Twitter is bad.
no need be angry at steam. that is how it always has been. kudos to them to point it out very cleanly and not hiding it on page 400 of the 3rd EULA.
This is literally how it has always been.
You don’t own any of the games you paid for, you bought a license to play those games under specific circumstances. It’s the same with books & movies.
Valve have (allegedly) stated that in the case of Steam shutting down, games they can update to remove Steam DRM, they will.
Its pretty much up to the developer. You can have no DRM and not even require steam to be open, or you can make your game unplayable.
Afaik, Steam only sells licences.
Steam sells DRM-free games too, you can download them and then uninstall Steam and they will work. In this case though, on top of purchasing the game, you are buying a license to download updates for it through Steam. It’s a developer decision.
DRM is orthagonal to ownership
I do not disagree?
You still aren’t “purchasing” it.
For example, you don’t have right of resale the same way you would with physical goods. You’re buying a license to the game for personal use, regardless, you just don’t have DRM limiting your access.
Well that’s just digital goods, not Steam specifically.
You do get all the files for the game, that will work for as long as the OS will run them, with or without Steam (this is as close as you can come to ownership for software). Rather than a license to use them files, which become useless if you don’t run the game through Steam.
Imo Steam should tell people whether or not a game actually requires Steam (or another form of DRM) to run. I know they already do it for things like Denuvo, but they should also note if the game actually uses Steam as DRM or if the game can be launched without it.
PCGamingWiki has that info for most titles I believe. It would be nice to see it in Steam though.
Yeah that would be nice.
This is solving the wrong problem entirely.
You do own games. They’re products. They’re mass-market goods, as surely as when they came on plastic rectangles or glass circles.
Being permitted to continue having things on your hard drive is not a service.
deleted by creator
They can though
deleted by creator
People going on about being authorized do do this, not authorized to do that. General rule, don’t listen to others telling you what to do and what no to do if they can’t enforce their own rules. Steam and the rest of the digital corpos talk big, and act small. Do what you want, play your games not through steam, they handed the files to you and asked you nicely not do do what you want with them, you’re perfectly free not to listen to them, and honestly you shouldn’t listen to them 🏴☠️.
You know what else used to be standard? Slavery and feudalism. Things don’t have to be this way.
Yeah isn’t this like the thing that California required them to do?
I’ve been trying to tell people for years this is how it actually works, now they’re being ultra transparent about it so maybe people will actually care.
Gog games
GOG shills no longer make full sentences to spread their lies now.
As a clueless gog-game-buying normie, can you elaborate?
2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog
You do not own games purchased on GOG. Same as Steam, EGS, Ubisoft Connect… GOG shills like to spread the lie that you own GOG games, thus justifying the use of their garbage platform, but when asked to explain how, they just say you can download the EXE so it’s functionally the same as owning (omitting, of course, that you can run most Steam or EGS games without having their respective clients installed, as that would go against their narrative).
Okay, I see your point, but I’d still say it’s a better license than Steam’s/Epic’s, because the games are DRM free (unless they’ve changed that and I’m not aware of it) and so once I’ve downloaded them, I can then play them whether or not GOG still exists or my “license to use GOG services” was revoked.
you can run most Steam or EGS games without having their respective clients installed
This is not consistent with my personal experience (though admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve tried – maybe a lot of games on Steam are now DRM free).
EGS doesn’t require the client, you can simply run the EXE.
Steam games most commonly use Steamworks DRM, which is so easy to bypass it might as well not exist.
That’s beside the point, however. GOG doesn’t sell you games, but licenses. Playing the game after your license has been revoked is copyright infringement, and no different than using a cracked version. DRM is another topic entirely.
What matters is I can put that exe on a harddrive/usb stick, plug it into any PC, and play it. Does that work with epic and steam? If I copy the game folder onto a usb stick and buy a new pc, can I plug it in and play it without ever installing the launchers? Or having to do some other workaround like download software I don’t know if I can trust that I wouldn’t have to do with GOG?
I don’t care about whether it’s technically illegal or not, I only care about how easily I can play the game using nothing but the game, exactly like a cartridge.
Good Old Games Games
By now my GOG library has far exceeded my Steam library in size. I was surprised by how many games on my Steam wishlist are also on GOG.
I would love to do that, but GoG does not have the better regional pricing that steam does.
Steam doesnt make you pay for subscription fee and theres no expiry date for those games, so it’s fine I think?
It’s still something granted to you at all times, you don’t own it. If a fart gets stuck in their asses they can change the grant. It’s why actually owning is something desirable.
I agree, owning what we purchase is much more desirable. What I was trying to say is, Steam did not change their business model with or without that notice. Moreover, it isn’t as bad as some of their competitors - they dont use subscription model for example-, so I think, for me, it is still okay.
Okay, the way it is now is acceptable. I just wanted to add that this way can change at the drop of a hat. And yeah, Steam is indeed the best the industry has to offer.
I understand. Yeah, the trend is going into unfavorable direction. I hope steam can stay this way, but I’m ready to wear me old hat again if they go rogue.
What do you plan to do when Steam follows the market and become subsription-based or when they start taking away people’s games randomly?
Very good question. I don’t know yet.
I already am more of a patient gamer, so changing to the old hat is an option for me too. Currently I am looking at the OSS games like Beyond all Reason or 0AD. Probably also gonna look into buying more from GOG.
My main concern with the old hat is the multiplayer, so I mostly invest in games on steam and GOG that have local multiplayer, or a dedicated server.
If buying isn’t owning then piracy isn’t stealing.
Bad argument piracy has never been stealing
Sure it has, back when it was on boats at sea
Only when they were stealing things.
based and property tax should be illegal pillec
based and property
taxshould be illegal pillecFix’d
If buying becomes owning, will people stop pirating?
People were more inclined to buy software when it was a one time purchase rather than a license subscription (for example Adobe).
If piracy was stealing I would do it even more
Stealing potential profits is no where near as fun as stealing actual profits
The reason people buy from steam though and develop for them though is because of their service.
Thor from pirate software mentions that even as a developer there are good reasons for them to use steam.
Even just the cloud saves and such is awesome
Remember the people who long ago told you “in the future you will own nothing, and you will be happy”?
How’d you react? Did you call them crazy? Conspiracy theorists? Perhaps a Doomer?
You know what they should be called? Correct.
deleted by creator
Yeah I called them all those things and I still do.
Steam doesn’t have a monopoly on digital games distribution if you’re unhappy with their service just use another one that allows you to own a direct software license.
Stop being a conspiracy nutjob.
This was always the case, just stated explicitly now
deleted by creator
new law
I appreciate the transparency tbh. Would be better if things were different but it is what it is for now.
For context, Steam is now forced to display this due to a new law passed in California: https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426
Valve is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
It’s a good job Gabe Newell has made gamers comfortable with not owning their games.
deleted by creator
You also won’t be authorised to play them if your account is banned for any or no reason, or if steam somehow shut down (at least for any you hasn’t already downloaded or if you ever uninstall them).
That doesn’t sound much like owning to me. Could you imagine if gamestop banned you from their store and suddenly you couldn’t play any game you bought there? Would any logical person consider that ownership?
