Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

Steam appears to have started posting a notice in its shopping cart that purchases on its storefront are only for a license and not a game, according to a notice spotted by Engadget. It looks like an attempt by the company to get ahead of a new California law coming next year that forces companies to admit that buyers don't actually own digital content.

When you open your shopping cart with items inside and before going to payment, a notice at the bottom right states: "A purchase of a digital product grants a license for the product on Steam." This is the first time our editors have seen of a notice like this (and we use Steam a lot), so it appears to be relatively new.

Last month California governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2426 into law, forcing digital marketplaces to make it clear to customers when they only purchase a license to access media. It will not apply to permanent offline downloads, only digital copies of video games, music, movies, TV shows or ebooks from an online storefront. Companies that fail to comply could face fines for false advertising if they don't explain in clear language the limitations of a given digital purchase. The law followed situations like Ubisoft deleting The Crew from player's libraries after the game's servers shuttered.

Source

 

[sainraja]

So, GOG is our best bet then but I am sure we don't technically own what we buy there either and to an extent it makes sense, we are buying the product to use it, not to do anything we want with it, which buying would imply... although the disclosure is only making it clear that that's how it has always been.

 

[ZehDon]

So, GOG is our best bet then but I am sure we don't technically own what we buy there either and to an extent it makes sense, we are buying the product to use it, not to do anything we want with it, which buying would imply... although the disclosure is only making it clear that that's how it has always been.

While true, GOG offers optional offline installers for all of the games they sell. Steam can revoke access to your titles at any point - no one can delete your offline installers if you've downloaded them.

 

[Vlodril]

So, GOG is our best bet then but I am sure we don't technically own what we buy there either and to an extent it makes sense, we are buying the product to use it, not to do anything we want with it, which buying would imply... although the disclosure is only making it clear that that's how it has always been.

You do own everything you buy on GOG since you can download it and keep it forever or copy it or mod it or whatever the hell you want.

 

[winjer]

They should add, that it's a temporary license.
The reality is that we no longer buy games, it's just a long term lease, and the publisher can change the deal whenever they want to.

 

[fudgybrownie]

It's always been like that....

 

[AtomicStarving]

Pay the rent.

 

[digdug2]

It's wild that people are just now catching onto the idea that when they "purchase a game" from most storefronts, they are just buying the license to be able to use it. If you want an actual copy of a game, you have two options: 1) use a storefront like GOG or 2) pirate it.

 

[Topher]

They should add, that it's a temporary license.
The reality is that we no longer buy games, it's just a long term lease, and the publisher can change the deal whenever they want to.

That's true. Frankly, I'm hoping some big publisher tries something really stupid in that regard like taking away a game that is still widely played. Something big enough that would warrant a class action lawsuit that would challenge the legality of these terms. Corporations can put pretty much whatever they want in these terms and conditions, but it only really matters if they are upheld by the courts when challenged. That is why most publishers are smart enough not to do something stupid that rocks the boat.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It's wild that people are just now catching onto the idea that when they "purchase a game" from most storefronts, they are just buying the license to be able to use it. If you want an actual copy of a game, you have two options: 1) use a storefront like GOG or 2) pirate it.

Technically it all depends on whether the game copy works offline or not.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

This changes nothing.

 

[Skifi28]

Frankly, I'm hoping some big publisher tries something really stupid in that regard like taking away a game that is still widely played. Something big enough that would warrant a class action lawsuit that would challenge the legality of these terms.

Careful what you wish for...

 

[winjer]

This changes nothing.

It changes user perception, to the real deal.
The question is, if users understand they are only renting a license, will users be willing to pay as much?

 

[Topher]

Careful what you wish for...

I get it, but I just think publishers have a lot more to lose in that scenario than gamers.

 

[ReyBrujo]

You do own everything you buy on GOG since you can download it and keep it forever or copy it or mod it or whatever the hell you want.

You don't own either, you license it. Software is always licensed.

 

[DryvBy]

That's true. Frankly, I'm hoping some big publisher tries something really stupid in that regard like taking away a game that is still widely played. Something big enough that would warrant a class action lawsuit that would challenge the legality of these terms. Corporations can put pretty much whatever they want in these terms and conditions, but it only really matters if they are upheld by the courts when challenged. That is why most publishers are smart enough not to do something stupid that rocks the boat.

Once a generation falls, they'll go full Unity.

 

[Topher]

You don't own either, you license it. Software is always licensed.

The litmus test for truly owning something, imo, is if you can legally sell it to someone else.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

It changes user perception, to the real deal.
The question is, if users understand they are only renting a license, will users be willing to pay as much?

There needs to be alternative drm free option for it to make a difference.

I always chuckle whenever digital storefront tells me to go to “owned” games section.

 

[winjer]

There needs to be alternative drm free option for it to make a difference.

I always chuckle whenever digital storefront tells me to go to “owned” games section.

Exactly. It should say "rented games" or leased games".
Saying these games are purchases, is a misrepresentation. It's pretty much a scam.

 

[ReyBrujo]

They should add, that it's a temporary license.

Licenses are always temporal as well (except the ones you give to social networks granting non-revocable, unlimited license to use your data. And they are also bound to the hardware, like a game supporting Windows 10, you can't upgrade to Windows 11 and use it there, or buy an Xbox 360 game and then play an emulation copy because the original license was granted on Xbox 360 hardware. Of course, nobody cares about all that stuff and might not even be legally bounding but it's there.

The litmus test for truly owning something, imo, is if you can legally sell it to someone else.

If it's a physical copy you can, but if it is a digital copy you can't because the license itself belongs to the original owner only.

leased games"

Not leased, leasing is when you "rent" with an option of real "ownership" after paying for some time.

This is the future, lads. Convenience comes with these issues.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It changes user perception, to the real deal.
The question is, if users understand they are only renting a license, will users be willing to pay as much?

I think its still too small of a change, they'd need to remove the "buy" wording from the storefront to draw any user attention to the fact.

 

[clarky]

In the unlikely event that Steam goes bump and/or I lose access to all my games then ill just hit the high seas and torrent the shit out of what I want.

Makes no difference to me. But I don't see that happening.

 

[pudel]

Just wondering why not every other company/industry is doing this "license" trick. You can do it basically with every other product as well. "Sorry bro, you didnt buy that car! You just bought a license to use it!" And when everything is connected to the Internet nowadays....it would be even super easy to shut these products off at any given time.

 

[sainraja]

While true, GOG offers optional offline installers for all of the games they sell. Steam can revoke access to your titles at any point - no one can delete your offline installers if you've downloaded them.

Yeah, I love GOG for that and if buying a PC game, I always check GOG first to see if they are selling it.

You do own everything you buy on GOG since you can download it and keep it forever or copy it or mod it or whatever the hell you want.

Yeah, I am aware. I was trying to making a distinction which probably is unnecessary the more I think about it, but I think even GOG doesn't want its users to do whatever they want with the game files, even though they can. They are basically choosing to "trust" us and I appreciate that.

 

[Topher]

If it's a physical copy you can, but if it is a digital copy you can't because the license itself belongs to the original owner only.

Exactly my point. Physical copies of games are really the only true games one can "own".

 

[Kacho]

Cool I guess. Our Steam libraries will outlive us so this doesn't change anything.

 

[//DEVIL//]

its really simple. They try to fuck with me, ill pirate the shit out of the game. and i will send the company a version of it too so they can shove it up their ass.

If i paid for a game, it's my game. California can fuck it self. I don't live in that shitty state to begin with.

 

[bender]

That's true. Frankly, I'm hoping some big publisher tries something really stupid in that regard like taking away a game that is still widely played. Something big enough that would warrant a class action lawsuit that would challenge the legality of these terms. Corporations can put pretty much whatever they want in these terms and conditions, but it only really matters if they are upheld by the courts when challenged. That is why most publishers are smart enough not to do something stupid that rocks the boat.

We had something similar happen with an organized campaign for that Ubisoft racer that was recently pulled offline rendering the software unusable.

 

[intbal]

I'm not pirating games, Valve.
I'm just borrowing them indefinitely.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If it's a physical copy you can, but if it is a digital copy you can't because the license itself belongs to the original owner only.

This is the future, lads. Convenience comes with these issues.

Technically there are EULA's (like that of sony) that explicitly forbid you from selling your physical copy of the game, people just don't obey it and it isn't enforceable. Much like being forbiden from selling or giving away your digital account also isn't enforceable. And i suppose publishers also don't want to open that can of worms by trying to take legal action.

 

[pudel]

Exactly my point. Physical copies of games are really the only true games one can "own".

But where is the difference between a software which comes on a disc and a software which I download (and which I put afterwards on a disc). Its just a different way of distribution, or not?

 

[The Cockatrice]

That's true. Frankly, I'm hoping some big publisher tries something really stupid in that regard like taking away a game that is still widely played. Something big enough that would warrant a class action lawsuit that would challenge the legality of these terms. Corporations can put pretty much whatever they want in these terms and conditions, but it only really matters if they are upheld by the courts when challenged. That is why most publishers are smart enough not to do something stupid that rocks the boat.

Ubisoft tried it I think and nothing happened. I doubt we will live to see major changes to digital ownership. If anything, it'll be worse.

 

[Topher]

We had something similar happen with an organized campaign for that Ubisoft racer that was recently pulled offline rendering the software unusable.

Did anything come of that?

But where is the difference between a software which comes on a disc and a software which I download (and which I put afterwards on a disc). Its just a different way of distribution, or not?

The difference is you can sell the disc.

 

[Guilty_AI]

The difference is you can sell the disc.

I mean, you could sell your account too.

 

[Topher]

I mean, you could sell your account too.

All or nothing, but yeah

 

[bender]

Did anything come of that?

He has a bunch of updates but I've only watched the original call to action video.

Accursed Farms

Official channel of Accursed Farms, videos created by Ross Scott. Includes Freeman's Mind, Ross's Game Dungeon, Civil Protection, and more. Check the main website (accursedfarms.com) for news and updates.

www.youtube.com

 

[vaibhavpisal]

One of the reasons I dont like physical is … I can sell the discs.

 

[Guilty_AI]

But where is the difference between a software which comes on a disc and a software which I download (and which I put afterwards on a disc). Its just a different way of distribution, or not?

I'd say it all depends on what ties the license to the user. Disc licenses are (usually) tied to the disc itself, whereas digital games licenses are (usually) tied to the account that bought it.

The best situation for the costumer is when the game isn't tied to anything in particular and the license is just a word agreement - which is what digital DRM-free games are.

 

[mitch1971]

This wording changes nothing for the 'average' consumer. The fact they have to spell it out in legalese shows how shit this practice is.

 

[pudel]

I'd say it all depends on what ties the license to the user. Disc licenses are (usually) tied to the disc itself, whereas digital games licenses are (usually) tied to the account that bought it.

The best situation for the costumer is when the game isn't tied to anything in particular and the license is just a word agreement - which is what digital DRM-free games are.

Yep, basically we need a law about this licensing stuff...not this useless californian law which doesnt change anything.

 

[rodrigolfp]

which is what digital DRM-free games are.

Can we sell our GoG games?

 

[bender]

All or nothing, but yeah

The user agreement probably forbids selling of the account. I'm not sure how mindful a company of Steam is of policing this policy as the way people get around the "all or nothing" problem is that they create an account per game played and then sell the account once they are done with that game. The gray market key selling websites are littered with "steam account" sales and it is usually the least expensive way to get a Steam version of a game.

Somewhat related and more interesting to me, is inheritance of an account to a family member isn't allowed either. Imagine a future where Apple disables an account of a certain age (100 years?) as surely the original owner isn't using it anymore.

 

[SHA]

Is Gabe dying?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Can we sell our GoG games?

In theory you could sell your account - or put a copy of the game on a disc or something, sell it to someone, destroy all your copies and delete it from your library.

No one's gonna do that of course, but in terms of breaking the EULA wouldn't be much different from selling a physical copy of a game.

 

[digdug2]

Just wondering why not every other company/industry is doing this "license" trick. You can do it basically with every other product as well. "Sorry bro, you didnt buy that car! You just bought a license to use it!" And when everything is connected to the Internet nowadays....it would be even super easy to shut these products off at any given time.

I honestly think that is the end game here. The World Economic Forum says, "You'll own nothing and you will be happy."

You'll own nothing and be happy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rodrigolfp]

delete it from your library.

I didn't know we could do that.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Just wondering why not every other company/industry is doing this "license" trick. You can do it basically with every other product as well. "Sorry bro, you didnt buy that car! You just bought a license to use it!" And when everything is connected to the Internet nowadays....it would be even super easy to shut these products off at any given time.

...you think they aren't already? Didn't you hear about HP printers that stop working as soon as the owner stopped paying the ink fee, or tractors in russia that were remotely disabled after the war began?

 

[pudel]

...you think they aren't already? Didn't you hear about HP printers that stop working as soon as the owner stopped paying the ink fee, or tractors in russia that were remotely disabled after the war began?

The future looks bright, huh!

 

[Sinfulgore]

It changes user perception, to the real deal.
The question is, if users understand they are only renting a license, will users be willing to pay as much?

Why would this have any impact on what someone is willing to pay for a game? I feel like people here are so out of touch with the average gamer. People purchase games to play them, whatever you want to label that purchase as is irrelevant to most people.

 

[Guilty_AI]

The future looks bright, huh!

"your pacemaker-pro subscription will expire in 7 days, please make sure to have the necessary amount deposited by then"