this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
644 points (97.2% liked)
Sysadmin
7467 readers
2 users here now
A community dedicated to the profession of IT Systems Administration
No generic Lemmy issue posts please! Posts about Lemmy belong in one of these communities:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Literally argued with a bunch of game-pass supporters on this very topic today, where we don't own shit anymore and everything is rental only. Sick of people gobbling corporate cock.
When I found out that steam licenses my games and I don't own them, I shat a brick.
Hold up, what?
You have probably never 'owned' a computer game. Even when you had discs/cartridges you owned the disc/cartridge, but had a single license for the game.
That's why it was technically allowed to copy the disk for your own use, but not to share - you only had one license.
Steam is the same, just without the disk.
Legally speaking, there is almost zero difference between a computer game disc/cartridge and a paper book. Are you so deluded as to argue that you don't own your copies of books as well?
Let's face it: the situation today is the way it is because some software industry shysters saw the opportunity to pull one over on the courts (with technology-illiterate judges who think "X on a computer" is somehow suddenly different than "X" because ⋆˙⟡ magic ⟡˙⋆) and took it.
I did quote owned in that comment.
Legally I think you own the book, but not it's contents? So legally it would be the same? (The content is copyrighted so you can't reproduce it etc)
The real difference is in usage, with a book, even an ebook, if you have it you effectively own it. They can't stop you reading it.
Unfortunately with games nowerdays everything checks in with servers or is online only, so if the publisher or distributor say so, you lose access. The only way round that is cracked copies or DRM free games like on GoG.
This came to be because people would hand discs to their friends who would then copy the disc and hand it back, resulting in widespread stealing of the game.
People don't generally photocopy books to give to others
Steam doeen't sell games to you, it gives you access to them in your account. Everyone hated them for it back when it first came out, twenty years ago, but it's kind of forgotten by anyone who isn't nestled deeply into the privacy/ownership/right to repair communities these days.
You can still lose access to your thousand game + account by simply updating your drivers regularly.
Steam is lying -- you do own the games. The problem is that the courts are too corrupted by the copyright cartel to enforce the laws properly.
Just because they push that self-serving disinformation doesn't mean we have to parrot it!
Oh you mean in the way the world should work. Sure, i'll agree with that.
But that's not how things actually are. Right now, you can completely lose access, and unless you're a lucky millionaire with a passion for fighting unjust laws and the luck of the gods, you can't do shit to bring that account back.
But even if you lose access to the Steam account, you still own your copy of the games. Valve doesn't have the right to somehow force you to stop playing the games, assuming you still have your copy in your possession.
Remember, products (e.g. a copy of a game) and services (e.g. a Steam account itself) are two different things. I was never arguing that you owned a service, only that you own products.
Yeah. Steam can disable your account so you can not purchase new games, but you should still be able to download and play the games you already have.
Genuine question. My assumption here is that if they disable your account that you can no longer log into it to download those games. Accurate or inaccurate assumption? How does it actually work? I know I SHOULD be able to download them, but can I actually if they disable the account?
I haven't seen a situation where they completely lock an account full of games, where the person who purchased those games can never access them again. The guy above is being overdramatic.
They CAN "VAC" ban your account, though. That does not deny you access to your account in any way, and will not prevent you from playing the games online or offline* as much as you want. The VAC part of the ban is that you cannot use any Valve run servers on games that use Valve to run their servers, like TF2, DOTA, Counterstrike, Left 4 Dead, etc.
You can still play the aforementioned games online, BUT after the ban you can only play on non-VAC secured servers (aka player servers that are more likely to have rampant cheating). The ban DOES NOT remove the game from your account, delete your account, block your access to the offline portion of the game unless, I suppose, the game has an always online element that uses VAC.
*One of the annoying DRM "features" of Steam is that you can play any of your games offline as long as you log in online at least (I think) once a week or so.
Purchasing ban does exist. Seen it on Steam forum itself.
You can still download and play the game even though they disable the account.
A VAC ban doesn't remove access to your steam account. Just to one game on your steam account.
Well, that and all the games that instban you from playing if you have a vac ban on record, first example being various squad servers, and the software behind that.
Being banned from accessing services isn't the same as being prohibited from using your property. You are still perfectly legally entitled to play your game single-player (for example) no matter how many VAC bans you get.
Vac bans don't ban your steam account, just prevents you from playing CS2/CSGO
Why are you surprised about this? You always get a license to play the game, you don't own the rights to it, even if you get a physical copy.
That's what the copyright cartel claims, but it's a goddamn lie. Stop serving the enemy by parroting their lies.
It is not a lie, it is how copyright works.
If you are against it, then be against it. But do not claim they are lying.
This is why things like CC-BY-SA, copyleft and other licenses exist.
No, copyleft licenses work differently. In particular, the thing that makes them valid (in contrast to EULAs, which are not) is that they actually offer consideration to the licensee.
Take the GPL v2 (which I mention because I'm most familiar with it) as an example:
What it's doing there is affirming the user's ownership -- not mere "licensure" -- of his own copy. It's pointing out, in contrast to the lie of EULAs, that the licensor doesn't have any right to restrict the copy owner's property rights. In other words, you don't have to "accept the GPL" in order to use GPL software that somebody gives you; the license only kicks in if you want to do something with it that copyright law itself otherwise prohibits, namely, distributing copies or publishing modifications.
What EULA writers think they rely on -- and what they've managed to bamboozle some, but not all, courts into accepting -- is the notion that because computer programs require copying into RAM (if not also installation into a hard drive) to use, that that incidental act of copying somehow entitles publishers to impose additional restrictions in "consideration" for the mere use of the copy the user already bought. In reality, however, there's an explicit carve-out in 17 U.S. Code § 117 (a) (1) that pulls the rug out of that argument and renders most shrinkwrap and clickwrap EULAs total bunk because the owner already has the right to use his property and there is therefore no consideration. (Admittedly, Steam might be an exception to this, since Valve could try to argue that keeping track of your games for you and making them available to re-download whenever you want is "valuable consideration" -- but that's the exception, not the rule.)
(Also note that there are other problems with the validity of EULAs, such as the fact that they're contracts of adhesion, but I'm tired of writing so I'll leave that for another time.)
TL;DR: Copyleft licenses are valid because they offer the copy owner privileges they didn't already have: namely, permission to distribute copies under certain conditions. In contrast, EULAs are bunk because they attempt to restrict mere use of the thing the copy owner already owns while offering nothing in return.
You are wrong. If you buy a physical copy of a game, you cannot legally make further copies of that game. You can only sell the single copy you own, which is the licensed copy
Years ago I had been out of multiplayer gaming for a number of years and had really only had experiences with PC games, where multiplayer is/was just this standard thing. You already bought the game, playing multiplayer with other people is just a thing you can hop on and do whenever you want for free (provided there's other people to play). I owned consoles, but never played multiplayer games on them, so never dealt with game passes or anything like that.
When my oldest son started getting into gaming, we wanted to play couch co-op on an Xbox game, but then ran into a problem with it requiring an Xbox game pass for a co-op mode (it had been couch co-op in previous games from the series; basically a horde mode where you go against bots, so no reason to go online). Requiring a game pass for that just seemed like a shit way to get more subscriptions.
When I complained about it on Reddit, people swarmed to tell me what a jackass I was and that of course you have to subscribe to play with game pass, like what kind of world was I living in where I expected free multiplayer gaming? Apparently I hadn't realized what a golden age I had lived in when something like free multiplayer gaming was just a standard thing.
That's been my experience as well, the dogpiling crap. I even had someone argue "How are businesses supposed to stay alive if they don't charge monthly!" -- and they couldn't agree that the business could create new IP, or create new games, instead of sitting on the same game for 10+ years.
That's kind of a bad comparison...you're continually paying Adobe for (generally) one program that you're going to use every day for years. It would actually make sense to just pay a lump sum upfront and then again maybe a few years later for a newer version.
With Gamepass, you're paying for access to many games, each of which you're going to play for a relatively short time before moving on to another game. If you spend a lot of time gaming and enjoy novelty, it makes a lot of sense.
GP really isn't that bad imo. There's much better examples.
With GamePass, all the games are still available to buy, often both in the Xbox store and Steam. You also get a discount if you do want to buy it.
But with streaming services, it's much worse since you can't often buy the media. You're forced to use their service every time you want to watch it.
That applies to all digital store fronts and isn't specific to game pass.
No, this is mistaken. If a digital storefront sells their media in a DRM-free format, you receive the files in an unrestricted way, similar to if you bought a physical book, movie, or album.
Unrestricted is not to say given permission to copy and distribute as you'd like, but that's the same as for physical media.
Okay sure, for DRM-free storefronts that's true but I'm talking about arguing that Game Pass is somehow worse than say Steam when the reality is that you can lose all your content on both storefronts. Most aren't DRM-free, which is the issue.
Steam's DRM is optional for publishers at least, and many titles are DRM free. You also at least have access to the files so you can attempt to bypass it.