PC Gaming

I'd also like to add that the yakuza series used for this picture are great games that now come with DRM, unless you buy them on GOG.

I bought a big bundle of the games through steam on sale and Yakuza: Like a Dragon came with DRM on steam. Buy on GOG, its the same game but DRM free.

I should have waited for the GOG sale, now I might pirate it to play the game I bought without DRM.

I need to get a couple more external drives and make at least one Faraday cage to keep one in.

All my installers are on a 1tb hdd that sits in my dresser. Made it a lot easier to put my games on my new laptop since they were installed before I even got to hooking it up to the internet.

Sorry to break it to you, but this has been the state of games purchasing/preservation since at least the 90s. Check instruction manuals for old cartridge games, most have disclaimers in the back that you only purchased a license.

The bright side is that despite all of that, games preservation is still going quite strong. Just through piracy and not entirely legal means. This really doesn't change anything, except online only games won't be as easy to preserve as people had hoped. This isn't a step back in any way. It's just a confirmation that things are still what they have been for decades.

This is how I feel about it:

Best chance to own a game is a DRM-free digital store (GOG, a few games on Humble, itch.io, some others). But own always means "a license for personal use". Has been like that forever. Even if you buy a disk - you own the (physical) disk and a license to use the software contained on it. You can't of course own "the game" because that would mean you'd be free to distribute it. It's all just semantics... You own a game for personal use! Just like you own a baseball bat... but still aren't allowed to purposefully use it to bash somebody's head in. Ownership has never been a 100% or nothing thing.

It's just that DRM turns that ownership effectually into a usage license.

There is no ownership for digital files, because ownership would mean freedom to distribute. Semantics. So, we all have licenses to everything we "own" digitally.

As such, I don't really feel slighted by Steam because this has been my understanding the entire time. Digital ownership =//= ownership. It's the same for if you ever bought music from iTunes in the 2000's.

I would feel different if Steam actively used DRM on everything (developer has no choice), and things like Steamless to remove Valves trivially easy DRM weren't as accessible/were actively prevented.

I buy games on Steam and if they act up then I use my license in fair use for myself and format shift or whatever else I see fit to make my game functional, and I doubt that I would ever be taken to court or that the account could be compromised from doing this. Quite frankly, once the games files are on your computer Steam can't do too much unless you let it.

And for me personally, I don't mind the tradeoff for cloud saves, per game notes, community control schemes and per game personal bindings, access to community forums - I understand that not everyone feels this way, nor should they, but given that everything digital is a license anyway, it seems clear to me that Valve is interested in providing a service beyond a storefront for games, while competitors aren't doing much of anything outside of litigation or twiddling thumbdrives.

The alternative to this is not using Steam, getting what you can from Itch.io and GOG, and not having access to pretty much everything I just mentioned unless you set it up yourself somehow (cloud saves are feasible but that's a hassle, and everything else would be much harder, save community forums). Which is absolutely fine, but I like the services that Steam offers and I was never under the impression that I "own" the game any moreso than I "owned" my PS2 games. What's more, there's no license limit to these titles, so I can have my account for 20 years and play the games on as many computers as I want. I have encountered storefronts that limit your licenses to 3 to 5 uses, or sometimes slightly better ones sometimes have authorization revoking.

All this said, the gaming landscape is certainly struggling, it seems quite telling to me that all these companies are more interested in engaging in litigation to tear down competitors than they are in bolstering their own platforms to make them more appealing to gamers.

I only buy games on steam when they're like $5 or less.

I have less than $200 spent in total over the last 16/17 years on steam, and I don't see myself breaking the $5 limit.

I even pay GOG non sale prices if a steam sale jogs my memory of a game I want.

Sailing the high seas isn't feasible right now since I don't control the internet here and I'm not going to risk me not knowing something and landing the owner with potential legal trouble. But I will hopefully be dusting my hat off soon.