this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
498 points (98.3% liked)

196

16338 readers
2479 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Guys, this is a standard license agreement. This isn't them saying "haha we can remove games at will from your library!"

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 hours ago

You know what else used to be standard? Slavery and feudalism. Things don't have to be this way.

[–] Crazazy@feddit.nl 6 points 9 hours ago

Yeah isn't this like the thing that California required them to do?

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] crowbar@lemm.ee 3 points 7 hours ago

Steam doesnt make you pay for subscription fee and theres no expiry date for those games, so it's fine I think?

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] jg1i@lemmy.world 14 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

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.)

[–] zealshock@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 hours ago

You will be blown up, and you will be happy. Enjoy the technofeudalism you so desperately long for.

[–] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] moonburster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] Starbuncle@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

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).

[–] repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

Yep, the step forward would be to regulate licensing in a consumer-friendly way. Not going back to buying every song or album separately.

[–] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago
[–] auzy@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

It's a good job Gabe Newell has made gamers comfortable with not owning their games.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 13 hours ago

Thank you California law!

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 16 hours ago

This is solving the wrong problem entirely.

You do own games. They're products. They're mass-market goods, as surely as when they came on plastic rectangles or glass circles.

Being permitted to continue having things on your hard drive is not a service.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 28 points 22 hours ago

Twitter is bad.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 42 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 49 points 23 hours ago (9 children)

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

[–] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Bad argument piracy has never been stealing

[–] asexualchangeling@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

Sure it has, back when it was on boats at sea

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›