Are they going to require refunds when the license is revoked?
ie. Your money is not collateral. You are paying for a license to use the software (game) for a period of time.
On Steam (from Valve) you would be entitled to a full refund in that scenario.
Valve offers full refunds for any game you have played for less than two hours and owned for less than two weeks. In some other situations, they have also applied refunds outside that policy where the game turned out to be a fraud or something.
There are also many titles in people's Steam libraries that are no longer offered on Steam, but you can still download and play if you purchased it prior to it being pulled from Steam.
Not having re-downloads is a separate issue.
What company is this?
The streaming service is Qobuz. Here's a forum thread of others who found the specific date and wording interesting: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/70250-qobuz-may-be-...
Valve is certainly a consumer-friendly company, but that's not the whole story and it doesn't change the fact that they're hiding vital information from consumers.
No sane court is going to uphold an adhesion contract where someone pays $100 for a substantially multiplayer game (e.g. not Portal 1) yet the publisher is allowed to disable servers required for the game's multiplayer operation a week later because they cost money to maintain and the userbase hasn't hit targets.
Digital licenses take away all of this and add the possibility that your licence can disappear at any time.
[1] https://www.trueachievements.com/n53706/phil-spencer-intervi.... [2] https://academyofanimatedart.com/gaming-statistics/#:~:text=....
Depends whether the game is 'online-only' or not.
Now, yes, you can say "but first sale still holds, you aren't prohibited from selling the object you bought", but most rational people are going to call that nonsense.
There's people who have spent literal days entertained by a game, but then complain they had to spend $70 for the privilege. Where else can you be entertained for a couple bucks an hour or less?
In my opinion, if you license a game and play it for a dozen hours... you've gotten your money's worth already. That said, I too would be disappointed if a game I enjoyed was removed from my library.
Paying to play a game for some time is fine, but they shouldn't lie about what terms you're getting.
Some examples include:
*Mountain hiking
*Swimming in a lake
*Reading a book
*Arguing on HackerNews
This is a case where even if you wanted to pay money to continue or start playing a game, you can't because someone else simply doesn't want you to.
This is a consumer-hostile shift from earlier days where if you owned the disk, disc or cartridge and a computer that could play it, you could play the game, no questions asked. I think it's always worth fighting against consumer hostile shifts.
Some people are collectors as much as they are gamers. A license (or whatever) is less valuable to a collector than a game.
To be frank - nobody cares about collectors. That argument will not change how software is licensed one bit...