DRM infected files mean that you as a consumer don't own anything. As someome else can destroy it.

GOG

Probably not. Still "buy licence" at least gives us more transparency.

How would it work, anyway?

That's the thing, though, it's not a loophole. It's intentional. It makes a good headline, but it doesn't really do much.

Try downloading any GTA before 5, there will be a community guide about the missing songs and how to restore the radios.

Other way around. Require sales of licenses to games to be perpetual. The way you phrased it means that the license holders can charge way more.

They don't make it clear which games have steam DRM and which games have nothing at all, they only list it if it's a third party solution like denuvo.

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.

But we know that is only guaranteed for single player Valve games

And until it happens that’s meaningless

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).

If it can display on your screen or play through your speakers, you can copy it.

If it's software as a service, just don't buy. We can live without whatever it is they make.