- cross-posted to:
- linux_gaming@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- linux_gaming@lemmy.world
Developers will be required to disclose if their game uses kernel anti-cheat. This applies to both new games and existing games. Non-kernel anti-cheat is encouraged to be disclosed as well, but it’s only mandatory for developers to declare if they’re using kernel anti-cheat for the time being.
It’s worth mentioning that many games use kernel anti-cheat on windows, but only use user space anti-cheat on Steam Deck and Linux.
Now punish publishers who try to change the terms of sale after sale. “Want to play the single player game you bought a decade ago? Agree to this new arbitration clause.”
Games that change their terms post-sale should present the customer the option for an automatic no-questions-asked refund. Leaving the customer with the options: Agree, Decline, Refund.
Hmm, you have uncovered a problem with both of our ideas. Steam’s leverage is reduced after they have deposited sales proceeds, and is gone after the publisher isn’t selling games on the platform any longer.
(I’m griping about Rockstar specifically but my point is still flawed in the general case.)
Add a clause to the contract between Steam and the developer requiring the dev to reimburse Steam for refunds due to post-sale changes (ie, from that specific ‘accept, decline, refund’ option). If the dev doesn’t pay the bill, Steam can use the breach of contract as leverage.
Include adding kernel level anti cheat to that. This should just give us an option to get a full refund.
At the very least a choice. Keep using it as is or get updates related to the new agreement.
It should only be applicable to new sales. Old sales should function the same as before.