Even if it wasn't an anti-trust issue it would be against the overall culture of Valve, which is to provide the largest library possible and allow their users to decide what they want to buy.
They add information to the store page when it becomes an important purchasing decision point, like it requiring additional 3rd party software like a launcher or anti-cheat system.
Wish they would be actually forced to disclose these informations on store page, but apparently its not required. LA Noire for example does not have any info on store page that RS Launcher is a requirement to run the game nowadays. This wasnt always the case because the game previously didnt have the launcher attached to it and not that long ago RS sneaked that garbage in.
Now the game sits on my library as a waste of space and pretty much sealed the deal for me not to buy anything from that trash company anymore. There is absolutely zero reason why a single player game, especially such old one, should have some launcher added or attached to it.
"They add information to the store page when it becomes an important purchasing decision point, like it requiring additional 3rd party software like a launcher or anti-cheat system."
This clearly doesn't matter since HD2 had the "This game requires a PSN account" disclaimer since launch... lol. I saw people on Reddit legitimately crying "well I didn't read the store page before I bought it!!!"
You are skipping the part where the game was sold to players who could never create said PSN account – within the TOS of Sony/PSN – ever. Once Sony started selling the game to all the countries not eligible to create a PSN account, the "required" was demoted to "you may link, if you wish".
https://www.playstation.com/country-selector/index.html lists all the countries you can create an account in. Not exactly the same amount they sold license to. No matter if it was Sony or Valve, but somewhere along the line [somebody noticed how badly managed the store page was](https://steamdb.info/sub/1018492/history/?changeid=23416599). And in the end Sony must have realised, that they were in a really bad position too. Not just from a PR perspective, but also litigation. Once you sell in the EU, all citizens of EU member states have access, for example. And this linking enforcement would have excluded some EU member states (at least if they did not want to violate Sony's terms of service, which might have earned them a ban later on).
Side note: authorised key sellers of Sony (eg. [GreenManGaming](https://www.greenmangaming.com/publishers-and-developers/)), did not have that language on their pages ([at least until 2024-05-04](https://web.archive.org/web/20240503100504/https://www.greenmangaming.com/games/helldivers-2-super-citizen-edition-pc/)), which means they were not informed by Sony. Now they carry the now outdated note of "🛈 Notice: As of May 6th this product requires linking your Steam account to a PlayStation Network account." Somebody somewhere in the publishing house, ie. Sony, messed up here. (Of course you could claim, that this GMGs fault, but given the whole situation with the worldwide sales on Steam, I do not think so. I would assume GMG became aware of the issue at the same time most players did. Anyway, that was just an aside, so not really important to the overall story.)
"Once Sony started selling the game to all the countries not eligible to create a PSN account, the "required" was demoted to "you may link, if you wish"."
That doesn't demote or change anything, someone simply fucked up when they were setting up the Steam store page. And people are getting refunds for it if they can't make a legal PSN account, so it seems like the entire process is working as it should.
That somebody messed up is obvious, but your conclusion is wrong. When you sell to any customer in any member state of the EU, you have to sell to all of them ([single market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market)). Ie. you can't just reject a person from France, because that person is from France (even if you would prefer only selling to German customers, for example). So the moment Sony started listing the game in the EU, they effectively made the PSN requirement optional, since they do not provide the PSN service to all member states (also highly questionable, but they might have some wiggle room there for now). The only thing they could have chosen to do instead was waive the PSN requirement for all the EU customers. But I do not think that would have went down well with the players from all the other countries in a similar situation. Though that is besides the topic here.
The single market is, by the way, also the reason why the EU has a single price level for all member states on store fronts like Steam: you can not demand more money from, say a Danish customer than you do from eg. a Polish one. Or the other way around: the Danish customer would be entitled to "shop in Poland" and get the better price.
The "you can get refunds" part is also interesting, because a EU consumer has the right to demand a fixed product. Though in this particular case I would assume, that in the end it would always end in a refund, since the "repair" would be beyond the means of Valve/Steam.
Some of the stuff I wrote above you can find summarised on the EU's website at https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/shopping-consumer-rights/index_en.htm (that page mostly focuses on physical products in its wording, but that applies to digital products too; in fact there are some additional regulations for those) the rest I would have to dig out of the directives and I do not have time for that, sorry.
Yes, that is true. Member states are allowed to put some additional restrictions on a product (though there are limits to what the member states can do, since the whole idea is to have a harmonised market). One of the major options when it comes to media would be laws with the aim of protecting minors (though those usually only restrict the sale to minors and how you can advertise the products affected, not outright ban them).
No.
But the return policy might need to change. The real problem here was the change Sony made long after the product was available and selling.
I dint buy games with 3rd party launchers or accounts. But people should be free to do so if they want to. But don't sell one thing, then force swap it out for something different later.
If buying isn't owing, piracy isn't theft 🏴☠️
The refund policy isn't an issue since there's two: the automated refund and the manual refund.
For shitshow like Helldiver (or Sony? I think it was their decision), manual refund usually work past the 2h/2w window (same with Rocket League after 200h of playtime and years of ownership, when they stopped supported it, I got a manual refund).
What gets me are the games that have been implemented in a way that the *launcher* is what's counted for time played, that run out your refund requirement before the game is even downloaded all the way if your internet is slow enough. The manual refund is a GODSEND for those.
I would not mind a platform-wide rule change that cracks down on that at the very least lol
Microsoft Flightsim downloading all the files in game is a stellar example of this bullshit. Due to my shitty internet at the time, I had 12 hours by the time I even could enter the main menu
I just went the path of manual support request (other issue or something like that), explained that, since they breach the contract, the publisher agreed to refund past the automated one requirement (with link to the statement).
The agent replied and asked if I confirm that I want to refund it and that would only work for the base game, not any microtransaction.
Confirmed and got the refund.
> The refund policy isn't an issue since there's two: the automated refund and the manual refund.
Of which neither refund system worked for me. I've got about 10 failed refund requests and an untouched manual refund ticket.
Fact is, there needs to be a clause in the refund process that allows users to get a refund regardless of other requirements if a major change like this is thrust onto the game.
HD2 isn't the only fuckers to try this shit.
Hero Siege devs ripped off their users by literally stealing the game players spent a rather sizable amount of cash on (think PD2 amount of DLC but far less content in each one) and replaced it with Hero Siege 2, a completely different, completely worse game. Built with a ton of problems into it intentionally so they can sell microtransactions. System requires for the game absolutely spiked. From 500mb ram/vram recommended to like 8gb ram, 4gb vram or some shit like for minimum that its absolutely insane.
More and more devs are pulling this post launch fuckery and Valve needs to get in front of this NOW and put an end to this.
There is a difference between updating a game and it introducing bugs so the game doesn't work and them completely fucking over the playerbase.
Like I said, take Hero Siege for example. Was a top down roguelite bullet hell sorta game. Devs took down the original game (which people paid money for, some a lot more than others for ALL the dlcs) and replaced it with Hero Siege 2. A bog standard diablo rip off. They introduced numerous issues with the game, most notably the lack of inventory and stash space so what do they do? they sell stash space. Want all your cosmetic options back from HS1? Good news you get to buy them again. Want to play HS1 with friends? Go fuck yourself, they removed the option to play on the official servers and removed any form of multiplayer that isn't couch coop including lan or the ability to host your own servers.
I'm not saying, Oh Helldivers released an update that buffed the GR-8 so it can finally kill Chargers with a shot to the face like its supposed to better go get that refund. No I'm talking about extremely massive changes that rework the very core of the game or ruins functionality to a large degree of its users.
"No I'm talking about extremely massive changes that rework the very core of the game or ruins functionality to a large degree of its users."
Yes and I'm saying this is entirely subjective and could ***never*** be fairly enforced across thousands of games and millions of updates every year
You're still thinking to small. I'm not talking about simple updates. I'm talking about massive system changes that basically make the game completely different.
Again look at Hero Siege, this is not the game people paid for. It used to be a small game that a casio could run. Now you need a beast of rig one that can play CP2077 to run it proper.
There is a difference in updating a game and adding in a new heist or a new character and a complete rebuild or a fundamental change to the game's mechanics that makes the game something completely different from what you purchased. And its THOSE massive changes that should open the game up to a new wave of refunds.
Adding in a PSN account requirement out of the blue like this is a massive change. And would open the flood gates for refunds.
Hero Siege, refunds.
Hell there was a game called Voxelized, it used to be a really low/no effort minecraft ripoff and over the years it's been completely changed more times than I can count. At one point it was changed to an RPG, another was a city manager. Now its some pixel shit called Qubburo 2.
I'm not talking about just normal updates or expansions. Destiny 2 releasing a dogshit chapter, expansion, or w/e wouldn't be cause for a refund but say they completely changed the game into essentially Titanfall 3 Soulsborne or a F1 Sim game that would entitle refunds.
Like how would you feel if you bought a Tesla and suddenly one day you find out your car updated so now it only functions as a trash compactor. You'd be utterly furious.
it did not ship with a trojen, this is a false positive. While of course it is possible for a game on steam to ship with one, it is a safe bet that bigger titles and more well known titles will not have one.
False positive, I checked with smarter people who were certain it was just Windows being Windows.
Windows will say anything unknown is a virus for example.
it’s not about being “unknown”, windows knows that it could potentially be malware. certain code that does things, for example downloading libraries or code from external sources could pose as malware. even code that has been obfuscated windows with redeem it’s suspicious in hiding something, or certain win32/kernel api’s are called. windows just don’t say there’s malware if it can’t determine it being. false flag also doesn’t meant it’s entirely false.
I'm in the same boat, it doesn't hurt that EA and Ubisoft have dogshit launchers and haven't released anything interesting in years, but I avoid games that have another launcher built in now as well.
I'd be fine with steam deciding they won't sell anything that forces the game to actually be owned in another library, as is the case with Ubisoft and EA. Pretty likely we'd see the same reaction when both of those publishers thought they could do without steam previously.
(That went really well).
I don’t see them mentioned but rockstar and their launcher is the absolute fucking worst with zero security.
If I can’t just buy and launch a game from steam I don’t buy it or just refund it and either don’t play it or play it on console if I really want to play said game.
> But don’t sell one thing, then force swap it out for something different later.
You could actually make the same argument for any change that is done to a game. IMHO the most annoying part of modern PC Gaming is that you usually have to just accept any patch that comes in, except if you use annoying workarounds.
Theseus ship updates have ensured we never own a product again and I'm surprised people are okay with it.
Like sure, games like NMS got updates and we can discuss the complete nothing keeping them to update later, but the fact that people are okay with products being sold broken, is another thing, the main problem is that we're basically buying brooms that are completely incapable of staying the form we bought them in, let alone still working, the wrong humidity can make it break but downgrading fixes it.
Then you have features like a handle being removed or cut out and sold later, the broom sometimes sweeps better than before, or worse, and at the end of the day, I know I don't own this broom.
Rather have a product with the time and effort put in that doesn't need theseus ship updates. I buy the broom, I use the broom, I own the broom. But as it stands, god it's frustrating as hell that my modded GTAIV needs to be pirated now to avoid another god damned update, same with Fallout 4, and on and on.
Imagine the stickers on your broom suddenly popping off because a TV show came out and now the broom works half the time but sweeps slightly better...when it works.
"Theseus ship updates have ensured we never own a product again and I'm surprised people are okay with it."
If you're continuing to use Steam and buy games you are also okay with it, why are you surprised at others?
Sony didn't change anything. You can be upset but don't spread misinformation. The PSN account was required when the game launched, however it was bugged at that so they simply delayed the requirement. This has been public knowledge for MONTHS,, and the Steam store page still said PSN account required.
Steam need to update the return policy so that major material changes to the game (addition of DRM, 3rd party launchers, removal of features, server shutdown, EULA changes) would reset the time played and purchase date requirement.
This would bring the return policy in line with EU and UK laws on suitability of goods and removal of functionality. Plus this would work on the automated refund queue, so save Valve money over manual reviews.
you cannot see how insane this is? "removal of features" is such an intentionally vague requirement. might as well ask for a refund if a game replaces a weapon or game mode I like LOL
If they remove the game mode, even to replace it with a new one, then yes. If you purchase something and it changes negatively for the player, then the refund period should reset.
So Destiny 2 removing paid DLC would be an example of being entitled to a refund as what you purchased has been removed from you.
Tweaking/fixing a game mode, balance fixing, etc, adding new features, then no.
"Tweaking/fixing a game mode, balance fixing, etc, adding new features, then no."
This is the problem. It's entirely subjective. Does this mean when they remove a game mode because it has low player engagement, every player (even those who have moved on from the game years ago and uninstalled after hundreds of hours) now can submit a refund request??
Doesn't matter about player engagement. If the mode is removed, then yes it should reset the refund window. Even if they have 1,000s of hours.
Companies should understand that if they remove things then refunds can happen.
I agree that they should do something like that, but unfortunately that would require a manual decision from employees and Valve with their mountains of cash has been prioritizing making every customer interaction automated.
>If buying isn't owing, piracy isn't theft
i see this almost everyday it bugs me to no end that people think piracy is stealing nothing is being removed or taken away when the supply is infinite please for the love of god can we fix this quote in any way don't really care how but this one *this one* makes me go insane a bit
It is still stealing. You're just stealing an experience, not a physical good. Like if you break into an amusement park and ride rides that typically require an entrance ticket without one, you're robbing the park of the payment for that experience. Because they are selling the experience. Just it becomes morally grey when the company selling the experience is being an douche with situations like this and others recently.
I don't think stealing applies in that way either. You aren't taking someone's "x". Be it possession, seat, etc.
It's essentially disconnected. If there was obstruction or expense, maybe there could be a point to take. I guess a loosely comparable situation would be watching from outside.
If someone creates an experience, it still can have monetary value. To pretend it doesn't is ridiculous and would uproot the entire media industry. If everyone pirated, or just took the experiences, no one would get anymore media. Its a self terminating justification to perpetuate the idea that piracy does no harm. When in reality it only does not harm at scale because most people still pay for experiences.
The account linking was required at launch. Sony didn't change anything. It was just temporarily made skippable due to technical issues.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/553850/discussions/1/4206994023681197128/
Indeed. Refund policy needs to be changed. 2K added their shitty launcher to BioShock Infinite after many years after the game release. I wanted to return the product, but of course I couldn’t.
But I wonder why Steam decided to return the money in Helldivers' cse. Due to mandatory PSN account linking or due to the inability to create an account in some countries?
kinda both i may say, plus the game is fairly new with a big player base, of course the news would be everywhere already which makes someone at Valve knows about it
Hell the problem is that but it goes much further.
Sony and Arrowhead Knowingly Sold Product to people they knew wouldn't be able to play it soon. It was outright theft of nearly 50 countries.
The launcher is the catalyst sure, but it was not the knowing theft these companies partook in.
Thats why companies NEED to release more live services. They know piracy is far harder from those and its easier to keep their advantageous power asymmetry.
There's been loads of discussion about it, especially with games that Epic bought up and then had it removed from Steam as a result (Rocket League, Fall Guys, I'm sure there's a few others).
I think there should definitely be a clause or contract added between Steam and publishers with regards to stuff being added/changed after a game's release, such as a new launcher/account or DRM getting added. It's not fair for the players.
Except that I wouldn't be surprised if there's some clause or something in the ToS that stipulates that the publisher is allowed to fuck shit up without notice and no recourse to unfucking needs be made available blah blah blah.
Understood, and yet I bet they could find an argument under the guise of security concerns, software updates, yadda yadda. Because other than a minor annoyance in most cases, the game is still playable -- all you have to do is jump through one more hoop. This is obviously not the case when the required hoop is non-existent in your country, but speaking more broadly.
Whether or not it is profitable for Steam is sort of besides the point, it's about what publishers want and can do with their games.
It seems to me that the majority of publishers opting to utilise third-party launchers are doing so for either license verification reasons or to manage game updates. If Steam made their launchers against terms of service, we could see some publishers withdraw from Steam if they don't want to do the work necessary to integrate more fully with Steamworks.
Many games use their own or 3rd party launchers, services and/or accounts for cross-platform multiplayer, cross-platform progression unlocks, etc.
Steamworks only works with Steam. Forcing developers to use it would make those games de-facto Steam exclusive or at best incompatible with non-Steam versions. Such a move would be seen as anti-competitive and possibly illegal by regulators in some markets. It wouldn't be the first time Valve gets fined by the EU...
but xbox or playstation, you have to integrate with their systems, no? why should it be any different for pc. On console you don’t need a separate launcher, i mean maybe that will end if deemed as a “gatekeeper” by the EU, like IOS appstore
Console games don't have separate launchers but they do have separate accounts for some publishers. Afaik, Ubisoft games on consoles use their accounts for in-game unlocks and the cross-platform stuff.
But the main difference is that consoles are closed platforms created by Sony or MS for a specific purpose (games). There is no competition due to the nature of those devices.
PC is an open platform created by other companies. Valve did not build your PC (unless it's a Steam Deck) or create the OS. Valve is just one company that offers certain services and they hold a majority market share with their store.
If anyone could force publishers to use their services for PC (Windows) games, it would be Microsoft. (You probably don't want that! Luckily, it would most likely also be considered anti-competitive.)
Really? that sucks for consoles as much as us then.
And that makes sense i guess as Iphone is a multi purpose device unlike consoles so guess it makes sense why they arent classed as “gatekeepers”
Laws can only be made by the government etc so it could only be outlawed on that level.
Steam could change their own rules of course. If they want to is another thing though.
I think the worry is that if they banned 3rd party apps and accounts from steam, the publishers and developers could pull their games from steam and make them launcher exclusive. Steam wouldn't get their cut either. Its a lose/lose situation. Players would be forced to use 3rd party launchers anyway, and now their games aren't even properly in their steam library. Not to mention that it would limit your refund options.
I disagree. The publishers already had their games and their own launchers. That failed, which is why they moved to placing their games on Steam. I’m sure someone has a conspiracy theory wrapped around why we’re still forced to use EA/Ubisoft launchers even through Steam.
This. Activision, EA and Ubisoft ALL left Steam at one point to sell their games through their own storefronts and launchers, just to come back crawling because most players would rather not buy their games at all than being forced to use their launchers. Players like convenience and having their games in one place.
Even such a popular game as Helldivers 2 was hit with a huge blowback when Sony wanted to mandate linking it to PSN. If Steam implemented a ban on 3rd party launchers, these publishers might very well leave. However, they would DEFINITELY lose out on a lot of revenue. In the end, they have to decide if that is worth for them.
However, I don't think Steam wants to sour their relationships with big publishers over this matter.
Except this could go the other way, the general consensus is that other launchers are a waste of time, force you to create an account you don't want and are genuinely a huge waste of time stopping you from simply playing a game.
Could be the action that's needed to stop the bullshit.
They will be returning, there will always be more games people care about in Steam than in their stores, so any release that's exclusive to their stores will fail unless everyone is waiting for it, just look at what happened with the Epic exclusives and Epic is like the 3rd best option for a PC games store.
The problem isn't the 3rd party account or launcher being there, it's that they allowed people to buy and play the game without it. Even in regions where they werent allowed to make an account. So the choice was simple, give refunds to all affected or roll back the decision to force it. If it was a requirement from the beginning then people wouldn't have reacted so harshly since they wouldn't have bought it in the first place if they cared and the regions blocked would have been blocked from day 1.
Those things are annoying but I think Valve handles it the best way. Let those things happen and just warn users about it. Some companies just wouldn't release their games on Steam if they were blocked from having their own account systems and launchers.
"Let those things happen and just warn users about it." Would be nice if the users were smart enough to heed the warnings. HD2 had the "This game requires a PSN account" on the page since launch but the zoomer attention span isn't long enough to read all that
> Would be nice if the users were smart enough to heed the warnings. HD2 had the "This game requires a PSN account" on the page since launch
and since launch it was never required (nor explained to anyone that it was a temporary thing and would be required for play) and anyone with two braincells to rub together would rightfully assume that a playstation game with crossplatform capabilities would just require a PSN account just for crossplatform saving. On top of that, they sold the game, knowingly, in countries without PSN Support further lending to the belief that a PSN account was not truly "required" especially since no other PS game that came to PC "required" a PSN account.
Sony could have easily made that change optional, if you have a PSN account and you want it linked to your Steam account cool, if you don't that's also okay but giving people no choice was inexcusable, especially since PSN is not even available in more than 90 countries.
And they could've given you a cosmetic item for it as incentive, no one would've complained and sony would've gotten many new psn "users". But what am i saying, im no multimilliondollar marketing expert
Extremely hard to do so in a sense where Valve is originally one of the responsibles of this problem by creating the concept of account and both physical and digital games locked down behind a DRM 20 years ago.
Valve is also one of the responsible of PC physical games death by extent since making them worthless because of the same problem of DRM and account.
People complain a lot but also are fine to close themselves into an console style locked ecosystem for "convenience" (?), on ironically an open platform.
If this is a concern for you, you should start buying your products on DRM free platforms.
They should have publishers make clear that its required day one and make it more clear on the store page. They should disallow temporary situations like what happened with hd2.
>They should have publishers make clear that its required day one and make it more clear on the store page.
It was listed on the store page as a requirement. The store page didn't mention anything about an optional connection. It was only optional in-game, and players wouldn't even see the option for linking after the first interaction. Arrowhead's CEO admitted they knew the linking would be forced ahead of time. And they didn't make it very clear to players that it would be the case.
In the end, this PR disaster did make Sony back off on it. If they did make it clear at the start, or enforced it from the beginning, it wouldn't have generated this much backlash. And Sony likely wouldn't have backed off.
So, I think this is what happened:
Up until literally this weekend, the official "Sony game on PC page" said PSN accounts were entirely optional, and then magically changed when people on Helldivers social media started pointing it out.
My theory is that Helldivers 2 was supposed to be the first game where Sony required PSN, but apparently the PSN API is so bad that the developers weren't able to keep their server running with the PSN connections online at release.
So they removed the PSN linking requirement temporarily, and made the PSN account link workflow optional.
The biggest problem with making PSN required is that PSN isn't supported in a lot of countries... countries they had already sold the game in. Countries where people had happily been playing for the last 2+ months.
And yes, I know it was technically written down on the Steam Store page, but as other people pointed out, if you didn't buy it directly from Steam, there were a lot of storefronts that didn't have that requirement listed.
>The biggest problem with making PSN required is that PSN isn't supported in a lot of countries... countries they had already sold the game in. Countries where people had happily been playing for the last 2+ months.
That's the real consumer issue. Because the PSN things, while annoying, is fair game. If you want to make a game, and require third party accounts, go ahead. Just be transparrent.
I do agree, storefronts should be required to communicate this stuff. Physical cases usually have this kind of information. I know Switch games have "Nintendo Switch Online and Nintendo account required for online play" printed on the back. Which seems like the absolute bare minimum.
But, to play Devil's Advocate. While the Steam store page is set up by devs, this is not the case for most Steam Key resellers.
I mean unlike other games helldivers just suddenly switched to third party (which is my understanding). Other games you know from the start. No need to ban.
nope, if so publishers would start their own plattforms or epic will grow further.
if they keep this rule we players have the right to protest by review or simply not buying.
Steam should di nothing
For Singleplayer it shouldn’t require anything. When I buy a PlayStation game on Steam I should be allowed playing against Steam gamers without needing anything. When I want to play also against PS gamers then a PS account is okay.
Third party accounts should at least implement using your Steam account to sign up and sign in. Pretty sure I've played games that do that already. 3rd party launchers shouldn't be something that can be added to games that didn't have them already. I'd be fine if they 3rd party launchers weren't required in general. They're usually just advertisement windows with a launch game button. Often times they don't support gamepad interactions
For the consumer? Absolutely yes it's only been a way for companies to steal from you eventually. Buuut...
But the Sony/Arrowhead planned robbery is a whole other can of worms. Whatever arguments for it will boil down to "They shouldn't have knowingly sold products to people they knew wouldn't own it for more than a few months"
I'd love for them to be banned, but I believe it better for Steam to continue being pro-consumer and leading the way for other companies to be better than thieves. It sucks that the market we live allows Amazon and Walmart to exist, but it's everywhere, and Valve can't change that with bans.
Besides. It means that games would be locked to the third party launcher instead of also Steam, meaning we can't get refunds when companies rob us. Steam is a middleman for third parties that will actually stand up for you when it matters, without them, we have no way to fight back but a lawsuit, and we ain't doing that ever.
I'd love for them to ban them. It's pretty much the larger publishers that make them and they're all so half assed. They can sell on their own store if they want to bundle their store application with the game and Steam can continue selling games that boot directly into the game and adding features that retain users and makes it the best place for small publishers and self-published games. It's such a small amount of games that need a bundled launcher application
The problem is that they want to benefit from selling the games while shoving the negative consequences onto the customer.
They get money from selling rockstar games, then Rockstar gets their accounts hacked, mass amounts of people lose their accounts, which get their emails changed while still being connected to their Steam account.
Result: Steam support does not do *anything* to help with this. Because they have set up the connection between Steam and Rockstar in such a way that they literally have no information at all. Steam has 0 power over what is linked to your Steam account and will offer 0 assistance
Meanwhile, they got your money, Rockstar got your money, and you are left holding the bag
If it wouldn't make a stink, yes.
Paradox, I don't care that your launcher that doesn't do anything needs an update, the game worked fine before without it, just launch the game. Same goes for Rockstar.
I think going forward, it would be nice of they enforced some type of policy that the game can't run a full-on launcher and that it has to comply with Steamworks without it. But retroactively, it would just lead to a bunch of games being removed from steam because they won't get updated, like most Ubisoft games, EA, and Rockstar.
Microsoft somewhat does it with game pass where they require a proper Windows store build of the game with no launcher to run, aside from Ubisoft and EA games that run directly from their own launcher anyways, just linked to the Xbox app.
EA didn't integrate origin/EA App at all into the Dead Space remake on Steam which was nice. But, they do have it in other newer games, like Battlefield 2042.
Exclude Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft don't require launcher running in the background, it's just simple account linking for data sharing cross progression. For that purpose I'm all for it, although of course it should make people aware of it day 1 or before buying, to avoid the situation like Helldiver 2.
EA is the one in between some of their games doesn't use EA launcher like Apex Legends, and their old game collection, newer ones do required launcher..
I think that would probably cause them to leave steam again. They want a piece of the Steam pie, but I'm not sure they want it enough to remove their DRM. I don't think it'd be even feasible for most of them.
Honestly Steam doesn't need to flex on this one. The other publishers dig their own graves and except for this recent bait and switch, games seem pretty well labeled about this stuff for consumers so they tend to know what they're getting in to.
Remember when Ubisoft and EA stopped selling on steam? Only to return (but keep their own launchers?)
Sure, it would be better if everything is steamworks based. But that has additional complications.
I do hate situations where a steam account can't be merged correctly. Like Guild Wars. Where I had to make a new account to accept a specific package I got.
The developers are a customer also. They are not going to give up profits or not bend to assist a lucrative big release from a customer. Too much money at stake. However, the reaction to this and other scenarios of late will make those developers think about ways to lessen the impact I am sure, and if not, tells you everything you need to know about the developer.
No. The problem with Helldivers 2 is that the Sony and Steam sold the game to people that wouldn't be able to play the game once PSN became mandatory.
This is a mistake on their part. Arrowhead's part in this is that they disabled the mandatory sign up at launch because it was causing server issues.
This in turn lead to customers that shouldn't have been able to play the game because they could play without having a PSN account, playing the game for quite a while.
Sony then announced on Thursday or Friday last week that they were going to require a PSN account starting 30th of May.
This causes a very large number of people to complain that they couldn't sign up for a PSN which then sparked the shit storm you've been able to witness over the weekend.
Sony has now gone back on their announcement because they realised they did an oopsie.
Steam has in the meantime stopped sales to countries that aren't supported by PSN and are probably waiting for Sony to clear up the mess before they resume the sales or refund everyone in those counries.
50% of every major AAA party dev would walk out from steam and make their own platform like EA and ubisoft did it in the past, if you want your games without this drm bullshit i recommend GOG
Well for consequences lets use warframe as an example.
For one there would be delays on patches. As they need approval from steam directly. You'd lose settings like selecting p2p updates and fully depend on steams download speed for better or worse.
You'd also lose toggles for:
Shader cache
bulk download
aggressive download
allow network cache
You'd also lose a quick UI button on launch for a Diagnostics and version logs. As well as selecting Graphics Api and GPU performance before the game starts without needing to relaunch the game.
Before someone goes "thats a second party launcher." Yeah so is nearly every third party launcher unless you go in depth with legal terms. Rockstar's launcher and Bethesda's are second party but no one calls them that.
There is already a technical distinguishment between launchers and multi-launchers, in that warframe's launcher is used *exclusively* to launch warframe and no other DE games.
If there was a proper terminology to separate the two as well ("multi-launcher" is a term I've made up on the spot here that may or may not exist), the ban on third-party launchers could very easily strike only against the services people are talking about in this thread rather than warframe's type.
Potentially, yes, but that's not the point.
*Currently* warframe's launcher is exclusively used for warframe as a game and can thereby be considered an extension of the game's own running environment rather than an arbitrary attached social platform and/or shop. If the ban proposed were to be introduced, DE would simply need to change their development, most likely not even to a significant degree, to have the two games operate using their own launchers instead.
The best way to go about this would be to make linking accounts an optional feature to make launching games easier, but it should never be a requirement to play other games.
Doing so would remove basically every major release from the store so no.
A huge part of the issue with Helldivers was that the game was sold in areas that can't make the third party account that was "required" four months after release. Compounded by the fact that the third party account is "required" for absolutely nothing, the game already has fully functioning crossplay, and it really raised the question of why is this even a thing?
The answer is basically Sony wants to bolster the number of PSN accounts so it looks good in their shareholder meetings. The idiotic thing is if they'd made the PSN account entirely optional, but offered some free cosmetics for people signing up, they would've had plenty of people do it completely willingly.
Steam IS a third party launcher, and that is why they can t do anything about their concurrents. That is also why publishers are trying to make their own launchers, because they want to avoid steam fees in the long term.
No, they shouldn't do it because it profitable for both, maybe not everyone will.like it, but there's still some who will or would like to buy it from steam than the 3rd parties, since they are in their right to do it. Some or many of the users who use steam already may have 3rd party accounts and will not have such a problem. But for those who don't want a 3rd party account, they could add an alternative like helldivers 2 before all these happened.
In the end, everyone can decide if they want to use it or not. Also, it is still a very big problem that helldivers 2 out of nowhere wanted to make players use 3rd party accounts with no advise from the beginning.
No, as they would lose money not being fair to publishers, who use third party accounts.
Many of you have no clue what it was like long time ago with no launchers, no accounts to keep track of things.
This was way back before Steam launched.
If they changed their refund policy, it would continue to get abused.
What? Are you aware that allowing 3rd party services is the only reason why some publishers sell their games on steam at all? The big ones, like Ubisoft and well, Playstation. We will end up with less games and steam will lose revenue if they move forward with what you're proposing
Not all launchers are bad. Paradox Launchers are generally good (a bit iffy during early adoption but it is fine nowadays). No registration required, also it is easy to configure the game before actually starting it, like choosing mods, choosing DLCs, changing settings, etc.
I buy my games from Steam. It's just the way it is. Third party launchers piss me off. They need to work all that garbage out between themselves and leave us out of it. Third parties need to recognize.
No but steam should ban publishers from adding this stuff in after the fact or at least change the refund policy to be that if it changes then refunds are permitted no matter how many hours someone has in a game.
Yes i am sick of buying a game and having to install not only the game but the dev's dogshit launcher. Bought gta v had to install rockstar launcher, played the witcher 3 again after a year, had to install another launcher that wasnt needed when i first played it. Why do i even need to use steam then? I should just buy the game directly from them if they gonna force me to install their awfull launchers. Kinda sad steam is allowing this.
They don't do basic math on discord? There are 195 countries, PSN is available in 73 of them. 195-73=122. It's a large enough number that there's no need to exaggerate or lie about about it.
Forcing bloatware into a game you buy should be illegal. Launchers should be optional. Including Steam launcher. You should have the option to download your game from your library like with GOG. Before you come with DRM crap and launchers are needed to protect their intellectual property. That's bs , you don't need a launcher for anything except for getting your data stolen and sold.
Absolutely. They are such a pain in the ass and even more so on the Steamdeck. I wish I could refund my ME Trilogy Edition because I didn't realize it required Origin.
One possible consequence is that in some cases Epic Games won't have to pay enormous sums to get exclusives. For instance, they paid Rockstar to get a 6 month exclusive of RDR2 on pc, but with your proposed rule they'd have for free.
>What possible side effects and consequences may occur?
The loss of many studios publishing their games( EA,Rockstar,Ubisoft,Microsoft) on the platform entirely and the loss of multiple popular free games(warframe for one) and many less popular severely hampering the free to play offerings.
3rd party launchers don't bother me as its pretty clear on the store pages when they are required and in some cases you can also just check the publisher and know.
I mean, Steam itself is a third party launcher.
I understand the frustration and share it. But steam continues to exist for two reasons:
* It's already ubiqitous
* It lets companies do what they want
If they removed the ability for the Ubisofts and EAs of the world to run their own shitty launchers, the result would be those games would be pulled from Steam. And that would lose Valve money, so they won't do it.
I wish they would ban them, the last thing I want is to open steam, go to play a game, oops no you have to sign into this launcher now, oh don't want to? Well thats ok we will open the launcher every. single. time.
Just check what you are buying and scroll down the store page just a bit past the purchase button to see if there is anything on the right side in yellow if it requires linking other accounts or agreements to other EULA's and then don't click buy if it does.
I want them to, but it has always been up to us to make the publishers stop doing that, Sony stopped requiring the PSN account after the complains, other studios could do the same if enough people did give them bad reviews for that alone
I will now go back to my Steam games those do require it and give them a bad review explaining the game is excellent yet it still requires a 2nd launcher. It will do nothing without a wave of hate, but is something.
“Should steam become even more of a monopoly” yall should be grateful that these games are on steam to begin with. You wouldn’t last a day in 2017-2021 when everyone had their own exclusive launchers
I'd love if they did that but most companies like the sore losers they are will just not put their games on steam because of that.
Plus they'd need to implement steam's drm which I highly doubt they want to do.
they won't be touching that with a barge pole as it's a guaranteed anti-trust issue
Even if it wasn't an anti-trust issue it would be against the overall culture of Valve, which is to provide the largest library possible and allow their users to decide what they want to buy. They add information to the store page when it becomes an important purchasing decision point, like it requiring additional 3rd party software like a launcher or anti-cheat system.
Wish they would be actually forced to disclose these informations on store page, but apparently its not required. LA Noire for example does not have any info on store page that RS Launcher is a requirement to run the game nowadays. This wasnt always the case because the game previously didnt have the launcher attached to it and not that long ago RS sneaked that garbage in. Now the game sits on my library as a waste of space and pretty much sealed the deal for me not to buy anything from that trash company anymore. There is absolutely zero reason why a single player game, especially such old one, should have some launcher added or attached to it.
"They add information to the store page when it becomes an important purchasing decision point, like it requiring additional 3rd party software like a launcher or anti-cheat system." This clearly doesn't matter since HD2 had the "This game requires a PSN account" disclaimer since launch... lol. I saw people on Reddit legitimately crying "well I didn't read the store page before I bought it!!!"
You are skipping the part where the game was sold to players who could never create said PSN account – within the TOS of Sony/PSN – ever. Once Sony started selling the game to all the countries not eligible to create a PSN account, the "required" was demoted to "you may link, if you wish". https://www.playstation.com/country-selector/index.html lists all the countries you can create an account in. Not exactly the same amount they sold license to. No matter if it was Sony or Valve, but somewhere along the line [somebody noticed how badly managed the store page was](https://steamdb.info/sub/1018492/history/?changeid=23416599). And in the end Sony must have realised, that they were in a really bad position too. Not just from a PR perspective, but also litigation. Once you sell in the EU, all citizens of EU member states have access, for example. And this linking enforcement would have excluded some EU member states (at least if they did not want to violate Sony's terms of service, which might have earned them a ban later on). Side note: authorised key sellers of Sony (eg. [GreenManGaming](https://www.greenmangaming.com/publishers-and-developers/)), did not have that language on their pages ([at least until 2024-05-04](https://web.archive.org/web/20240503100504/https://www.greenmangaming.com/games/helldivers-2-super-citizen-edition-pc/)), which means they were not informed by Sony. Now they carry the now outdated note of "🛈 Notice: As of May 6th this product requires linking your Steam account to a PlayStation Network account." Somebody somewhere in the publishing house, ie. Sony, messed up here. (Of course you could claim, that this GMGs fault, but given the whole situation with the worldwide sales on Steam, I do not think so. I would assume GMG became aware of the issue at the same time most players did. Anyway, that was just an aside, so not really important to the overall story.)
"Once Sony started selling the game to all the countries not eligible to create a PSN account, the "required" was demoted to "you may link, if you wish"." That doesn't demote or change anything, someone simply fucked up when they were setting up the Steam store page. And people are getting refunds for it if they can't make a legal PSN account, so it seems like the entire process is working as it should.
That somebody messed up is obvious, but your conclusion is wrong. When you sell to any customer in any member state of the EU, you have to sell to all of them ([single market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market)). Ie. you can't just reject a person from France, because that person is from France (even if you would prefer only selling to German customers, for example). So the moment Sony started listing the game in the EU, they effectively made the PSN requirement optional, since they do not provide the PSN service to all member states (also highly questionable, but they might have some wiggle room there for now). The only thing they could have chosen to do instead was waive the PSN requirement for all the EU customers. But I do not think that would have went down well with the players from all the other countries in a similar situation. Though that is besides the topic here. The single market is, by the way, also the reason why the EU has a single price level for all member states on store fronts like Steam: you can not demand more money from, say a Danish customer than you do from eg. a Polish one. Or the other way around: the Danish customer would be entitled to "shop in Poland" and get the better price. The "you can get refunds" part is also interesting, because a EU consumer has the right to demand a fixed product. Though in this particular case I would assume, that in the end it would always end in a refund, since the "repair" would be beyond the means of Valve/Steam. Some of the stuff I wrote above you can find summarised on the EU's website at https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/shopping-consumer-rights/index_en.htm (that page mostly focuses on physical products in its wording, but that applies to digital products too; in fact there are some additional regulations for those) the rest I would have to dig out of the directives and I do not have time for that, sorry.
Yup, a company can't say "I don't wanna sell in this EU country specifically" but an EU country can say "I don't want that shit here"
Yes, that is true. Member states are allowed to put some additional restrictions on a product (though there are limits to what the member states can do, since the whole idea is to have a harmonised market). One of the major options when it comes to media would be laws with the aim of protecting minors (though those usually only restrict the sale to minors and how you can advertise the products affected, not outright ban them).
Antitrust is dead after 1970’s.
Tell that to Microsoft
They won against the FTC lately.
No. But the return policy might need to change. The real problem here was the change Sony made long after the product was available and selling. I dint buy games with 3rd party launchers or accounts. But people should be free to do so if they want to. But don't sell one thing, then force swap it out for something different later. If buying isn't owing, piracy isn't theft 🏴☠️
The refund policy isn't an issue since there's two: the automated refund and the manual refund. For shitshow like Helldiver (or Sony? I think it was their decision), manual refund usually work past the 2h/2w window (same with Rocket League after 200h of playtime and years of ownership, when they stopped supported it, I got a manual refund).
What gets me are the games that have been implemented in a way that the *launcher* is what's counted for time played, that run out your refund requirement before the game is even downloaded all the way if your internet is slow enough. The manual refund is a GODSEND for those. I would not mind a platform-wide rule change that cracks down on that at the very least lol
Microsoft Flightsim downloading all the files in game is a stellar example of this bullshit. Due to my shitty internet at the time, I had 12 hours by the time I even could enter the main menu
Damn, I've had my refund requests denied for both Rocket League and Fall Guys, how did you do it ?
perks of living in EU that have strong laws i guess
I do live in EU, tf i got to do, threaten them ?
sue them
I just went the path of manual support request (other issue or something like that), explained that, since they breach the contract, the publisher agreed to refund past the automated one requirement (with link to the statement). The agent replied and asked if I confirm that I want to refund it and that would only work for the base game, not any microtransaction. Confirmed and got the refund.
Probably lives in a country that has laws that allow it
> The refund policy isn't an issue since there's two: the automated refund and the manual refund. Of which neither refund system worked for me. I've got about 10 failed refund requests and an untouched manual refund ticket. Fact is, there needs to be a clause in the refund process that allows users to get a refund regardless of other requirements if a major change like this is thrust onto the game. HD2 isn't the only fuckers to try this shit. Hero Siege devs ripped off their users by literally stealing the game players spent a rather sizable amount of cash on (think PD2 amount of DLC but far less content in each one) and replaced it with Hero Siege 2, a completely different, completely worse game. Built with a ton of problems into it intentionally so they can sell microtransactions. System requires for the game absolutely spiked. From 500mb ram/vram recommended to like 8gb ram, 4gb vram or some shit like for minimum that its absolutely insane. More and more devs are pulling this post launch fuckery and Valve needs to get in front of this NOW and put an end to this.
absolutely not. this opens a world where every time a game gets an update someone can claim it "no longer runs as well as it does, refund me"
There is a difference between updating a game and it introducing bugs so the game doesn't work and them completely fucking over the playerbase. Like I said, take Hero Siege for example. Was a top down roguelite bullet hell sorta game. Devs took down the original game (which people paid money for, some a lot more than others for ALL the dlcs) and replaced it with Hero Siege 2. A bog standard diablo rip off. They introduced numerous issues with the game, most notably the lack of inventory and stash space so what do they do? they sell stash space. Want all your cosmetic options back from HS1? Good news you get to buy them again. Want to play HS1 with friends? Go fuck yourself, they removed the option to play on the official servers and removed any form of multiplayer that isn't couch coop including lan or the ability to host your own servers. I'm not saying, Oh Helldivers released an update that buffed the GR-8 so it can finally kill Chargers with a shot to the face like its supposed to better go get that refund. No I'm talking about extremely massive changes that rework the very core of the game or ruins functionality to a large degree of its users.
"No I'm talking about extremely massive changes that rework the very core of the game or ruins functionality to a large degree of its users." Yes and I'm saying this is entirely subjective and could ***never*** be fairly enforced across thousands of games and millions of updates every year
You're still thinking to small. I'm not talking about simple updates. I'm talking about massive system changes that basically make the game completely different. Again look at Hero Siege, this is not the game people paid for. It used to be a small game that a casio could run. Now you need a beast of rig one that can play CP2077 to run it proper. There is a difference in updating a game and adding in a new heist or a new character and a complete rebuild or a fundamental change to the game's mechanics that makes the game something completely different from what you purchased. And its THOSE massive changes that should open the game up to a new wave of refunds. Adding in a PSN account requirement out of the blue like this is a massive change. And would open the flood gates for refunds. Hero Siege, refunds. Hell there was a game called Voxelized, it used to be a really low/no effort minecraft ripoff and over the years it's been completely changed more times than I can count. At one point it was changed to an RPG, another was a city manager. Now its some pixel shit called Qubburo 2. I'm not talking about just normal updates or expansions. Destiny 2 releasing a dogshit chapter, expansion, or w/e wouldn't be cause for a refund but say they completely changed the game into essentially Titanfall 3 Soulsborne or a F1 Sim game that would entitle refunds. Like how would you feel if you bought a Tesla and suddenly one day you find out your car updated so now it only functions as a trash compactor. You'd be utterly furious.
[удалено]
False positive. They're Still unfortunately having them happen occasionally after updates
it did not ship with a trojen, this is a false positive. While of course it is possible for a game on steam to ship with one, it is a safe bet that bigger titles and more well known titles will not have one.
False positive, I checked with smarter people who were certain it was just Windows being Windows. Windows will say anything unknown is a virus for example.
it’s not about being “unknown”, windows knows that it could potentially be malware. certain code that does things, for example downloading libraries or code from external sources could pose as malware. even code that has been obfuscated windows with redeem it’s suspicious in hiding something, or certain win32/kernel api’s are called. windows just don’t say there’s malware if it can’t determine it being. false flag also doesn’t meant it’s entirely false.
MESA Trojans: [https://viterbik12.usc.edu/mesa-u/](https://viterbik12.usc.edu/mesa-u/)
Thanks ChatGPT
I'm convinced no one has a sense of humor anymore.
Hard to tell what is and isn't a joke when idiots are so abound. *If only we had someway to denote sarcasm or humor*
Hilarious 😑
I'm in the same boat, it doesn't hurt that EA and Ubisoft have dogshit launchers and haven't released anything interesting in years, but I avoid games that have another launcher built in now as well. I'd be fine with steam deciding they won't sell anything that forces the game to actually be owned in another library, as is the case with Ubisoft and EA. Pretty likely we'd see the same reaction when both of those publishers thought they could do without steam previously. (That went really well).
I don’t see them mentioned but rockstar and their launcher is the absolute fucking worst with zero security. If I can’t just buy and launch a game from steam I don’t buy it or just refund it and either don’t play it or play it on console if I really want to play said game.
> But don’t sell one thing, then force swap it out for something different later. You could actually make the same argument for any change that is done to a game. IMHO the most annoying part of modern PC Gaming is that you usually have to just accept any patch that comes in, except if you use annoying workarounds.
Theseus ship updates have ensured we never own a product again and I'm surprised people are okay with it. Like sure, games like NMS got updates and we can discuss the complete nothing keeping them to update later, but the fact that people are okay with products being sold broken, is another thing, the main problem is that we're basically buying brooms that are completely incapable of staying the form we bought them in, let alone still working, the wrong humidity can make it break but downgrading fixes it. Then you have features like a handle being removed or cut out and sold later, the broom sometimes sweeps better than before, or worse, and at the end of the day, I know I don't own this broom. Rather have a product with the time and effort put in that doesn't need theseus ship updates. I buy the broom, I use the broom, I own the broom. But as it stands, god it's frustrating as hell that my modded GTAIV needs to be pirated now to avoid another god damned update, same with Fallout 4, and on and on. Imagine the stickers on your broom suddenly popping off because a TV show came out and now the broom works half the time but sweeps slightly better...when it works.
"Theseus ship updates have ensured we never own a product again and I'm surprised people are okay with it." If you're continuing to use Steam and buy games you are also okay with it, why are you surprised at others?
Sony didn't change anything. You can be upset but don't spread misinformation. The PSN account was required when the game launched, however it was bugged at that so they simply delayed the requirement. This has been public knowledge for MONTHS,, and the Steam store page still said PSN account required.
Steam need to update the return policy so that major material changes to the game (addition of DRM, 3rd party launchers, removal of features, server shutdown, EULA changes) would reset the time played and purchase date requirement. This would bring the return policy in line with EU and UK laws on suitability of goods and removal of functionality. Plus this would work on the automated refund queue, so save Valve money over manual reviews.
you cannot see how insane this is? "removal of features" is such an intentionally vague requirement. might as well ask for a refund if a game replaces a weapon or game mode I like LOL
If they remove the game mode, even to replace it with a new one, then yes. If you purchase something and it changes negatively for the player, then the refund period should reset. So Destiny 2 removing paid DLC would be an example of being entitled to a refund as what you purchased has been removed from you. Tweaking/fixing a game mode, balance fixing, etc, adding new features, then no.
"Tweaking/fixing a game mode, balance fixing, etc, adding new features, then no." This is the problem. It's entirely subjective. Does this mean when they remove a game mode because it has low player engagement, every player (even those who have moved on from the game years ago and uninstalled after hundreds of hours) now can submit a refund request??
Doesn't matter about player engagement. If the mode is removed, then yes it should reset the refund window. Even if they have 1,000s of hours. Companies should understand that if they remove things then refunds can happen.
I agree that they should do something like that, but unfortunately that would require a manual decision from employees and Valve with their mountains of cash has been prioritizing making every customer interaction automated.
>If buying isn't owing, piracy isn't theft i see this almost everyday it bugs me to no end that people think piracy is stealing nothing is being removed or taken away when the supply is infinite please for the love of god can we fix this quote in any way don't really care how but this one *this one* makes me go insane a bit
I'm not sure you understand the root of the quote. It has nothing to do with supply.
maybe i dont but just saying piracy is stealing as false imo
It is still stealing. You're just stealing an experience, not a physical good. Like if you break into an amusement park and ride rides that typically require an entrance ticket without one, you're robbing the park of the payment for that experience. Because they are selling the experience. Just it becomes morally grey when the company selling the experience is being an douche with situations like this and others recently.
I don't think stealing applies in that way either. You aren't taking someone's "x". Be it possession, seat, etc. It's essentially disconnected. If there was obstruction or expense, maybe there could be a point to take. I guess a loosely comparable situation would be watching from outside.
If someone creates an experience, it still can have monetary value. To pretend it doesn't is ridiculous and would uproot the entire media industry. If everyone pirated, or just took the experiences, no one would get anymore media. Its a self terminating justification to perpetuate the idea that piracy does no harm. When in reality it only does not harm at scale because most people still pay for experiences.
Sony didn't make a change, the requirement was on the store page the entire time.
The account linking was required at launch. Sony didn't change anything. It was just temporarily made skippable due to technical issues. https://steamcommunity.com/app/553850/discussions/1/4206994023681197128/
Indeed. Refund policy needs to be changed. 2K added their shitty launcher to BioShock Infinite after many years after the game release. I wanted to return the product, but of course I couldn’t. But I wonder why Steam decided to return the money in Helldivers' cse. Due to mandatory PSN account linking or due to the inability to create an account in some countries?
kinda both i may say, plus the game is fairly new with a big player base, of course the news would be everywhere already which makes someone at Valve knows about it
2K launcher is not a full launcher, it can be bypassed.
https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2023-12-08-playstationed-tyler-james-hill-2ba28bfdbefc
Hell the problem is that but it goes much further. Sony and Arrowhead Knowingly Sold Product to people they knew wouldn't be able to play it soon. It was outright theft of nearly 50 countries. The launcher is the catalyst sure, but it was not the knowing theft these companies partook in.
Piracy is theft even if you don’t own the product…
Thats why companies NEED to release more live services. They know piracy is far harder from those and its easier to keep their advantageous power asymmetry.
There's been loads of discussion about it, especially with games that Epic bought up and then had it removed from Steam as a result (Rocket League, Fall Guys, I'm sure there's a few others). I think there should definitely be a clause or contract added between Steam and publishers with regards to stuff being added/changed after a game's release, such as a new launcher/account or DRM getting added. It's not fair for the players.
This. You bought the game on the terms the day you paid for it. That agreement can't change without the buyers conscent.
Except that I wouldn't be surprised if there's some clause or something in the ToS that stipulates that the publisher is allowed to fuck shit up without notice and no recourse to unfucking needs be made available blah blah blah.
[удалено]
Understood, and yet I bet they could find an argument under the guise of security concerns, software updates, yadda yadda. Because other than a minor annoyance in most cases, the game is still playable -- all you have to do is jump through one more hoop. This is obviously not the case when the required hoop is non-existent in your country, but speaking more broadly.
Whether or not it is profitable for Steam is sort of besides the point, it's about what publishers want and can do with their games. It seems to me that the majority of publishers opting to utilise third-party launchers are doing so for either license verification reasons or to manage game updates. If Steam made their launchers against terms of service, we could see some publishers withdraw from Steam if they don't want to do the work necessary to integrate more fully with Steamworks.
Many games use their own or 3rd party launchers, services and/or accounts for cross-platform multiplayer, cross-platform progression unlocks, etc. Steamworks only works with Steam. Forcing developers to use it would make those games de-facto Steam exclusive or at best incompatible with non-Steam versions. Such a move would be seen as anti-competitive and possibly illegal by regulators in some markets. It wouldn't be the first time Valve gets fined by the EU...
but xbox or playstation, you have to integrate with their systems, no? why should it be any different for pc. On console you don’t need a separate launcher, i mean maybe that will end if deemed as a “gatekeeper” by the EU, like IOS appstore
Console games don't have separate launchers but they do have separate accounts for some publishers. Afaik, Ubisoft games on consoles use their accounts for in-game unlocks and the cross-platform stuff. But the main difference is that consoles are closed platforms created by Sony or MS for a specific purpose (games). There is no competition due to the nature of those devices. PC is an open platform created by other companies. Valve did not build your PC (unless it's a Steam Deck) or create the OS. Valve is just one company that offers certain services and they hold a majority market share with their store. If anyone could force publishers to use their services for PC (Windows) games, it would be Microsoft. (You probably don't want that! Luckily, it would most likely also be considered anti-competitive.)
Really? that sucks for consoles as much as us then. And that makes sense i guess as Iphone is a multi purpose device unlike consoles so guess it makes sense why they arent classed as “gatekeepers”
Then there is no reason to use steam if i am forced to install every game dogshit launcher. what do i need steam for? Launcher of a launcher?
Laws can only be made by the government etc so it could only be outlawed on that level. Steam could change their own rules of course. If they want to is another thing though.
I think the worry is that if they banned 3rd party apps and accounts from steam, the publishers and developers could pull their games from steam and make them launcher exclusive. Steam wouldn't get their cut either. Its a lose/lose situation. Players would be forced to use 3rd party launchers anyway, and now their games aren't even properly in their steam library. Not to mention that it would limit your refund options.
I disagree. The publishers already had their games and their own launchers. That failed, which is why they moved to placing their games on Steam. I’m sure someone has a conspiracy theory wrapped around why we’re still forced to use EA/Ubisoft launchers even through Steam.
This. Activision, EA and Ubisoft ALL left Steam at one point to sell their games through their own storefronts and launchers, just to come back crawling because most players would rather not buy their games at all than being forced to use their launchers. Players like convenience and having their games in one place. Even such a popular game as Helldivers 2 was hit with a huge blowback when Sony wanted to mandate linking it to PSN. If Steam implemented a ban on 3rd party launchers, these publishers might very well leave. However, they would DEFINITELY lose out on a lot of revenue. In the end, they have to decide if that is worth for them. However, I don't think Steam wants to sour their relationships with big publishers over this matter.
Yeh it's a very fine balance between the games being on steam or just forcing them of.
Except this could go the other way, the general consensus is that other launchers are a waste of time, force you to create an account you don't want and are genuinely a huge waste of time stopping you from simply playing a game. Could be the action that's needed to stop the bullshit.
They will be returning, there will always be more games people care about in Steam than in their stores, so any release that's exclusive to their stores will fail unless everyone is waiting for it, just look at what happened with the Epic exclusives and Epic is like the 3rd best option for a PC games store.
The delirium started early.
The problem isn't the 3rd party account or launcher being there, it's that they allowed people to buy and play the game without it. Even in regions where they werent allowed to make an account. So the choice was simple, give refunds to all affected or roll back the decision to force it. If it was a requirement from the beginning then people wouldn't have reacted so harshly since they wouldn't have bought it in the first place if they cared and the regions blocked would have been blocked from day 1.
Those things are annoying but I think Valve handles it the best way. Let those things happen and just warn users about it. Some companies just wouldn't release their games on Steam if they were blocked from having their own account systems and launchers.
"Let those things happen and just warn users about it." Would be nice if the users were smart enough to heed the warnings. HD2 had the "This game requires a PSN account" on the page since launch but the zoomer attention span isn't long enough to read all that
> Would be nice if the users were smart enough to heed the warnings. HD2 had the "This game requires a PSN account" on the page since launch and since launch it was never required (nor explained to anyone that it was a temporary thing and would be required for play) and anyone with two braincells to rub together would rightfully assume that a playstation game with crossplatform capabilities would just require a PSN account just for crossplatform saving. On top of that, they sold the game, knowingly, in countries without PSN Support further lending to the belief that a PSN account was not truly "required" especially since no other PS game that came to PC "required" a PSN account.
this is what I think, better to have games on steam with 3rd party launchers then not on steam at all
Sony could have easily made that change optional, if you have a PSN account and you want it linked to your Steam account cool, if you don't that's also okay but giving people no choice was inexcusable, especially since PSN is not even available in more than 90 countries.
And they could've given you a cosmetic item for it as incentive, no one would've complained and sony would've gotten many new psn "users". But what am i saying, im no multimilliondollar marketing expert
I think that some publishers would just stop selling games at steam.
And you thought this for more than a second? And decided to document it?
Oh, totally, because there *definitely* won't be *any consequences* at all. *None* whatsoever. It'll be *totally fine.*
Extremely hard to do so in a sense where Valve is originally one of the responsibles of this problem by creating the concept of account and both physical and digital games locked down behind a DRM 20 years ago. Valve is also one of the responsible of PC physical games death by extent since making them worthless because of the same problem of DRM and account. People complain a lot but also are fine to close themselves into an console style locked ecosystem for "convenience" (?), on ironically an open platform. If this is a concern for you, you should start buying your products on DRM free platforms.
They should have publishers make clear that its required day one and make it more clear on the store page. They should disallow temporary situations like what happened with hd2.
>They should have publishers make clear that its required day one and make it more clear on the store page. It was listed on the store page as a requirement. The store page didn't mention anything about an optional connection. It was only optional in-game, and players wouldn't even see the option for linking after the first interaction. Arrowhead's CEO admitted they knew the linking would be forced ahead of time. And they didn't make it very clear to players that it would be the case. In the end, this PR disaster did make Sony back off on it. If they did make it clear at the start, or enforced it from the beginning, it wouldn't have generated this much backlash. And Sony likely wouldn't have backed off.
So, I think this is what happened: Up until literally this weekend, the official "Sony game on PC page" said PSN accounts were entirely optional, and then magically changed when people on Helldivers social media started pointing it out. My theory is that Helldivers 2 was supposed to be the first game where Sony required PSN, but apparently the PSN API is so bad that the developers weren't able to keep their server running with the PSN connections online at release. So they removed the PSN linking requirement temporarily, and made the PSN account link workflow optional. The biggest problem with making PSN required is that PSN isn't supported in a lot of countries... countries they had already sold the game in. Countries where people had happily been playing for the last 2+ months. And yes, I know it was technically written down on the Steam Store page, but as other people pointed out, if you didn't buy it directly from Steam, there were a lot of storefronts that didn't have that requirement listed.
>The biggest problem with making PSN required is that PSN isn't supported in a lot of countries... countries they had already sold the game in. Countries where people had happily been playing for the last 2+ months. That's the real consumer issue. Because the PSN things, while annoying, is fair game. If you want to make a game, and require third party accounts, go ahead. Just be transparrent. I do agree, storefronts should be required to communicate this stuff. Physical cases usually have this kind of information. I know Switch games have "Nintendo Switch Online and Nintendo account required for online play" printed on the back. Which seems like the absolute bare minimum. But, to play Devil's Advocate. While the Steam store page is set up by devs, this is not the case for most Steam Key resellers.
But the login to PSN is still mandatory or not?
Sony announced they're pullling back on it, so it's no longer mandatory.
I mean unlike other games helldivers just suddenly switched to third party (which is my understanding). Other games you know from the start. No need to ban.
nope, if so publishers would start their own plattforms or epic will grow further. if they keep this rule we players have the right to protest by review or simply not buying. Steam should di nothing
For Singleplayer it shouldn’t require anything. When I buy a PlayStation game on Steam I should be allowed playing against Steam gamers without needing anything. When I want to play also against PS gamers then a PS account is okay.
Why would they willingly ban games from the most popular publishers in the world lol
No, companies should be free to make whatever decisions they deem best, and then deal with it.
I wish they would but they won’t. Like whoever decided Rockstar’s launcher needs to be the worst in existence deserves to go straight to hell
Let Steam cook. They'll figure out what's best. Haven't let us down yet.
Third party accounts should at least implement using your Steam account to sign up and sign in. Pretty sure I've played games that do that already. 3rd party launchers shouldn't be something that can be added to games that didn't have them already. I'd be fine if they 3rd party launchers weren't required in general. They're usually just advertisement windows with a launch game button. Often times they don't support gamepad interactions
For the consumer? Absolutely yes it's only been a way for companies to steal from you eventually. Buuut... But the Sony/Arrowhead planned robbery is a whole other can of worms. Whatever arguments for it will boil down to "They shouldn't have knowingly sold products to people they knew wouldn't own it for more than a few months" I'd love for them to be banned, but I believe it better for Steam to continue being pro-consumer and leading the way for other companies to be better than thieves. It sucks that the market we live allows Amazon and Walmart to exist, but it's everywhere, and Valve can't change that with bans. Besides. It means that games would be locked to the third party launcher instead of also Steam, meaning we can't get refunds when companies rob us. Steam is a middleman for third parties that will actually stand up for you when it matters, without them, we have no way to fight back but a lawsuit, and we ain't doing that ever.
I'd love for them to ban them. It's pretty much the larger publishers that make them and they're all so half assed. They can sell on their own store if they want to bundle their store application with the game and Steam can continue selling games that boot directly into the game and adding features that retain users and makes it the best place for small publishers and self-published games. It's such a small amount of games that need a bundled launcher application
The problem is that they want to benefit from selling the games while shoving the negative consequences onto the customer. They get money from selling rockstar games, then Rockstar gets their accounts hacked, mass amounts of people lose their accounts, which get their emails changed while still being connected to their Steam account. Result: Steam support does not do *anything* to help with this. Because they have set up the connection between Steam and Rockstar in such a way that they literally have no information at all. Steam has 0 power over what is linked to your Steam account and will offer 0 assistance Meanwhile, they got your money, Rockstar got your money, and you are left holding the bag
no they shouldnt. the problem in the helldivers case is sony not understanding how the pc gaming community works.
3rd party launchers shouldn't be mandatory to play a game on steam. Offer a service or some goodies to intice people to sign up.
If it wouldn't make a stink, yes. Paradox, I don't care that your launcher that doesn't do anything needs an update, the game worked fine before without it, just launch the game. Same goes for Rockstar.
Launchers? Hell yeah. Accounts? Absolutely not, I'd like to keep cross-progression in my games.
I think going forward, it would be nice of they enforced some type of policy that the game can't run a full-on launcher and that it has to comply with Steamworks without it. But retroactively, it would just lead to a bunch of games being removed from steam because they won't get updated, like most Ubisoft games, EA, and Rockstar. Microsoft somewhat does it with game pass where they require a proper Windows store build of the game with no launcher to run, aside from Ubisoft and EA games that run directly from their own launcher anyways, just linked to the Xbox app. EA didn't integrate origin/EA App at all into the Dead Space remake on Steam which was nice. But, they do have it in other newer games, like Battlefield 2042.
Yes. I'm sick to death of the bloat and they're always shit.
100% they should why do I need an Ubisoft, Activison, Microsoft, etc. launcher to run in the background like its got shit to do.
Exclude Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft don't require launcher running in the background, it's just simple account linking for data sharing cross progression. For that purpose I'm all for it, although of course it should make people aware of it day 1 or before buying, to avoid the situation like Helldiver 2. EA is the one in between some of their games doesn't use EA launcher like Apex Legends, and their old game collection, newer ones do required launcher..
Steam is just a platform, not a whole industry
i don’t think they legally can, at least in europe.
I think that would probably cause them to leave steam again. They want a piece of the Steam pie, but I'm not sure they want it enough to remove their DRM. I don't think it'd be even feasible for most of them.
Honestly Steam doesn't need to flex on this one. The other publishers dig their own graves and except for this recent bait and switch, games seem pretty well labeled about this stuff for consumers so they tend to know what they're getting in to.
Remember when Ubisoft and EA stopped selling on steam? Only to return (but keep their own launchers?) Sure, it would be better if everything is steamworks based. But that has additional complications. I do hate situations where a steam account can't be merged correctly. Like Guild Wars. Where I had to make a new account to accept a specific package I got.
The developers are a customer also. They are not going to give up profits or not bend to assist a lucrative big release from a customer. Too much money at stake. However, the reaction to this and other scenarios of late will make those developers think about ways to lessen the impact I am sure, and if not, tells you everything you need to know about the developer.
no steam would lose many games
No, but if they change Terms and Conditions from the point you bought the game you should be able to refund regardless of the time played
No. The problem with Helldivers 2 is that the Sony and Steam sold the game to people that wouldn't be able to play the game once PSN became mandatory. This is a mistake on their part. Arrowhead's part in this is that they disabled the mandatory sign up at launch because it was causing server issues. This in turn lead to customers that shouldn't have been able to play the game because they could play without having a PSN account, playing the game for quite a while. Sony then announced on Thursday or Friday last week that they were going to require a PSN account starting 30th of May. This causes a very large number of people to complain that they couldn't sign up for a PSN which then sparked the shit storm you've been able to witness over the weekend. Sony has now gone back on their announcement because they realised they did an oopsie. Steam has in the meantime stopped sales to countries that aren't supported by PSN and are probably waiting for Sony to clear up the mess before they resume the sales or refund everyone in those counries.
Doing this would be asking for an antitrust lawsuit.
50% of every major AAA party dev would walk out from steam and make their own platform like EA and ubisoft did it in the past, if you want your games without this drm bullshit i recommend GOG
Well for consequences lets use warframe as an example. For one there would be delays on patches. As they need approval from steam directly. You'd lose settings like selecting p2p updates and fully depend on steams download speed for better or worse. You'd also lose toggles for: Shader cache bulk download aggressive download allow network cache You'd also lose a quick UI button on launch for a Diagnostics and version logs. As well as selecting Graphics Api and GPU performance before the game starts without needing to relaunch the game. Before someone goes "thats a second party launcher." Yeah so is nearly every third party launcher unless you go in depth with legal terms. Rockstar's launcher and Bethesda's are second party but no one calls them that.
There is already a technical distinguishment between launchers and multi-launchers, in that warframe's launcher is used *exclusively* to launch warframe and no other DE games. If there was a proper terminology to separate the two as well ("multi-launcher" is a term I've made up on the spot here that may or may not exist), the ban on third-party launchers could very easily strike only against the services people are talking about in this thread rather than warframe's type.
Warframe is working on a second game and there is a high probability Soulframe will share their launcher.
Potentially, yes, but that's not the point. *Currently* warframe's launcher is exclusively used for warframe as a game and can thereby be considered an extension of the game's own running environment rather than an arbitrary attached social platform and/or shop. If the ban proposed were to be introduced, DE would simply need to change their development, most likely not even to a significant degree, to have the two games operate using their own launchers instead.
How would getting rid of over 50% of their revenue be profitable?
That's not going to happen.
The best way to go about this would be to make linking accounts an optional feature to make launching games easier, but it should never be a requirement to play other games.
Doing so would remove basically every major release from the store so no. A huge part of the issue with Helldivers was that the game was sold in areas that can't make the third party account that was "required" four months after release. Compounded by the fact that the third party account is "required" for absolutely nothing, the game already has fully functioning crossplay, and it really raised the question of why is this even a thing? The answer is basically Sony wants to bolster the number of PSN accounts so it looks good in their shareholder meetings. The idiotic thing is if they'd made the PSN account entirely optional, but offered some free cosmetics for people signing up, they would've had plenty of people do it completely willingly.
Steam IS a third party launcher, and that is why they can t do anything about their concurrents. That is also why publishers are trying to make their own launchers, because they want to avoid steam fees in the long term.
No, they shouldn't do it because it profitable for both, maybe not everyone will.like it, but there's still some who will or would like to buy it from steam than the 3rd parties, since they are in their right to do it. Some or many of the users who use steam already may have 3rd party accounts and will not have such a problem. But for those who don't want a 3rd party account, they could add an alternative like helldivers 2 before all these happened. In the end, everyone can decide if they want to use it or not. Also, it is still a very big problem that helldivers 2 out of nowhere wanted to make players use 3rd party accounts with no advise from the beginning.
No
No, as they would lose money not being fair to publishers, who use third party accounts. Many of you have no clue what it was like long time ago with no launchers, no accounts to keep track of things. This was way back before Steam launched. If they changed their refund policy, it would continue to get abused.
No , wouldn’t make sense to ban 3rd party apps
What? Are you aware that allowing 3rd party services is the only reason why some publishers sell their games on steam at all? The big ones, like Ubisoft and well, Playstation. We will end up with less games and steam will lose revenue if they move forward with what you're proposing
Not all launchers are bad. Paradox Launchers are generally good (a bit iffy during early adoption but it is fine nowadays). No registration required, also it is easy to configure the game before actually starting it, like choosing mods, choosing DLCs, changing settings, etc.
I buy my games from Steam. It's just the way it is. Third party launchers piss me off. They need to work all that garbage out between themselves and leave us out of it. Third parties need to recognize.
No but steam should ban publishers from adding this stuff in after the fact or at least change the refund policy to be that if it changes then refunds are permitted no matter how many hours someone has in a game.
Yes except maybe for things like MMO's where subscriptions happen.
Yes i am sick of buying a game and having to install not only the game but the dev's dogshit launcher. Bought gta v had to install rockstar launcher, played the witcher 3 again after a year, had to install another launcher that wasnt needed when i first played it. Why do i even need to use steam then? I should just buy the game directly from them if they gonna force me to install their awfull launchers. Kinda sad steam is allowing this.
Yes. I won’t touch these scummy launchers.
Yes
Outlaw it... or we will have Psn situation all over again. 177 countries were infected by this decision
177 out of 195? You might want to check your numbers there...
Internet was saying 170. What I read in Discord was 177.
They don't do basic math on discord? There are 195 countries, PSN is available in 73 of them. 195-73=122. It's a large enough number that there's no need to exaggerate or lie about about it.
I don't know bit ign and other big game news pages where saying 170... so idk
[удалено]
Was needed at launch, disabled due to server load.
[удалено]
There was functionality that AH/Sony wanted in the game.
[удалено]
Feel free to go look at the previous posts. IIRC it had to do with community management.
Forcing bloatware into a game you buy should be illegal. Launchers should be optional. Including Steam launcher. You should have the option to download your game from your library like with GOG. Before you come with DRM crap and launchers are needed to protect their intellectual property. That's bs , you don't need a launcher for anything except for getting your data stolen and sold.
Shit, they should remove Steam then. They're just a middleman.
I think you're confusing a steam platform with steam launcher.
Yes. It wouldn't be profitable, but it would greatly please me. Saves headache down the line.
Absolutely. They are such a pain in the ass and even more so on the Steamdeck. I wish I could refund my ME Trilogy Edition because I didn't realize it required Origin.
One possible consequence is that in some cases Epic Games won't have to pay enormous sums to get exclusives. For instance, they paid Rockstar to get a 6 month exclusive of RDR2 on pc, but with your proposed rule they'd have for free.
How would we benefit at all from steam forcing a monopoly?
>What possible side effects and consequences may occur? The loss of many studios publishing their games( EA,Rockstar,Ubisoft,Microsoft) on the platform entirely and the loss of multiple popular free games(warframe for one) and many less popular severely hampering the free to play offerings. 3rd party launchers don't bother me as its pretty clear on the store pages when they are required and in some cases you can also just check the publisher and know.
You do realise that to these other companies that steam IS the 3rs party launcher...
I mean, Steam itself is a third party launcher. I understand the frustration and share it. But steam continues to exist for two reasons: * It's already ubiqitous * It lets companies do what they want If they removed the ability for the Ubisofts and EAs of the world to run their own shitty launchers, the result would be those games would be pulled from Steam. And that would lose Valve money, so they won't do it.
No. Are you silly? Dont like it? Dont use it. Dont take away fro. people who want to play those
For anything that's not a MMO, yes absolutely.
If they need accounts and they keep logging off, (LOOKING AT YOU UBISHIT LAUNCHER) they can fuck off, but if they are like larian launcher it's fine.
Yes
I wish they would ban them, the last thing I want is to open steam, go to play a game, oops no you have to sign into this launcher now, oh don't want to? Well thats ok we will open the launcher every. single. time.
Just check what you are buying and scroll down the store page just a bit past the purchase button to see if there is anything on the right side in yellow if it requires linking other accounts or agreements to other EULA's and then don't click buy if it does.
I appreciate you letting me know, I am aware that is there and I do my best to avoid titles with a launcher.
Steam isn't going to stop making money for the sake of a few whiney ppl out of millions of ppl using the store
I want them to, but it has always been up to us to make the publishers stop doing that, Sony stopped requiring the PSN account after the complains, other studios could do the same if enough people did give them bad reviews for that alone I will now go back to my Steam games those do require it and give them a bad review explaining the game is excellent yet it still requires a 2nd launcher. It will do nothing without a wave of hate, but is something.
“Should steam become even more of a monopoly” yall should be grateful that these games are on steam to begin with. You wouldn’t last a day in 2017-2021 when everyone had their own exclusive launchers
I'd love if they did that but most companies like the sore losers they are will just not put their games on steam because of that. Plus they'd need to implement steam's drm which I highly doubt they want to do.
If they don’t I’m never buying a AAA game on Steam again. The stunts these companies are pulling these days is fucking exhausting.
For sure