRM.
What? To remain competitive? They are THE PC platform.
Last edited:
ManaByte
Banned
I think he’s talking about cloud saves, which don’t require a sub on Xbox.
AmuroChan
Member
Because Steam set the precedent and they're the market leader by a mile in the space. GOG and Epic would be committing suicide if they tried to charge for online when they have zero leverage. Sony and Nintendo didn't charge for online until they saw Microsoft do it and do it successfully, and then they followed suit.
Last edited:
nial
Member
He was specifically talking about online play, but I do think he got confused with that.
chikydee
Member
There are plenty of free and cheap DRM-less games on PC as well as other storefronts like Epic, and not to mention pirates. Steam has to offer a superior service to remain competitive and relevant
What? To remain competitive? They are THE PC platform.
Last edited:
Syphon Filter
Member
steam is drm, you rely on them to install the game. even if you move a game to another folder when you change hardware it wont work.Again with bullshit
That's dev dependent
Most of “DRM” on Steam is basically a logon and license handshake. It’s keeping achievements/cloud saves. It’s DRM light.
In fact most games allows the removal of “steamworks” which effectively makes it DRM free. Witcher 3 for example is DRM free once steamwork is disabled, you can copy that game folders to an USB drive, go to your friend's house and play it there. In fact steamwork is entirely up to devs and Steam does not enforce it, but why would devs opt out if a —no-steamworks argument will remove it?
Valve doesn't give a fuck if devs go DRM free.
options HOW DOES IT WORK
Consoles are the very definition of DRM lol, please I hope peoples aren't gullible enough to think in modern days that consoles are not DRM.
What? To remain competitive? They are THE PC platform.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Steam has lower expenses.
No marketing, development of bespoke hardware (deck is basically a prebuild pc in portable form factor), funding exclusives etc.
Also, online fees is basically monetising casuals. Who only play Fifa, Fortnite, COD etc. They don’t buy any other games.
No marketing, development of bespoke hardware (deck is basically a prebuild pc in portable form factor), funding exclusives etc.
Also, online fees is basically monetising casuals. Who only play Fifa, Fortnite, COD etc. They don’t buy any other games.
Last edited:
Facism
Member
Remembering watching mandem pay for p2p online and companies gutting the server/community aspects in pc gaming on console, which later spread like cancer to pc gaming in the end.
Now it's all matchmaking and automated bans for typing words like "dog" because modern gamers are softer than baby shit.
Now it's all matchmaking and automated bans for typing words like "dog" because modern gamers are softer than baby shit.
Buggy Loop
Member
You have no idea what you’re talking about
There’s a huge list of games on steam that are launcher free and others that become launcher free with a few commands
Those that are launcher free you can copy all the files from the steam root folders to another location, rename / deleted steam.exe to something else, find the game executable and run it.
Witcher 3 is DRM free as I just pointed out and you can do the above just as I said previously
You rely on them to install it, no shit? And how does it work on GOG? Falls from the sky? Consoles digital copy just appears on SSD without an account and handshake? Everything is DRM if steam requirement to buy and install is DRM.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
It's not really a mystery.
- It's not that consoles can't offer this for free. It's that they have no incentive to do so because it's a profitable service and they literally have dozens of millions of customers willing to pay each month.
- Sony has the right to impose these costs because it's their platform, it's popular and lots of games are sold on it. Sony isn't entitled to third parties accepting their conditions and putting their games on Ps5, but third parties also aren't entitled to have their games be available on ps5. Ultimately the cost is paid by the customers, so third parties either don't care or it's just not a big enough problem to skip a console release.
- Part of why people put up with it is because consoles use the fairly standard business model of enticing customers with a low cost of entry to then nickel and dime them in the long run with costs like these.
- When making a purchasing decision most people will just look at the cost of hardware ($499) compared to the alternative (mostly PC) and won't consider the cost of these subscriptions, which can add up over the years.
- If you don't want to pay for multiplayer your only option is PC, but the cost of entry is usually fairly higher, it's a more complex process if you want to build one yourself, or you have to be willing to spend even more to get a pre built one.
- Steam has more to loose if they try to charge for multiplayer and cloud saves because PC is an open platform with multiple storefronts so they'd just be giving a free competitive advantage to the likes of Epic, GOG and MS.
- On a similar note, free multiplayer used to be an advantage of Playstation, but then MS completely fucked up the Xbox 1 reveal and Sony got the chance to basically announce paid multiplayer while still being cheered on by basically the entire gaming community for being $100 cheaper and bits like the "look how easy it is to share games on ps4" videos.
- It's not that consoles can't offer this for free. It's that they have no incentive to do so because it's a profitable service and they literally have dozens of millions of customers willing to pay each month.
- Sony has the right to impose these costs because it's their platform, it's popular and lots of games are sold on it. Sony isn't entitled to third parties accepting their conditions and putting their games on Ps5, but third parties also aren't entitled to have their games be available on ps5. Ultimately the cost is paid by the customers, so third parties either don't care or it's just not a big enough problem to skip a console release.
- Part of why people put up with it is because consoles use the fairly standard business model of enticing customers with a low cost of entry to then nickel and dime them in the long run with costs like these.
- When making a purchasing decision most people will just look at the cost of hardware ($499) compared to the alternative (mostly PC) and won't consider the cost of these subscriptions, which can add up over the years.
- If you don't want to pay for multiplayer your only option is PC, but the cost of entry is usually fairly higher, it's a more complex process if you want to build one yourself, or you have to be willing to spend even more to get a pre built one.
- Steam has more to loose if they try to charge for multiplayer and cloud saves because PC is an open platform with multiple storefronts so they'd just be giving a free competitive advantage to the likes of Epic, GOG and MS.
- On a similar note, free multiplayer used to be an advantage of Playstation, but then MS completely fucked up the Xbox 1 reveal and Sony got the chance to basically announce paid multiplayer while still being cheered on by basically the entire gaming community for being $100 cheaper and bits like the "look how easy it is to share games on ps4" videos.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Console manufacturers can get away with it. They also are all publicly traded companies with the endless growth mindset.
Valve has like 300 employees, an insane amount of profit, and no strong desire to grow the company. Even their hardware efforts are done by small teams working with 3rd party partners at a scale far lower than the Sonys and Nintendos of the world.
Valve has like 300 employees, an insane amount of profit, and no strong desire to grow the company. Even their hardware efforts are done by small teams working with 3rd party partners at a scale far lower than the Sonys and Nintendos of the world.
LRKD
Member
Private company, no share holders to answer too. Public companies need constant increases, more sales, more subs, more everything. Being private gives them the ability to not constantly have higher numbers. They can have the same number 10 years in a row, and still be top of their game.
Holammer
Member
The daily cost of cloud saves and online play for one user is so tiny it's not counted in dollars or cents, it's calculated in milli-cents. Same goes for Youtube's traffic cost for an average user. The reason why it costs money on consoles is because because there's no alternative. They are the only game in town and users are locked into the eco-system, the company store.
It's about time we open up console for alternative payment systems and stores like they did with Apple. If we had Steam or EGS on the consoles, they wouldn't charge a dime for it and Sony/MS/Nintendo would drop the subscription cost overnight. Just like Apple suddenly and MYSTERIOUSLY allowed emulators.
It's about time we open up console for alternative payment systems and stores like they did with Apple. If we had Steam or EGS on the consoles, they wouldn't charge a dime for it and Sony/MS/Nintendo would drop the subscription cost overnight. Just like Apple suddenly and MYSTERIOUSLY allowed emulators.
Damigos
Member
Good PC (to emulate Nintendo+gamepass+steam+free epic games++) and PS5 (for PS4/PS5 exclusives and PS+Premium) is the way
Because PC players would probably never pay for this. They'd host their own save game cloud service, do it manually or someone on GitHub would publish something. Same for online gaming; PC gamers would hack the game, set up private servers and the like.
In addition, it's a traditional service. Consoles used their first jump into "the internet" (for mainstream audience) and set precedent. And due to its closed nature your only choice is either pay up or miss out on those features.
Another reason might be that selling hardware alone doesn't generate a huge profit. But how do you earn from lots of casual players buying only CoD and FIFA and maybe two other games per year? You have to make a return of investment so you need them to pay constantly no matter how many games they buy.
On Steam, they don't need this. They aren't selling hardware that's only bought once. Their main business is selling games; they don't need to convince you of any hardware because they aren't selling it. Steam runs on almost any PC.
In addition, it's a traditional service. Consoles used their first jump into "the internet" (for mainstream audience) and set precedent. And due to its closed nature your only choice is either pay up or miss out on those features.
Another reason might be that selling hardware alone doesn't generate a huge profit. But how do you earn from lots of casual players buying only CoD and FIFA and maybe two other games per year? You have to make a return of investment so you need them to pay constantly no matter how many games they buy.
On Steam, they don't need this. They aren't selling hardware that's only bought once. Their main business is selling games; they don't need to convince you of any hardware because they aren't selling it. Steam runs on almost any PC.
HoodWinked
Member
different business model.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are large corporations. They have tons of studios and people in publishing, marketing and shareholders.
Valve runs pretty lean and doesn't make games anymore they simply operate a online storefront monopoly, and because they are not public they don't erode their business by doing things that would benefit them in the short term but that would hurt them in the long term.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are large corporations. They have tons of studios and people in publishing, marketing and shareholders.
Valve runs pretty lean and doesn't make games anymore they simply operate a online storefront monopoly, and because they are not public they don't erode their business by doing things that would benefit them in the short term but that would hurt them in the long term.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Cloud saves being behind a pay wall is so wack to me.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
You can play 1st party Playstation and Xbox online games like Helldivers and Halo on PC, but not 1st party Nintendo online games like Splatoon 2
Last edited:
Fahdis
Member
Did you just shill the worst, anti-consumer platform with barebones infrastructure in here with $60-70 games? Fuck Nintendo.
Last Hearth
Member
Because they have to compete with Steam, who's going to use them if they don't offer what Steam already offers.
Red5
Member
In theory they can, while a lot of the big games use Epic Games Network or their own like EA and Ubisoft, many other games use Steamworks for their online, Valve could easily ask 5$ a month for Steam users to be able to access Steamworks network.
Fahdis
Member
As deserved. Keep paying for online gaming.
anthony2690
Member
Xbox does offer free cloud saves.
I literally took my 13+ year old save from killer is dead loaded it up on the series X and finished the game, then I replayed the game and finished it on hard, series x eliminated all the awful screen tearing it had on xbox 360.
Sadly though you do have to pay to play online unless free to play games.
I literally took my 13+ year old save from killer is dead loaded it up on the series X and finished the game, then I replayed the game and finished it on hard, series x eliminated all the awful screen tearing it had on xbox 360.
Sadly though you do have to pay to play online unless free to play games.
Hudo
Member
While Valve are also just a business, out to make a profit. And also certainly have done shitty and sketchy things, they do have a lot more leeway since they aren't publicly traded. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo answer to their investors. And 99% of investors are retarded in some way.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
From their perspective, paying online is the norm.
I Love Rock 'n' Roll
Member
Because the market says so, that’s simple (and sad) like that.
People did not want the free online experience from the Dreamcast (Despite Phantasy Star Online been a wonder at that time) but much rather the one on Xbox 360. Remember how bad the dreamcast with its free online experience, that was even advertise on tv, was badly receive? People hated it... They hated everything on the DC including the free online gaming… online gaming was dead for a generation on console and then the press was pushing the MS solution !
So instead on putting the shame on Sony, why don’t you start to put the shame on people for not supporting the DC and its model but rather the Xbox? I mean people made that choice!
People did not want the free online experience from the Dreamcast (Despite Phantasy Star Online been a wonder at that time) but much rather the one on Xbox 360. Remember how bad the dreamcast with its free online experience, that was even advertise on tv, was badly receive? People hated it... They hated everything on the DC including the free online gaming… online gaming was dead for a generation on console and then the press was pushing the MS solution !
So instead on putting the shame on Sony, why don’t you start to put the shame on people for not supporting the DC and its model but rather the Xbox? I mean people made that choice!
Duchess
Member
As a single player focused gamer, all I really want is cloud saves.
I realise there's a cost associated with that; recently, GOG started to delete save files that were over 200MB, presumable due to the rising costs of storing the data.
I'm be okay with paying £10 a year for cloud saves on console, but no more.
I realise there's a cost associated with that; recently, GOG started to delete save files that were over 200MB, presumable due to the rising costs of storing the data.
I'm be okay with paying £10 a year for cloud saves on console, but no more.
Varteras
Member
Because 20 years ago Microsoft convinced an entire generation they needed to pay separately for those things or there was just no way these big companies could provide that. Sony and Nintendo saw how much easy money it was and followed suit. All there is to it. Any excuse is just that. An excuse.
Davevil
Late October Surprise
Banjo64
cumsessed
Greed.
I think both PS and Xbox have gone to far though with their recent price increases to hardware and subscriptions.
We won’t see the impact immediately but young people are already getting in to PC gaming due to streamers etc, and with the advent of affordable handheld PCs I can only see the long term market share for home consoles gradually shrinking and shrinking.
I think both PS and Xbox have gone to far though with their recent price increases to hardware and subscriptions.
We won’t see the impact immediately but young people are already getting in to PC gaming due to streamers etc, and with the advent of affordable handheld PCs I can only see the long term market share for home consoles gradually shrinking and shrinking.
Banjo64
cumsessed
P2P is P2P. The only aspect of NSO that’s worse than PSN or Live is the fact that there’s no messaging system, party chat, handles and friends list.
Source: someone who’s used all 3 extensively over the last 15-20 years.
Mownoc
Member
PC games, including those on steam, don't necessarily have to use the steam network or even your steam account for multiplayer. If valve put a pay wall on steam networking features then developers would just use other options.
Steam adding paid online multiplayer and enforcing it so all multiplayer steam games had to use it would be one way to give the Epic Games Store a better chance. PC being an open platform it's just not a feasible option. On console the consumer and developers have no choice.
Finally let's not forget valve is running their 130m MAU platform while having less than 500 employees. The 30% cut is more revenue than they could ever possibly need. PlayStation has a similar number of MAU but SIE employees over 12,000 people. Frankly without the paid online subscription Xbox would have left the console business last generation and PlayStation would be a lot weaker than it is now.
Steam adding paid online multiplayer and enforcing it so all multiplayer steam games had to use it would be one way to give the Epic Games Store a better chance. PC being an open platform it's just not a feasible option. On console the consumer and developers have no choice.
Finally let's not forget valve is running their 130m MAU platform while having less than 500 employees. The 30% cut is more revenue than they could ever possibly need. PlayStation has a similar number of MAU but SIE employees over 12,000 people. Frankly without the paid online subscription Xbox would have left the console business last generation and PlayStation would be a lot weaker than it is now.
Last edited:
Lord Malachite
Member
They could, but Xbox decided to charge people to play online on console back in the early '00s. They didn't just get away with it, but the service flourished and opened up a major new revenue stream. Fast forward to 2010 and PlayStation decided they wanted a piece of that sweet, sweet pie. Three years later they had turned PS+ into a service with a lot of value, and then Xbox completely fumbled with the reveal and launch of the XB1. This left PlayStation free to paywall online gameplay and other features behind PS+ with minimal blowback. Eventually, even Nintendo realized they were missing out and launched their own version of the program to get in on that delicious subscription revenue.
Long story short, it all started with Xbox, but all three console platform holders are culpable. To remove these subscriptions now would be a step backwards for them and a significant blow to their financial bottom line. It simply won't happen.
Long story short, it all started with Xbox, but all three console platform holders are culpable. To remove these subscriptions now would be a step backwards for them and a significant blow to their financial bottom line. It simply won't happen.
FewRope
Member
I couldnt care less about the 30% cut as a consumer, I honestly dont give a single fuck about it. If your game is not on Steam I'm not going to buy it, simple as
StueyDuck
Member
The simple answer is that those things make money on console, if there wasn't a market for it, it would go away.I wasn't planning on buying a PS5 this gen since I have a good PC. I bought one so my girlfriend and I could play FF7 Rebirth on launch day. Imagine how disappointed I was finding out that cloud saves still aren't a thing unless you pay for their monthly service. Not only that, but they still lock them down to the console and don't let you back them up to USB. The worst part about the save situation? FF7 Remake Intergrade, the previous game, had save data that was cross-compatible from PS5 to PC if your system was modded. So if I wanted to double dip and buy the game on PC when it comes out, I would have to completely start over despite the save data being just out of my grasp and cross-compatible. How ignorant is this? It has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I'm contemplating just selling the console for this reason, but I know my money is already in Sony's pockets so it won't really affect anything.
Then just the other day I wanted to see what else the PS5 had to offer; it's been a hot summer and my PS5 will probably generate less heat than my computer, so I'll do some console gaming for a change. I downloaded some PS4 games I had purchased the previous gen. Great! I started with Tetris Effect: Connected. Now I can just hop into online play, right? Nope, you need a paid membership -- womp womp. Why? I could hop on any of the Tetris games on PC and play them for free online without a stupid membership. Aren't the console's third-party developers and publishers the ones who are footing the bill for the dedicated multiplayer servers -- if so, what right does Sony have to impose a Sony membership requirement? My understanding is that online membership requirements no longer exist in the Xbox console ecoystem -- but it does exist in Nintendo's, which is mind boggling to me since they offer the weakest online presence, with the poorest infrastructure and laggiest gaming experiences without purchase of a separate USB LAN adapter.
Why exactly are console gamers still OK with subscription hostage tactics in 2024? Why aren't more gaming journalists challenging this in the public eye -- are they that afraid of their industry contacts and reputation being marred? Moreover, how can Valve do all of this for free on a platform where piracy is completely rampant and still be able to offer discounts, mod support via workshop and so much more?
Also steam has some clever "also questionable" ways of making up some of that lost money. Trading cards and the market place etc all things that add that extra cash to the ecosystem instead of requiring some sort of subscription
Last edited:
lh032
I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
but p2p is trash
Banjo64
cumsessed
Yes, but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all rely on P2P for multiplayer and none of them utilise dedicated servers for their own multiplayer games. Just look at something like Gears 5 which is P2P still despite host advantage being a major unbalancing factor in every Gears of War game. So Nintendo’s online isn’t worse than Xbox or PS, they are all equal.
Esppiral
Member
Ms also offers free cloud saves for everyone yet not Nintendo or Sony do, so not all the blame is to MS...
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
Because the idiots who subbed to XBL kept bragging about how paying for online multiplayer was worth it.
From there, it started snowballing.
From there, it started snowballing.
Last edited:
Varteras
Member
vaibhavpisal
Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
It suits me to the ground because I don’t play online games with anybody from real life
Not features I ever used on PS or Xbox either apart from when I was a teenager.Similar threads
- Locked