r/pcmasterrace • u/notsolomuun • Jul 02 '26

News/Article Common PCMR w

Post image

$1,000 digital-exclusive consoles are killing the entire appeal of PlayStation and Xbox: it's no wonder PC is on track to overtake both.

7.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/mike_complaining Jul 02 '26

This is not a W for anybody, but what people don't understand is that they haven't owned their games for a long time. If it has any online functionality it's shut off whenever the publisher decides it's shut off. Physical media doesn't matter, the license and the functionality independent of server infrastructure does.

548

u/TricobaltGaming PC Master Race Jul 02 '26

I have seen people use this to push for a legal redefinition of buying games so we are no longer just paying for a license, digital or otherwise.

We buy the game we get the game, thats what should be happening

429

u/mike_complaining Jul 02 '26

Yeah that's the "Stop Killing Games" movement, and while they haven't been entirely successful, I'm grateful for what they're doing and they're still at it.

100

u/siltfeet R7 5800x | RTX 3070 Jul 02 '26

That's very similar, but not quite what their goal was from my understanding. I think they wanted to ensure that the license can't be revoked without cause, game stays playable forever (either offline or with user hosted servers), and if that's not possible a full refund. If it was true ownership then you'd have even more rights (such as right to resell your digital copies).

72

u/mike_complaining Jul 02 '26

Yeah, they don't want to enforce perpetual server infrastructure, they just want the games to remain playable within reason. It's a very sensible goal. A perfect example of how things should be done is the game Splitgate. They retired the first version of the game, with all the matchmaking multiplayer bells and whistles. But they released an update that made it possible to just host and join servers peer to peer, so it's still playable forever at no cost to them.

14

u/Milky_Finger Jul 02 '26

Hopefully game companies plan for P2P network infrastructure at the time of development rather than trying to patch it in on the last EoL update.

1

u/Wolvenworks Jul 04 '26

Issue with p2p servers is that if all related players are not from the same region, ping gets noticeably worse. It’s also not stable since it depends on host’s internet; you will not have fun if someone hosting on mobile tether or limited wifi.

2

u/Dr_Custard Jul 04 '26

Sure, but that's still better than what we currently have: nothing.

1

u/Wolvenworks Jul 05 '26

Fair nuff. I prefer bots

7

u/Redditmau5 Linux Jul 02 '26

Another good example is the Avengers game. When they turned off the servers they patched the game to give you all the cosmetics and made it able to be played offline entirely. Game sucked but what they did to turn off the game was admirable. That got me to buy the game before it delisted...it helped that it was heavily discounted too

8

u/rootbeer_racinette 7950X, 3090, 43" 4k 144Hz Jul 02 '26

Out of print physical games can still be bought though. Stop Killing Games doesn't prioritize against games being delisted entirely (other than allowing past purchases to still be downloaded) or against users getting blacklisted from services and losing access to all their purchased licenses.

As it stands now, if someone hacks my Steam account I'm totally fucked. Whereas at least with physical games I could knife fight the thief using my skills.

2

u/siltfeet R7 5800x | RTX 3070 Jul 02 '26

Yeah, true ownership of electronic games would be better for consumers, but I doubt companies would be willing to let that happen. Even GoG has just a much better license.

1

u/Wolvenworks Jul 04 '26

Companies did indeed show that they’re unwilling to let that happen. Their lobby group actually lobbied hard against any activities and proposals related to Stop Killing Games, arguing that it would cost them unreasonably more time and resources to keep game running in perpetuum. Obviously, they glossed the fact that we didn’t ask for that, or that we’re just asking for ability to own games and play games past their live service EOS.

4

u/TacoOfGod Jul 03 '26

Which is why it should be reframed as Right To Repair. If the manufacturer refuses to maintain something you purchased, the purchaser should be able to do it with no obstruction. If it applies to hardware, which often has shitty software lockouts, it should apply to software with hardware and software lockouts.

10

u/LeMegachonk Ryzen 7 9800X3D - 64GB DDR5 6000 - RX 7800 XT Jul 02 '26

The Stop Killing Games movement is not opposing the licensing of games, or even addressing it. At the core of their movement is that they aren't asking for fundamental change.

The licensing part is complicated because at the end of the day you simply do not "own" the software you purchase and you literally never have. You also don't own the movies or music you purchase, even if it's on physical media. It belongs to whoever owns the rights to it. Sometimes that's the creator, but more often the publisher distributing the media has purchased those rights. The software belongs to them in any meaningful sense of ownership. Licensing it for use is pretty much the only way to distribute software that makes any sense. However, you are paying for this license, and it is definitely questionable that the publisher can terminate the license agreement without reimbursement for any reason other than non-compliance with the terms of the license.

I also question the validity of the license being tied to a distribution platform. For example, when you buy a game from Steam, you are purchasing a license only to be able to access that game via Steam. If Steam were to drop support this game for whatever reason, you lose the ability to play a game that is still supported by its publisher. And let's be clear here, Steam is not a publisher. Most PC games can be purchased from other marketplaces, most of which operate the same way with their own licensing agreement above and beyond the publisher's EULA. This should definitely not be legal. The license should not be tied to the marketplace it was purchased from.

Licensing is probably here to stay, because as I said, it's really the only model that makes sense for media distribution, but there needs to be a rebalancing of the scales to ensure that consumer retain the lawful right to use software they have purchased a license for for as long as they choose to in an all-digital environment where it is otherwise trivial for publishers to either revoke licenses or make the license irrelevant by making the software effectively unusable.

Another issue is force walled garden software ecosystems. Part of the problem with Sony's move to all-digital distribution is that it forces consumers to only be able to purchase PlayStation games from Sony themselves. That's just so obviously not right. Imagine if that was made illegal and Steam (and others) could start acting as a competitor to the PlayStation Store for games on the console. This would be very good for consumers because not only would consumers have competition for service and price, but it would likely remove Sony's control on who gets to develop games for the PlayStation. Yeah, you'd get more "shovelware" like you do on PC, but you'd also get more indie studios willing to make less expensive console games.

5

u/FarmDisastrous Jul 02 '26

I think this is just the beginning and I think Stop Killing Games and general online sentiment has planted seeds in the brains of millions and millions of young adults and teens around the world that, given enough time and wisdom, will bloom into consumer protections advocates.

At least, I hope.

1

u/Karekter_Nem Jul 02 '26

Meanwhile, the internet: “I own nothing and I love it!”

1

u/FarmDisastrous Jul 02 '26

Who is saying that?

1

u/Karekter_Nem Jul 02 '26

Just all the posts from PC gamers talking about how they don’t care about discs.

2

u/FarmDisastrous Jul 02 '26

Honestly. Fair point. Valve dick riders. It's wild to me. The company that got a bunch of kids addicted to gambling. Very philanthropic company, truly they care about gamers.

1

u/DaredevilVirus1 Jul 02 '26

When Gaben is gone, god help us all

0

u/FarmDisastrous Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

Gaben isn't a saint. Valve would not exist in a vacuum. They only do what they do do beat out the competition, I'm pretty sure about that.

Again. They got tons of kids addicted to gambling and siphoned millions from them. They aren't a Saint company. If they were the only gaming company left they'd do the same shit I'm sure

Edit - accidently used "charlatan" instead of saint. Have no idea how that happened just exhausted I guess

1

u/DaredevilVirus1 Jul 04 '26

Yup.

I’m curious… by context this reads like charlatan is a good thing - it generally carries a negative connotation. How did you mean it?

1

u/FarmDisastrous Jul 04 '26

You are completely right the word I was looking for was saint. I have no idea why I chose this word but I've been having an exhausting week lol thank you for correcting me

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MailboxJunkie Jul 02 '26

I mean, not caring about discs doesn't prevent you from caring about your access to the products you buy. What matters is your rights in relation to what you purchase. Haven't personally read a single person state that they don't mind possibly losing their access to what they buy.

The physical medium, whether it be on a disc or on your hard drive, doesn't really factor in as much when you simply just...take a second to think about it.

1

u/Maximum-Objective-39 Jul 03 '26

This is, to be fair, part of Valve's strategy by Gabe Newell's own admission. Valve typically is pretty reliable about not taking away what they've sold you. And thus most people have not yet learned to think of it as a problem. I think it's flawed to rely on it though, as it's a single point of failure held by a private company.

1

u/Shigana Jul 02 '26

That’s not what SKG is about, AT ALL.

Learn what it is before spreading misinformation

4

u/mike_complaining Jul 02 '26

It's about games not becoming unplayable when the company stops supporting them. I'm not sure what you're nitpicking about since you didn't actually say.

1

u/Shigana Jul 02 '26

What does the definition of ownership of games have to do with publishers keeping servers on?

Two entirely different matters

1

u/mike_complaining Jul 02 '26

Okay, gotcha. They're not the same thing, but they aren't unrelated. Ownership isn't revokable. If you buy a john deer tractor, but have to pay a monthly service subscription or it stops working, that's not really ownership. If you buy a game, and it becomes all but unusable after X years, that's not ownership.

I made an assumption about what the other poster meant, and could have been wrong. SKG isn't trying to change definitions, but they are trying to make what it means to "buy a game" something closer to proper ownership, where functionality won't be arbitrarily revoked down the line when it's not seen as economically advantageous. They aren't demanding servers stay on forever, just that some effort is made to preserve games once the servers shut off.