Now if only they could more clearly communicate when games are playable offline.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      149
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Adding kernel malware after the fact should entitle every single owner who requests one to a full refund no matter how long has passed.

      • TipRing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        2 months ago

        Full agree. I do want some kind of policy for games that introduce anti-cheat both during early access and after release. Bricking a game you paid for should offer some sort of recourse.

      • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’d really like Valve to take an official policy on post-release changes that break games, but for what it’s worth they have not given me any hassle with refunds in these scenarios.

        • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yup. If it’s important enough that devs now have to add a disclaimer on the store page, surely devs shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent that by adding it later. Since SteamDeck customers are affected by this the most, it’s weird that this isn’t already a rule, particularly for games that are SteamDeck verified.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s a bit much… It’s just not possible to guarantee that as a developer

          Software is a living thing, and anything useful is made up of layer after layer of ever shifting sand. We do our best, but we are all at the mercy of our dependencies. There are trade-offs, there are bugs we can do nothing about, and sometimes moving forward means dropping support for platforms that are no longer “cheap” enough to afford while also working on the game

          I love this though. I also like the idea of requiring access to earlier builds.

          These mitigate anti consumer practices - dropping support for a platform is more likely to be a technical trade-off or unintentional consequence though

          • ad_on_is@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I do agree with the part where software moves, dependencies yada, yada… I’m a developer myself.

            But… this is different. They eliminated a perfectly working game, where they didn’t have to invest a minute of labor to get it working on Linux. The only thing they had to provide was the .so-file (for EAC) when publishing to Steam… Valve did all the work to make EAC compatible on Linux, yes, on user-level… but still… it fucking worked.

            Punishing an entire userbase, because other assholes (assumably) used Linux for cheating is discrimination. Even if there were no cheaters at all… it’s still discrimination… because it used to fucking work.

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Oh no, I totally agree with you that this is gross behavior - I just think your rule is too broad.

              So we need more focused rules and mechanisms. I think disclosing anti-cheat on the store is a good mechanism, I think forcing them to provide previous releases is a good rule. That obviously doesn’t cover nearly enough, but in the current gaming environment I think it’s a good start

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s exactly what Valve did. The automated refund system wasn’t available, but you could request a manual review and cite the added anti cheat; Valve was refunding those who did so.

          • DragonOracleIX@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            They publish their single player games to steam. Don’t know about any of their multiplayer ones though.

            • xep@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              I believe those are games made by other studios with the League IP and published by Riot. AFAIK there’s no reason for them to have anticheat.

      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think that’s fair. I “own” GTA5 and don’t really care for the last… 8 years? what they add. I had the full content of my purchase. Why should I be able to gain money for this?