Guys, this is a standard license agreement. This isn't them saying "haha we can remove games at will from your library!"
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
535 points (98.0% liked)
196
16362 readers
1673 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
This post doesn't reflect that statement.
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.
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.
view more: next ›