This is more akin to the Stop Killing Games initiatives’ goals than a reiteration of current rules.

When you pay for a game, you should own it. Consumers must have the right to own, the right to play, and the right to transfer the games they buy. A game that can be taken away the moment a company pulls the plug is not a purchase. It is a rental disguised as a sale. Families in the Bronx and across the country save up to buy these games, and they deserve better than a license that can vanish at any time. The Power To The Players Act ensures consumers own what they buy and can keep playing long after a company moves on.

Depending on how the actual bill is worded, this might even force DRM-free copies to be sold on 3rd party storefronts like Steam, if it also applies to PC games, but at the very least it would put the kibosh on all of the “physical games” that’re just a code in a jewel case.

If you don’t own one, buy the console. The PC path isn’t cheaper once you count the memory market, the unknown requirements and the possibility of a slipped date. A decision built on three unknowns isn’t a plan.

I really hate this take. If you’re looking at playing this game and only this game in a complete vacuum, the console is cheaper [if you don’t already own a PC], but suggesting that buying a PS5 is a better general purchase than a mid-tier gaming capable PC if cost effectiveness is a concern is just wild. I guess if you’re someone who buys games on day 1 all the time and only plays AAA titles, it doesn’t matter much, but if that’s you, why are you reading this article? You clearly have plenty of disposable income. For someone on the fence about this, the PC almost definitely makes more sense overall unless you specifically want to play PS exclusives and don’t care about any games that aren’t coming to PS. The up-front cost is higher, but you make up for it many times over in what you save on games in the long run, assuming you’re thrifty with your game purchases. This isn’t even mentioning peripherals, or the cost of Playstation Plus or any other similar costs.

I get what they’re trying to say, but it’s a weird take.

If you know what you’re looking for, finding a game on Steam is trivial. You type in the name, you find the game. Any company can do external advertising, and if someone finds out about their game and wants to buy it on Steam, they can do that.

The ‘issue’ is that there’s tens of thousands of games on Steam so if you’re relying on Steam to advertise your game, or relying on people just happening across it, you’re going to be out of luck if you’re not a big title, and honestly, I don’t think that’s Steam’s problem. In fact, I’d argue that Steam is doing more than they could reasonably be expected to do - they’re a storefront, and obviously what they want to promote visibility on is the products that’re going to sell the best. The fact that they have things like curators and ‘For You’ recommendations and sales and things that smaller developers can use to increase visibility on their games is more than most storefronts offer. If you want to find something in itch.io, for instance, and you don’t know what you’re searching for, it’s extremely difficult. Same goes for Humble, and to a lesser extent GoG.

So I guess my feeling is, yes, it’s a problem, but it seems to be set up often times as Steam’s problem, and I don’t think it is.

Well, their app icons are superior, at least.