Guys, this is a standard license agreement. This isn’t them saying “haha we can remove games at will from your library!”
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.
They can though
Sure they can. But it wouldn’t be legal. You purchased a game. It’s yours. You’re only authorized to play it via steam.
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 🏴☠️.
Yeah isn’t this like the thing that California required them to do?
You know what else used to be standard? Slavery and feudalism. Things don’t have to be this way.
I mean, slavery is still standard if you consider the prison industrial complex
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.
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.
It’s a good job Gabe Newell has made gamers comfortable with not owning their games.
You do own your games on Steam. You just aren’t authorized to play them without using the Steam launcher.
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 havn’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?
OK. I know I’m about to get blown the fuck up but… You will own nothing and be happy. But. Like. Unironically.
I really don’t think most people want to manage thousands of music files on their computer. Or hundreds of movie files. Or thousands of picture files. Or hundreds of video game files.
There are definitely options for doing this, but people who go this route are usually tech elite nerds. Not your parents or grandparents. Not normies.
(I self-host Navidrome, Jellyfin, Immich, etc.)
You will be blown up, and you will be happy. Enjoy the technofeudalism you so desperately long for.
That’s why sharing tools or information via libraries is the most convenient and efficient way of managing. We don’t need to own everything if it’s easily available for everyone.
May be true but the core of the problem with buying games online is that you can pay for the game, the platform holder can just remove the game from the storefront at any tile, and essentially remove any access to the game you had previously purchased under the pretense that it is yours to keep, since you’ve paid for it, without citing any reasons or giving warnings. When we buy something, we usually assume, since that’s the way it is with physical goods, that you’re keeping what your buying.
I feel like this transparent language is a good step in the right direction
Currently I have multiple games in stream which have no store page and I still am able to install them just fine. And they even run on Linux guys proton
I’m not sure how Steam works exactly, but can’t you redownload games once you’ve added them to your library regardless of any store pages?
Yes that’s exactly my point. The comment I was responding to was saying stuff gets deleted on steam, which is true. But that you can still play them/they are still in my library
I think that a step in the actual right direction would be forcing platforms to give people actual ownership of what they pay for. If they have a licensing issue and want to pull the game, they can stop new sales, but they shouldn’t be allowed to make it unavailable to people who’ve already paid unless the entire company is going under and the store is shutting down (and even then, they should be forced to provide non-DRM downloads).
Yep, the step forward would be to regulate licensing in a consumer-friendly way. Not going back to buying every song or album separately.
No doubt
Thank you California law!
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.
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 post doesn’t reflect that statement.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Steam DRM isn’t even really DRM in the traditional sense and it’s very easy to put games into a program or use an injected/patched .dll to bypass the Steam Launch check. It’s annoying sure but it’s not something that people should be concerned about.
Yeah that would be nice.
PCGamingWiki has that info for most titles I believe. It would be nice to see it in Steam though.
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.
This was always the case, just stated explicitly now
It also doesn’t mean that you don’t own your game. It’s a license to play the game you own but only via Steam.
Did California’s new law requiring this already go into effect?
January 1 2025, guess Steam preferred not waiting in this case
This is also the case for physical copies, and has been since software was first sold
According to media lawyers, maybe. But when I have a CD of music, or a game cartridge, I can sell it to someone else. For money. Because it’s my copy I’m selling. So, what the fuck are you talking about except ceding the point to corporate lawyers for no good reason?
You own the license and can sell the license (generally), not the actual game. To use an analogy, if you buy and own a car, you could take it apart or replace any part you like, put the engine into another car, etc. You can’t do the equivalent with a typical game and other propertary software, at least not legally, because you don’t own it, you just own the right to use it.
Might not make a noticable difference to most people because most people don’t do much with games/software apart from using it, but there still is a difference.
That’s technically piracy. You should be careful as some have been sued for selling 2nd hand goods.
Just because it makes sense and is intuitive doesn’t make it correct legally speaking
No it’s not. It’s well established law that we are allowed to resell our physical media. You’re just wrong. Like I said, if it were up to corporate media lawyers, you would be correct, which is why it’s frustrating to see people like OP & yourself falling into line when no one’s even asking you to. Stop that.
I am not falling in line, I am asking you to be aware so you don’t get sued for doing a reasonable thing. Maybe games are safe but I heard of other goods causing lawsuits.
Take my word with a grain of salt, but as far as I understand with my limited knowledge, you do not own the content stored on the disc; however, you do own the physical medium itself. That is how game stores are allowed to sell you second hand games. They aren’t selling you the disc contents, they are selling you the disc. Regardless, readers, do your own research and don’t take the word of random people on Lemmy including myself.
Yeah, if a game needs online activation it doesn’t matter which medium you buy…
That’s a lie told by every new industry since the printing press. Books tried writing “by anonymously exchanging money for this mass-produced object, you’ve secretly entered into a contract that limits your” blah blah blah. Courts threw that shit out, one hundred years ago. Same thing happened for videos and music.
Only software emerged recently enough, and under enough corruption, to keep pretending that opening shrink-wrap was magically the same as ink-on-paper agreement to some negotiated tradeoff.
Moving to digital distribution changed nothing. These assholes would be the first to insist as much. They would agree, you own Factorio on Steam in exactly the same way you own SimCity on SNES. But anyone who points to the cartridge in your hands and insists “you don’t own that” is being a fucking idiot.
If buying isn’t owning then piracy isn’t stealing.
You know, I tried telling them this at Hertz, but they still called the cops on me! WTF! I gave them money, they gave me car. What’s the problem officer?!?!?
Bad argument piracy has never been stealing
Sure it has, back when it was on boats at sea
Only when they were stealing things.
If buying becomes owning, will people stop pirating?
If piracy was stealing I would do it even more
Stealing potential profits is no where near as fun as stealing actual profits
deleted by creator
People were more inclined to buy software when it was a one time purchase rather than a license subscription (for example Adobe).
based and property tax should be illegal pillec
based and property
taxshould be illegal pillecFix’d
