Let’s just face it. There isn’t ever going to be a publishing company that doesn’t fuck us however they can for an extra dime. Companies are machines full of people deciding whatever they have to for money.
There also will never be a way they can keep us from just copying files.
I don’t buy it in that case, but it takes me a lot of leg work a lot of times just to figure out what I’m buying, because no one is interested in making it clear besides GOG; even then, there are things I wish they did better on that front.
Well, sort of. HDCP exists, and does make it harder to capture an AV stream.
For interactive content, the current push online components hosted on external servers adds a lot of complexity. While a lot of that stuff can be patched around by a very dedicated community, not every piece of content gets enough community appeal to attract the wizards to do such a thing.
And while anyone can digivolve into a wizard given enough commitment and effort, the onramp is not easy these days. Wayyy back when cracking a game meant opening the file and finding the line for 'if cd_key == ‘whru686’, it was much easier to get casually involved. Nowadays, DRM has gotten so much more sophisticated that a tech background is essentially required to start.
Ubisoft is nothing compared to Valve… You don’t own anything you purchase on Steam and it’s the biggest store by a huge margin, don’t know why Ubisoft is mentioned specifically…
Games sold on Steam are not required to use Steam’s DRM. There are lots of DRM free games on Steam. Steam is only required to be installed to purchase/download them but not to run them. After download, the game files can be copied and ran on any computer without any verification.
So they’re not DRM free then if you need Steam to download them. You also need to be connected to the internet at least once to confirm ownership, so even if you download it once and think that you can now just transfer the game from one PC to another without an internet connection or without Steam, you can’t.
DRM free and actual ownership means physical. The closest you’ll get to that with digital games is through GOG or Itch.io or anything similar where you can download the actual install files and you don’t need any launcher at all.
You can purchase the game in a web browser and use steamcmd, which (one could argue is still requiring an app) to download and install. In cases where the publisher is not invoking DRM (Larian games like BG3, DoS2, etc. for instance) once the game is downloaded you can certainly archive it and transfer it to another machine and run it there without Steam. In the end you are likely purchasing proprietary software (though again it’s not always the case on Steam) and we could say you don’t really own that either, so maybe take your complaints to the publishers or just use the power of your wallet and not buy those games and support libre games, of which there are many, another way. That said, Valve is actively making things better for users by developing and contributing to useful libre software like Proton (WINE, DXVK, etc) that can work outside of Steam.
once you downloaded the game you can copy it into a pendrive, upload it into mega or whatever storage and use it. I don’t get why y’all get so held up at the fact that steam might stop offering infinite downloads. Once you have downloaded the game you are free to burn it or store it wherever! This is different from streaming music for example, since with music you never have a local copy you can work with.
so even if you download it once and think that you can now just transfer the game from one PC to another without an internet connection or without Steam, you can’t.
You can. I have several games where I can literally copy the game folder into another computer, press the executable and be able to play it offline. Terraria, vampire survivors, stardew valley, pathfinder: WOTR, Grim Dawn, AoE2… And more. I literally have “backup” zips of several path versions of grim dawn to play different mods because I’m too lazy to patch the game each time I want to replay different versions.
DRM free and actual ownership means physical
Once the game it’s in your system it’s as physical as it can get. There’s no difference of storage in your disk, a pendrive, an external drive or an optical CD. You give the example of GoG, there’s plenty games in steam that once “installed” have all the files in the game folder and you can easily move them.
In the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network,” Valve reps have said, “measures are in place to ensure that all users will continue to have access to their Steam games.”
It’s even more basic than that: if there’s no escrow with money for that “end of life” “plan” and no contractual way to claw back money for it from those getting dividends from Valve, then what the “Valve representatives” said is a completelly empty promised, or in other words a shameless lie.
Genuine intentions actually have reliable funding attached to them, not just talkie talkie from people who will never suffer in even the tinyest of ways from not fulfulling what they promised.
In this day and age, we’ve been swamped with examples that we can’t simply trust in people having a genuine feeling of ethical and moral duty to do what they say they will do with no actual hard consequences for non-compliance or their money on the line for it.
PS: And by “we can’t trust in people” I really mean “we can’t trust in people who are making statements and promises as nameless representatives of a company”. Individuals personally speaking for themselves about something they control still generally are, even in this day and age, much better than people acting the role of anonymous corporate drone.
If there is one think we should all have learned by now in this Era is that talk means nothing at all: there have to be hard contractual clausules along with personal punishment for those who break them or some kind of escrow system for money meant to go into that “end of life” plan for it to actually be genuine.
“Valve reps have said” is worth as much as the paper it’s written on and that stuff is not even written on paper.
Except they have proven this so far to be accurate. Games that have long since been removed from sale are still downloadable for people who purchased them at the time. Which is more than others can say.
Well, as the guy falling from the top of the Empire State Building was overheard saying on his way down: “well, so far so good”.
Or as the common caveat given to retail investors goes: past performance is no predictor of future results.
“So far” proves nothing because it can be “so far” only because the conditions for something different haven’t yet happenned or it simply hasn’t been in their best interest yet to act differently.
If their intentions were really the purest, most honest and genuine of all, they could have placed themselves under a contractual obligation to do so and put money aside for an “end of life plan” in a way such that they can’t legally use it for other things, or even done like GoG and provided offline installer to those people who want them.
Steam have chosen to maintain their ability to claw back games in your library whilst they could have done otherwise as demonstrated by GoG which let you download offline installers - no matter what they say, their actions to keep open the option of doing otherwise say the very opposite.
But the steam network is still around. When steam actually shuts down and no longer has the infrastructure to provide downloads for games, I have no idea what their plan is. They hypothetically could provide a way to remove the DRM, but I doubt that it’s something the publishers of games would allow.
Just people trying to ride the wave for internet points without really knowing what they’re talking about. It’s just the popular “current thing” to hate on.
To add to your point, it’s amazing that so many people are still mindless fanboys, even of Steam.
Steam has restrictions on installing the games their customers supposedly own, even if it’s nothing more than “you can’t install it from a local copy of the installer and have to install it from the Steam servers” - it’s not full ownership if you can’t do what you want with it when you want it without the say so of a 3rd party.
That’s just how it is.
Now, it’s perfectly fair if one says “yeah, but I totally trust them” which IMHO is kinda naive in this day and age (personally, almost 4 decades of being a Techie and a gamer have taught me to distrust until there’s no way they can avoid their promises, but that just me), or that one knows the risks but still thinks that it’s worth it to purchase from Steam for many games and that the mere existence of Steam has allowed many games to exists that wouldn’t have existed otherwise (mainly Indie ones) - which is my own posture at least up to a point - but a whole different thing is the whole “I LoVe STeaM And tHeY CaN DO NotHInG wrONg” fanboyism.
Sorry but they have in place restrictions on game installation and often game playing which from the point of view of Customers are not needed and serve no purpose (they’re not optional and a choice for the customer, but imposed on customers), hence they serve somebody else than the customer. It being a valid business model and far too common in this day and age (hence people are used to it) doesn’t make those things be “in the interest of Customers” and similarly those being (so far) less enshittified than other similar artificial restrictions on Customers out there do not make them a good thing, only so far not as bad as others.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, this isn’t the loby of an EA multiplayer game and we’re supposed to be mostly adults here in Lemmy: lets think a bit like frigging adults rather than having knee-jerk pro-Steam reactions based on fucking brand-loyalty like mindless pimply-faced teen fanboys. (Apologies to the handful of wise-beyond-their-years pimply faced teens that might read this).
Just because you bought something and never picked it up it isn’t the stores fault. If you buy a perpetual license to digital code then never download it then cry when the store stops providing the source or updating it sounds like a you problem. Now a SaaS thing is weird. Like what do i do when I own a license for Helldivers 2 and the service turns off. That is like paying a person a lump sum for a service like trash but it is one person and you expect it to last at least 50 years since that person is young and they die next week. Now you are out the money and the service expecting the service would never end
Much like California’s other good-sounding laws, the fine print is what gets you on both ends, both in the law and in the EULA you agree to when signing up that’s going to say that all transactions are explicitly a terminable and revocable license.
A revocable license for a virtual “product” whereupon they absolutely do not give you back your real world dollars if they terminate said license.
There’s no power imbalance in this transaction at all, no siree.
Anyway, I’m all for making backups of things. So you de-licensed me. Big whoop. I still have the file and I can still play it, and nobody can physically stop me.
I suppose that’s the difference between laws in the US vs the EU. In the US the wording of the law is everything. If you find some absurd loophole due to weird grammar, good for you. In the EU, at least from an outsiders perspective, the law is enforced as it was intended to be, and if you try to fuck around with wording you get fined.
If it’s about those pretty similar character models like those linked in the article, then I can understand Nintendo better.
But if it’s just about the concept of “collecting monsters” and using them in battles somehow, then they can go fuck themselves. I’m eager to learn where they see their patents infringed.
Having played Palworld a bit, some of the monsters are distinct from Pokemon, but some of them are incredibly obvious clones.
But like, looking back at some of the knock-off toys I remember seeing in the 80s and early 90s? It definitely seems like copyright has gotten more robust in its attempted overreach.
I’m pretty sure I saw the same tweet from Stephen Totilllo (sp?) just to give you some credence, but I think many people called him out for it as it was below his usual reporting standards.
We’ll have to wait and see when the case developers further.
thank you, that was what i saw. I was fully expecting to find articles that would back it up, (why else would you make such a claim?) but nope. I couldnt find anything to support it.
But if it’s just about the concept of “collecting monsters” and using them in battles somehow, then they can go fuck themselves.
I don’t think it would be that because it would be unenforceable. There are plenty of games where you collect monsters, some of which existed before Pokemon’s creation and plenty that have existed after. It would be the King Kong case all over again, but inverted.
Only thing I can think of are maybe the catching mechanics (which are straight out of Legends: Arceus). No idea if these would be considered unique enough to be patentable, guess we’ll find out.
They literally tried to patent the loading screen and mechanically locking a player object to a moving object ingame just after the release of TotK. Nintendo is the absolute king of frivolous gaming patents. Here’s hoping it’s their downfall. For an example of how seriously vague some of the patents they’ve been granted are, check out some of their current ones after pokemon sleep’s initial success (basically trying to keep everyone without 9 digit money out of the sleep app game space).
In a case where a second camera operation through a third input unit using an inertial sensor is performed while a pointer operation process based on a pointer operation through a first input unit or a camera operation process based on a first camera operation through a second input unit is performed, an absolute value of a quantity of change in a position or an image capturing direction of a virtual camera based on the second camera operation is reduced as compared with a case where the second camera operation is performed when neither of the pointer operation process based on the pointer operation and the camera operation process based on the first camera operation are performed.
I’m not sure how the term “patent” is to be interpreted here. It could be used like back in the days when Apple sued Samsung because their phone had rounded edges too…
Like a “design patent” (sorry, I’m not a native English speaker, so I’m unsure if this is the correct translation).
A lot of the pals in the game look quite close to Pokémon. Not identical, of course, but so similar that one just has to wonder if the design has been “inspired” by Pokémon…
Pokemon design isn’t patented, they are secured by copyright. As long as they do not copy a Pokemon design directly, they are safe. Being inspired is not a copyright infringement. Patents usually are about hardware and other mechanical solutions, in example a certain dialog system. And it needs to be patented and all patents are open to see, I think.
It depends on what kind of patent. I just googled the term I had used before, and it is indeed what I expected it to be: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
And yes, that name is stupid. That’s why I am happy that my native language, German, has a better distinction between “Patent” (what you described) and “Geschmacksmuster” (design patent).
About patents being public: They are. That’s because the idea behind patents is that after they expire, anyone can use them to build the technology they describe. The temporary exclusive usage rights that they offer are meant as an incentive for inventors to publish their findings. The only problem is that the legal situation did not keep up with the creativity of patent lawyers… (I will stop now, otherwise this will turn into an endless rant about how broken the patent system is.)
Just to add to the fuel: Apple has a patent for the swipe unlock on iPhones.
I’m from Germany too BTW, Hallo. :D My point was to distinguish copyrighted creative work from specific patented ideas. Patents are usually not about how it looks, but solving a specific (mechanical) problem. And they need to be paid and approved manually. While Copyright is automatically active on creation and is about creative work and or art in example. Copyright can can be licensed to any form like MIT. Patents cannot have a specific license like this to make derivatives.
You cannot put a dent into your tv and give it an MIT license. But you can go and patent this specific “Design Patent” (the name is not that bad actually!).
They made some shitty tap-the-screen game with collectibles for the iPhone maybe 10 years ago, though the less said about it the better. My guess is that it was a fuck-you to Takahashi-san.
Right, legally speaking that would be covered in the US.
But Japanese law is completely different and IIRC parodies are not covered which is why anime always censors their parody references to other anime. It’s stupid, but it’s the society that both developers are from.
Only time will tell what they’re actually accusing Pocket Pair of doing though.
I understand and participate in the hate against Nintendo but Palworld was a game with such bad taste for me that I am just grabbing the popcorn on this one. For anyone surprised regarding the patents, for Tears of the Kingdom alone, Nintendo tried to file at least 30 patents. I have no idea how many they must have for mechanics from Pokémon.
Without a doubt, Patents and Software are a bad mix.
But there’s definitely a truth to the idea that Palworld in particular were aiming for a legal battle against Nintendo from the beginning with provocative action. There’s a reason why Nintendo has rarely gone after Pokemon-likes but have decided that this particular company is worth pursuing.
This is kind of a lose-lose situation. Palworld was clearly kit-bashing existing Pokemon models and were engaging in creative bankruptcy, but software/game patents serve only to hurt creatives and developers around the world and Japan in particular is poor around SLAP suits.
So, I agree, grab the popcorn. But I hope that whatever patents they’re choosing to enforce here don’t have a major ripple in game development as a whole. There’s a world with the brazen IP theft of palworld actually does us all a disservice by making it an easier case for Nintendo to enforce Patents that would otherwise be unenforceable or difficult purely out of optics.
The details are still up in the air, but 404media has chimed in with a legal expert on this deplorable situation. They mostly talk about what damage this could do, and how Nintendo has never lost a lawsuit, but I found this to be an interesting key point
Nintendo has, as I mentioned in my tweet, a legendary track record. I think they never lost a lawsuit that they initiated themselves, and under the Japanese legal system, seven years ago, they sued a company called Colopl, which is a mobile gaming powerhouse from Japan. They [Colopl] have, I think, almost 2,000 [employees], nobody but knows them outside Japan but they had a famous mobile game called White Cat Project, not copying Mario, not copying Pokémon, not copying Zelda, nothing at all. Nintendo brought forward six patents that they thought that this company was violating inside their very successful mobile game at one time. It was one of the most popular mobile games in Japan, and they built a huge case. One of the patents was for a confirmation screen after sleep mode. You know when devices are sleeping and you want to resume there’s a confirmation screen in a lot of games? “Are you sure you want to resume?” And then you tap yes or no. Nintendo has a patent on that, and this game uses it. And then Nintendo said, you know, look, you’re using our patent and you cannot do that. You’re not paying us any licensing fees.
And they had five other ones, including one for isometric, pseudo, 3D games, when the character is hidden behind the tree, the game forms a shadow, so you have a kind of sense for where the character is, even though you don’t see the character clearly. Nintendo has a patent on that, and this game uses that technology. And Nintendo said, look, you cannot do this. And this goes on with four other patents, right?
So they had this legal battle. Colopl said, no way, but in 2021 they had a settlement where Nintendo got the equivalent of $20 Million US dollars and Colopl is now paying licensing fees to Nintendo for continuing to use the patents inside their mobile game. So it was a complete win for Nintendo, even though it was technically a settlement. I personally think you will see that after a few years, Nintendo will be in a very, very similar position. I don’t think that Nintendo will even think about filing a lawsuit like this without being as sure as they can that they’re going to win this.
If you are unaware, this was done because of the launch of Dragalia Lost, a game that has long been forgotten, and discontinued.
While I agree, its still his opinion if Nintendo did anything of value. BTW I played Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom this year on Yuzu. And I’m proud of it. Great games, although with big problems. I would add Super Mario Maker 2 and Super Mario Wonder to the list, and maybe Bayonetta 3, Lugi’s Mansion 3, Splatoon 3, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and probably a few more.
I agree. The game development side of Nintendo are top notch, and care a lot about quality game design, fun, replayability, all the good stuff. These people do good work.
But the corporate/legal side of Nintendo, they are indeed raging assholes.
Claiming “multiple patent rights” without mentioning smells like kafkatrapping.
I think that Nintendo’s delayed reaction was to gauge how much money it could get from bullying Pocketpair to accept some unfavourable settlement outside the court; if too little the costs would be too high to bother, considering the risk, but now that Palworld sold a bazillion it’s more profitable to do so. It might actually backfire if Palworld decides to go through the whole thing, I don’t know how Japanese law works in this regard but if Nintendo loses this certainly won’t look good for them, and even if they win it might be a pyrrhic victory.
theverge.com
Aktywne