Steam's new disclaimer reminds everyone that you don't own your games
pcgamer.com
pcgamer.com
It will all just disappear forever within a few decades.
You've never owned the proprietary software you've used. You only used it as long as the whim of the copyright owner allowed it (and/or they couldn't enforce it). This is why Stallman chose twenty-three individuals to establish Free Software Zion several cycles ago.
But, and it is not a small but, even with their benevolent dictatorship in place, it can only get much worse after they are gone. The pieces to a rather bad ecosystem are all in place.
I suspect there are partial ways to do similar things for steam, except for the actual play-the-game part is dependent on the DRM.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/gog-will-let-you-beq...
> "In general, your GOG account and GOG content is not transferable. However, if you can obtain a copy of a court order that specifically entitles someone to your GOG personal account, the digital content attached to it taking into account the EULAs of specific games within it, and that specifically refers to your GOG username or at least email address used to create such an account, we'd do our best to make it happen. We're willing to handle such a situation and preserve your GOG library—but currently we can only do it with the help of the justice system."
That's effectively what this article is about, Valve is complying with a new law where they must disclose to customers that they can terminate access to games that a customer already paid for because the relationship between the customer and Steam is of an on-going subscription.
GoG on the other hand explicitly states that you do not have a subscription to their service and so a suspension from GoG does not revoke your access to play purchased games. In fact GoG has no means whatsoever to revoke your access to play games you purchased from GoG.
It would be like going to Best Buy and buying a video game, even if in the future you decide to be Best Buy's worst enemy, or you get into a dispute with them, who knows what... Best Buy can't take away what you already bought from them because your relationship with Best Buy was that of a vendor rather than an ongoing subscription.
PS4/PS5 as well as XBox%whatever% have a setup close to this, however based on my observations the tokens tend to 'auto-refresh' (at least on PS4/PS5) so long as you actually turn the thing on once in a while.
There are games like MMOs that do require a subscription, but that has nothing to do with Steam itself.
I understand that there is some convenience to the GOG client but, if memory serves me correctly, you have to configure the client to keep the installers. If you do not keep the game installers, you are not much better off than you would be if you obtained the game through Steam. If anything were to happen to GOG you would eventually end up losing access to the game.
Besides, the ability to run games without the client is a huge benefit in my books. You simply launch the game and immerse yourself in it. You have do not have to go through the marketing department (erm, store) in order to play the game.
Newer generations are happy with owning nothing. At least it is the default for software.
Publishing rights.
Ironically, Apogee, Epic, and iD [0] and others got their fortunes by hacking the systems in place back then.
Apogee and Epic in their way, by doing 'shareware', however the final distributor was distributing the shareware [1] the had a chance to get a cut, and they were spreading the brand.
iD, when they did Doom, went even further. We easily forget that in the 90s, 'only' a 30% take from the publisher was nearly unheard of. When it came to retail I think it was almost inverted if not worse. Uploading to FTP and letting whoever distribute the shareware, then they got all the mail orders in and only had to pay their duplication/printing costs and recoup whatever other art costs were involved.
Publishers -can- provide value. I'll posit there's lots of titles I've only purchased because they showed up on a Steam/GOG feed.
[0] I think that's how you were supposed to type it back then, been a hot minute.
[1] Oh the 'Shareware store' is a thing I should blog about someday, in retrospect that place was weird lol.
Because currently my main reason for using steam is the easy linux installation
But I usually just end up purchasing Linux games through GOG and Windows games through Steam.
>The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet. [1]
How is this different than apple’s walled garden, or my email service, or nintendo digital downloads?
The purpose of the California law is to tell customers that that aren't buying a digital product but only the license.
And yet there remains language that customers are likely to interpret to mean that they've bought the game.
I get downvoted for 15 years of posting this online, every time. Not today?
I’m so pro physical media it’s ridiculous that people can’t be bothered to go in a store and get a copy. They will only care when they get locked out of their account and realize that when steam says you really don’t own your games that they weren’t bluffing.
While your preference for physical media is duly noted, it fails to account for the evolving landscape of digital rights management (DRM) and end-user license agreements (EULAs). The legal framework surrounding digital distribution platforms like Steam is predicated on a licensing model, not a transfer of ownership per se.
Your concern about account lockouts, while not entirely unfounded, overlooks the myriad benefits of digital distribution, including but not limited to: reduced environmental impact, instant access, automatic updates, and cloud saves. Furthermore, it disregards the legal protections afforded to consumers under various jurisdictions' consumer protection laws.
In conclusion, while your nostalgia for physical media is understandable, it does not negate the legal and practical realities of modern software distribution. The non-rivalrous nature of software necessitates a different paradigm of ownership and access, one that the current legal and technological frameworks are still grappling with.
The modern resurgence in PC gaming only exists because of digital distribution. "Just buy your PC games in the store" hasn't been a viable option in a long time. There is GOG as a DRM-free option at least, if you want to truly have a copy that can't be taken from you.
43 CFR 2920
This means it can be used by multiple people at the same time without diminishing their quality or quantity. For example, a fireworks display is non-rivalrous because everyone can enjoy it without affecting the quality of the show. Likewise, software can be enjoyed by everyone without affecting the quality of the life of the producer or its content and there is no indication that piracy can limit the latter and former.
Sorry for OT, but if we are talking about enjoying it the it is everyone except all other animals.
I hate them mostly for sensory reasons, plus I find the pollution/litter irritating, and quite often the thing being celebrated with fireworks is innately problematic too.
So if I produce paid software as my sole livelihood and income, there is "no indication" that piracy of my work output could limit my quality of life?
I will concede that pirated copies are not made up 100% of lost sales in this scenario as long as other people will also reasonably concede that the number is probably not 0% either.
That said, the author should have the right to decide the terms of sale (at least for luxury items) as long as they aren't misrepresenting the sale. If the button says something to the effect of "Buy Revokable License Now!", or something equally clear, instead of "Buy Now!" then the customer knows what they are getting into. They can either choose to pay for it, knowing they may lose access in the future, or they may choose not to pay for it since they view the terms as unacceptable.
Ironically, once again, piracy provides the best service.