Steam now explicitly states you're not buying the game, just a license

[PierreJG]

And that is why I only play some free mmorpg,s I do not like steam, Never have and Never Will. Most of my games I get from official distro. As I mostly play older games and mmo's, Valve is not needed.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

"A purchase of a digital product on GOG grants you its Offline Installers, which cannot be taken away from you."
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Steam...th-perfectly-sarcastic-response.900401.0.html

I love these guys.

 

[ZedRM]

"A purchase of a digital product on GOG grants you its Offline Installers, which cannot be taken away from you."
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Steam...th-perfectly-sarcastic-response.900401.0.html

I love these guys.

Could not agree more here! GOG is most excellent.

 

[yRaz]

So something I don't think people here are seeing is that Valve is playing a long game with Linux Gaming by stream lining the whole process. As discontent with Windows increases and more people want to hope operating systems, being able to have your steam library work on Linux nearly bug free will be a selling point.

While it is possible that steam is could go away someday, I doubt that it will. I also buy all my games on steam now because I no longer game on Windows. If a game doesn't work on Linux then I don't play it, simple as that. I see it no differently than Playstation or xbox exclusives. And, frankly, I find it childish that people would rather be bent over by M$ and pout "because I can't play my games!!!"

people need to grow up, I have MAYBE 10 hours a week I can set aside to playing games and then only maybe.

Valve isn't going anywhere and your games aren't either. And if your games do go somewhere? Well, if I lost a game I paid for then I have no issue pirating it.

 

[JuanDegr]

Valve is not your friend. They demonstrated that with Half-Life 3. They are demonstrating this again with anticipatory obedience towards californian law.

If they follow through with decisions like this, one day Steam will be on the reputation level of Epic Games.
Only differnce will be, most of the people really hating them have a busload of games (sorry, licenses) in their libraries. I certainly hope, GOG will come out stronger from this.

 

[user556]

AFAIK, most of GOG's, and Humble's, digital purchases are of owning the downloaded copy.

 

[Jeffs0418]

To be honest this is kind of "non-news". Steam has always clearly been a "Subscriber Agreement".

You NEED to have an "active suscription" (although it's free) to access the content you "buy" on the platform.

In any case when you buy a game you're just buying the license to access the content, therefore the only difference between physical and digital is the location of the media that contains the software.

I'd even argue the software is "safer" on Steam server's than on a disc sitting on your shelf.

I agree that this is "non-news". And for those who think the software is not safer on Steam servers, Steam users have the option to save game installation files on a backup drive of your choice. Whether those backups could be activated if Steam goes down(unlikely) is another matter.

 

[Mihai S]

I go out of my way, when reasonably possible, to buy stuff on GoG, which is DRM free and allows you to download the offline installers for games you buy.

 

[techstrike]

Well, with that said pirating is not stealing but borrowing.

My 5 cents please.

 

[Ojref]

The problem with GOG of course is their library is considerably smaller than Steam.

 

[Shaitan]

I still have hope and support companies, like Larian Studios, the dude that made Mindustry, the other dude that made Factorio and many other developers, publishers that still release games that are:

A) DRM free, meaning you can install it on as many machines simultaneously as you want and play without authenticity checks or internet access, like the games sold on GoG, CD Projekt Red's platform and

B) multiplayer games that support setting up your own dedicated servers with house rules, meaning you can play however your heart desires, like Minecraft, Don't Starve Together, Satisfactory and so many more.

The situation isn't as bad as it sounds and is mainly about really popular AAA games. We would know we're in real trouble once making games like the ones I listed above becomes suicide, which will never happen.

Computer games are important. I like where the legislation is heading. If only there was a way to remind, force, twist wrists of large publishers and developers that subscribe to the games-as-a-service model to not forget to create standalone, offline, playable version snapshots of their games with dedicated server options once they are done working on it for a plethora of damn good reasons, some of which being nostalgia, historical preservation or for those who've become emotionally attatched to it for one reason or the other.

I know how this sounds, I'm basically saying, Have a heart, dude!, to companies like EA and Ubisoft. But I can DREAM, Harold!

Diablo: always online connection after Diablo III. Never bought Diablo IV, never will.
Starcraft II: last game I bought from Blizzard.
CoD 2: NO private servers: not buy. Not interested in whatever they do.
CDPR: for now, until they get "woke" also.
Space Marine 2: single player. Last Space Marine I'll buy.

 

[HardReset]

AFAIK, most of GOG's, and Humble's, digital purchases are of owning the downloaded copy.

Who cares? If you have offline installer, you can install game whenever you want. No matter what Steam or anyone else decides.

 

[ZedRM]

The problem with GOG of course is their library is considerably smaller than Steam.

Maybe, but it's still massively extensive! And let's be honest, the general quality of offerings on GOG is higher. So fewer matters not.

Who cares? If you have offline installer, you can install game whenever you want. No matter what Steam or anyone else decides.

Exactly!

 

[trieste1s]

Incorrect, but I'm not going to debate with you. It would be a waste of time for both of us.

Yes this is a non-debate because he's correct. This is a clarification of language, not a change of status.

 

[ZedRM]

Neither of you are understanding the big picture. This "clarification" is a change in the language of the terms, which is in effect a change to the legal terms that can be effectively enforced. It is a precursor to an alteration and reduction of user rights, several of which do not have any actual validity depending on where one lives. Valve is attempting a shady, sneaky fast one. It is just another token from a greedy lowlife corporation that desperately needs a severe smack down.

 

[Megalomaniac]

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy".

 

[Megalomaniac]

I personally love owning DVD disks because they can't be changed, altered or taken off the DLC list later on.

I don't care what the censors think I should/should be seeing/ hearing.

 

[Burty117]

Neither of you are understanding the big picture. This "clarification" is a change in the language of the terms, which is in effect a change to the legal terms that can be effectively enforced. It is a precursor to an alteration and reduction of user rights, several of which do not have any actual validity depending on where one lives. Valve is attempting a shady, sneaky fast one. It is just another token from a greedy lowlife corporation that desperately needs a severe smack down.

You don't seem to understand what "clarification" means, it is a change in the language to make what is already there easier to understand.

No actual change is being made, all that's happening is, you're understanding how little user rights you already have. They aren't taking anything away, they've just put it in a language you now understand.

 

[poshflamingos]

Neither of you are understanding the big picture. This "clarification" is a change in the language of the terms, which is in effect a change to the legal terms that can be effectively enforced. It is a precursor to an alteration and reduction of user rights, several of which do not have any actual validity depending on where one lives. Valve is attempting a shady, sneaky fast one. It is just another token from a greedy lowlife corporation that desperately needs a severe smack down.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Like multiple people already explained to you, absolutely nothing has changed in the rights you have. This is how the market for software (and any other form of copyrighted material) has always worked. You never owned any games, even in the days of cartridges; you only ever owned a license to play that game. You never owned the music on your CDs or the movies in your DVDs either, you only had a license for personal, non-commercial use of the music/movie contained in it (using music for commercial purposes without licensing it specifically for that, even if you bought a CD, very much does put your in risk of legal trouble). Companies always could revoke your license, only it was difficult doing so before the internet existed, and the company would have to resort to legal action against you directly; the internet and online services makes revoking licenses easier. That doesn't change the fact that you only ever had a license.

Steam is not doing anything. Nothing changed in the process of using Steam. You still only get a license, just like you have for the past 20 years. They're just following a California law that will require them to use more clear wording. Other stores like Epic, Uplay and Origin will have to do the same thing, as will Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo on their digital stores on console. That's just the nature of everything dealing with software, you only ever license it.

Even physical game discs don't mean you "own" the game. It's still just a license. And since consoles are now internet-connected devices, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo can push updates that disable the console's ability to run a game from a disc if they want to, should the publisher decide to revoke those licenses. Not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is.

 

[ZedRM]

You don't seem to understand what "clarification" means

You don't understand the legal ramifications of those clarifications.

it is a change in the language to make what is already there easier to understand.

No, it's a change that will make it easier for them to revoke user rights. In the arena of law, specific words matter. Your failure to understand that fact only highlights your misunderstanding of the precedent of law.

No actual change is being made

Then why make it? There is purpose to this and it is anything but harmless.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Look in a mirror when you say that.

Even physical game discs don't mean you "own" the game.

Wrong. Whether digital or physical, when you buy a game(or anything else), you own THAT COPY of that game. You don't own the copyright or any of the IP used to make it, but you own THAT COPY which you paid(or was granted to you) for. This is legal statue in many nations. EULA terms may state that you don't own the game but legal statue and citizen right supersede those term and they are invalid. In other words, just because a company says something DOESN'T make is legal or enforceable.

Stop spewing the nonsense you've been taught by the media and twits wrangling to control everything and take away your rights.

 

[Burty117]

You don't understand the legal ramifications of those clarifications.

No, it's a change that will make it easier for them to revoke user rights. In the arena of law, specific words matter. Your failure to understand that fact only highlights your misunderstanding of the precedent of law.

Then why make it? There is purpose to this and it is anything but harmless.

So here's the thing, you genuinely seem to believe we already have some kind of user rights, why do you think stuff like "StopKillingGames" exists?

Valve, EA, Ubi, all of them already have the right to take games out of your library, this is a change in language so you better understand that. This is something the law should have caught up on 20 years ago, it never should have been called "Buying" or "Purchasing" but "Renting".

Instead, all these companies let you "Buy" something, whilst burying deep inside the T&C's that all you've "purchased" is a limited license that can be taken away at moment they feel like it.

Now they're changing the language (thanks to law makers catching up 20 years too late) so they cannot sell you a license under a (at best) murky "Buy" or "Purchase" button that gives the impression of ownership.

 

[poshflamingos]

Look in a mirror when you say that.

Dude literally sends an "I'm rubber, you're glue" lmao

Wrong. Whether digital or physical, when you buy a game(or anything else), you own THAT COPY of that game. You don't own the copyright or any of the IP used to make it, but you own THAT COPY which you paid(or was granted to you) for. This is legal statue in many nations. EULA terms may state that you don't own the game but legal statue and citizen right supersede those term and they are invalid. In other words, just because a company says something DOESN'T make is legal or enforceable.

You're literally making nonsense up. That's not how copyright laws work anywhere. Copyright laws are an international treaty (due to the fact that copyright has to be enforceable on other countries to be worth anything), and as such works very similarly in all nations except the few ones that blatantly disregard those treaties (like China).

Nowhere in the world you "own" copyrighted material. The only person who can own a copyrighed material (included here is software, music, video, written works, among others) is the copyright owner. If you are not the copyright owner, you cannot ever own that thing, you can only ever own a license to it.

I'll use books as an example. When you buy a book, you do not "own" the written story that comes with it. Buying the object book grants you a limited license to use that story for personal purposes. You can transfer that license by selling the object of the book, but it is still just a license, and a limited license at that. That limited license doesn't allow you to make copies of your book and sell them, for example, which you would be able to it you actually owned it. It does not allow you to use that book for commercial purposes, which you would be able to if you actually owned it.

Here's another example: If you own a business (say, a store) and buy a chair, which isn't copyrighted material, you can put that chair in your store and use it to make money (by improving the experience for your customers, who now have a place to sit and rest), which is commercial use. You can do that with the chair you own. But if you buy a music CD, you cannot play that CD in your store to improve the experience of your customers. You do not own the music on that CD, you own a limited license to it, and that limited license does not grant you permission to use it for commercial purposes. If you want to have (copyrighted) music in your store, you have to contact the copyright owner and license the music specifically for that, which will cost you a hell of a lot more than the price of a CD.

The same goes for video (including movies, TV shows) and yes, software. You do not ever own those things. You only ever own a limited, personal use license. Even when that license is tied to an object (like a disc), it's still just a license. That's the nature of everything that involves copyright, as per international treaties that define copyright law.

@Burty117 above me is absolutely right. If copyright already worked the way you (mistakenly) believe it works, the StopKillingGames movement wouldn't need to exist. The reason there are people attempting to change copyright law to something closer to what you believe is obviously because it doesn't currently work like that.

 

[user556]

It does sting when you realise you can't take the games with you. A little over a year ago, I closed my Battlenet account because of M$ gaining its grubby fingers on them. I had to let all those games go.

 

[ZedRM]

You're literally making nonsense up. That's not how copyright laws work anywhere. Copyright laws are an international treaty (due to the fact that copyright has to be enforceable on other countries to be worth anything), and as such works very similarly in all nations except the few ones that blatantly disregard those treaties (like China).

Nowhere in the world you "own" copyrighted material. The only person who can own a copyrighed material (included here is software, music, video, written works, among others) is the copyright owner. If you are not the copyright owner, you cannot ever own that thing, you can only ever own a license to it.

I'll use books as an example. When you buy a book, you do not "own" the written story that comes with it. Buying the object book grants you a limited license to use that story for personal purposes. You can transfer that license by selling the object of the book, but it is still just a license, and a limited license at that. That limited license doesn't allow you to make copies of your book and sell them, for example, which you would be able to it you actually owned it. It does not allow you to use that book for commercial purposes, which you would be able to if you actually owned it.

Here's another example: If you own a business (say, a store) and buy a chair, which isn't copyrighted material, you can put that chair in your store and use it to make money (by improving the experience for your customers, who now have a place to sit and rest), which is commercial use. You can do that with the chair you own. But if you buy a music CD, you cannot play that CD in your store to improve the experience of your customers. You do not own the music on that CD, you own a limited license to it, and that limited license does not grant you permission to use it for commercial purposes. If you want to have (copyrighted) music in your store, you have to contact the copyright owner and license the music specifically for that, which will cost you a hell of a lot more than the price of a CD.

The same goes for video (including movies, TV shows) and yes, software. You do not ever own those things. You only ever own a limited, personal use license. Even when that license is tied to an object (like a disc), it's still just a license. That's the nature of everything that involves copyright, as per international treaties that define copyright law.

@Burty117 above me is absolutely right. If copyright already worked the way you (mistakenly) believe it works, the StopKillingGames movement wouldn't need to exist. The reason there are people attempting to change copyright law to something closer to what you believe is obviously because it doesn't currently work like that.

Wow. And you people are effectively calling ME ignorant? Some of what you've said is right, you're missing some finer points.

Dude literally sends an "I'm rubber, you're glue" lmao

A silly statement deserves no better.

 

[poshflamingos]

Wow. And you people are effectively calling ME ignorant? Some of what you've said is right, you're missing some finer points.

>insists on being wrong
>doesn't elaborate
>walks away