I legit haven't bought a game anywhere but steam in over a decade. I simply do not trust the motives or responsibility of any other publisher. And at this point, I'm too afraid of them yoinking their game after I've paid for it that I'll likely never change.
We all should be hitting GOG up more often if we want the legit ONLY good competition for steam to not die out one day. They are as good as steam in many ways.
I mean, they host Linux versions of games, it's close. I get what you mean though, a native Linux program like they have for Windows and MacOS would be great.
GOG is fantastic but Steam keeps getting my business because of all the extras I really depend on like cloud saves, game library sharing, proton, Big picture and controller mapping.
As soon as GOG has linux support at least 80% as good as steam, I'll jump right over. I used to always prefer GOG over Steam but I've really felt that they don't care about supporting my platform at all unless that's changed in recent times so I'm happier giving Valve my cut.
I've also been avoiding playing games that involve some third party launcher or login. I'm not perfectly consistent with this and have bought some games before realizing they had this, but even steam games can be subject to a company deciding they don't want to support their game anymore (which IMO is fair) and just killing the game off entirely, which isn't fair. I'd like to see a requirement that other steps be taken to keep it going without their active support. Like opening the source and relinquishing all copyrights on that code. If they want to keep parts of it, then pull it out into a library that they continue to maintain.
Meanwhile someone somewhere is having issues with steam taking too much profit. Do note that even if a game is DELISTED from steam, you still can download the game on steam. Of course it is a different story with license revocation and that is a whole different can of worms. I don't even know if steam allows the publisher to revoke a license for a game that the player already paid for just because the game is not supported anymore (a different case with breaking ToS/EULA).
Steam requires others to keep the game downloadable if its in your library, but they can't do anything if ubisoft decides to shut the servers down. You keep your license but it's useless.
This is probably a big reason I don't buy/play newer multiplayer games, especially ones that are mp only, and a big reason why I buy everything on steam and avoid other platforms.
I've heard of games being dropped by steam, but those that already own it, still own it and can access it on steam as normal. In the situations I'm aware of, those games eventually returned to steam later, but still.
I prefer games that are either peer to peer mp, or you can self host a server for mp. I'm not saying that I'll always self host, but if the option is there, then I'll never lose the ability to play the game with friends, since I only need to set up a server to play on. Since I have a homelab, setting something like that up is trivial for me, and I can shut down and delete the server afterwards when it's no longer wanted or needed.
Everyone going crazy for the latest version of whatever battle Royale type game, laying down premium money to play on day one, and spending a lot to get buffs and cosmetics.... It just seems stupid to me. No thanks.
Free to play multiplayer with the option to buy cosmetics is less bad, but still not great. You can play, enjoy some time with friends while playing the game and if it goes offline tomorrow, who cares? You didn't pay anything for it and I'm certain there's other options in the same vein. As long as you're having fun, enjoy.
If I'm paying for a game, it's probably because of the single player experience. Anything multiplayer is icing on the cake, but not motivation to buy it.
It’s sad how consumers have zero rights when it comes to digital content. Companies can retroactively make changes, removing content legitimately bought by consumers with no repercussions. I get “not owning” but for a company to collect money for services provided and not actually provide those services will never not astound me.
Ubisoft has been trash for a long time now. It’s a shame that they control some good IP, but the company’s too far gone to ever be trustworthy. Save your time and money and just play something else imo.
They know people are making a private server so revoked everyone's license so that even when they finish it, everyone will have to pirate their own game to play it.
I thought they had on several occasions dropped games from the store because they had DRM. Which DRM titles does GOG still have?
Last game I paid good money for was on GOG. Everything added to my steam account in the last few years has either been part of a humble bundle or a freebie from somewhere.
You can also find some reports checking this thread - the post in question says Beat Hazard 2 won't run after a clean offline install on a computer without internet. Not DRM per se, as that check only happens once and it creates a savefile
The third item, while it fits the narrative, was a quote directed more towards the option of subscription services. It wasn’t really directed to gamers, but to shareholders to explain low Ubisoft+ numbers, basically saying people may need time to warm up to the idea.
Considering how many interesting indies I’ve played on Game Pass (and, ever since Tango was murdered, PS+) I think there’s merit to that (just not on Ubisoft’s platform). There’s probably dozens of old PS1 classics we never would have tried out if our local Blockbuster hadn’t had them available for rent. I mean heck, $60 was a LOT back then for those polygons.
I wish people were THAT passionate about REAL life/world problems/ injustices and make fun of the real people in power, who allow Ubisoft to do such things…
