Posts: 544   +15
Staff
Editor's take: Steam has become one of the first companies to admit that you do not own the games you buy. This acknowledgment comes as new regulations take effect. We've long known that digital game purchases are nothing more than long-term rentals, and there's little we can do to change that. However, more transparency around this arrangement is welcome nonetheless.

Steam has begun displaying a new notice in its shopping cart, explicitly clarifying the nature of the transaction: "A purchase of a digital product grants a license for the product on Steam." The change is Valve's way of complying with an incoming California law prohibiting digital marketplaces from implying that customers own the games, movies, ebooks, and other digital content they buy.

The new regulations were signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom last year, aiming to crack down on deceptive marketing practices around digital media sales.

Under AB 2426, it will be illegal for companies to use language like "buy," "purchase," or other terminology that suggests full ownership when selling digital goods that are merely licensed for use.

Instead, the law requires digital storefronts to state in "plain language" that customers are only acquiring a license to access the content – one that could potentially expire or be revoked by the storefront at any time.

Companies found violating these rules could face fines for false advertising. The law does not apply to permanent offline downloads or physical media, of course. Engadget notes that the labeling appears to be relatively new, and is not exclusive to California Steam accounts.

The issue of limited digital ownership has become a hot-button issue in recent years, as more gamers have had the rug pulled out from under them when game servers shut down or storefronts are decommissioned. It's even led to movements like "Stop Killing Games" popping up.

One high-profile example was Ubisoft abruptly delisting and removing access to the original The Crew game from people's libraries after its servers went permanently offline earlier this year.

Even those who had paid full price could not continue playing the open-world racer. While Ubisoft has since added offline modes to sequels like The Crew 2 to avoid a similar debacle, the original game highlighted how little control customers have over their digital purchases. If the company decides to pull the plug, poof – your game is gone.

Permalink to story:

 
My favorite part about this isnthat Valve didn't make a press release about it or use it as a PR stunt. They also removed the forced arbitration clause. While Valve will always be a business and businesses are setup in a way to be inherently anti-consumer, it's refreshing to atleast be handed a pillow to bite on
 
They also removed the forced arbitration clause.
Only because instead of filing a class action lawsuit lawyers would just dump all their clients into arbitration at once on the company. With such a load of arbitration they creating a huge cost for the company and forcing them into settlements. Companies are now lobbying to remove this practice and if they succeed forced arbitration will come right back.
 
So they can remove our bought and installed games any time they want now?
They’ve always had the power to do that, The Crew was an example. Now they’re just finally making it abundantly clear that’s how it works.

Interesting it doesn’t include physical media though, if I buy a game on the PS Store, it’s a long term rented license, if I buy the physical version of the same game, I own it outright?
 
Gabe, my guy: Remember what you very famously said about piracy and not having easy, convenient access to digital products?

Evidently you do not but not to worry: Those who *(!@#* around shall find out.
 
This now means that if Steam shutters their doors anything on that platform is gone - of course I already knew this and accepted it. However, there's been a lot of speculation over the years that people actually believed Steam would make all games you've paid for to be downloaded if such an event happened to them because these people actually believe they "own" these games.

I haven't purchased anything on Steam for 5 or 6 years now. If I want a game I only get it on GoG - put the files on my side and install when I want.

I'm not saying I don't utilize Steam. My brother still gifts me games on the platform so we can play co-op, if (key word here) that game is not available on GoG. I won't support Steam nor any other digital platform that doesn't allow me to download and keep the files on my end.

A lot of people are okay with giving up their rights to own, I'm not. I enjoy buying DVDs/Blurays when I can and putting a copy on my server. I've got a digital copy and physical should something happen to the sever. I like owning my own stuff to use how I want.
 
While many games-buyers already knew about this scummy practice - in a digital world there is absolute F-all that we can do about it. Never was really. It comes down to the integrity of the people running the show. However, to be honest,I don't really think old Gabe would knowingly screw his customers over.
However, having this kind of news brought to the front (and basically having your nose rubbed in it) doesn't do much to discourage piracy. After all, if they can just 'disappear' your paid-for game -then what's wrong with 'disappearing' it from them in the first place?
How does it go...."What's good for the goose, is good for the gander."
 
Interesting it doesn’t include physical media though, if I buy a game on the PS Store, it’s a long term rented license, if I buy the physical version of the same game, I own it outright?
No, buying a disc still only grants you a license. That's the nature of every transaction dealing with software. You can say you own the object that is the physical plastic disc, but the software that comes in it is licensed, and if the situation arose where Sony needed to revoke licenses for a released game, they could just send a firmware update to their consoles where, from that point onwards, they don't start that game anymore even if you insert the disc, for example.
 
So is our purchases before this new clause grandfathered in or is the new user agreement that they made us agree to recently in order to access steam affect all purchases past, present and future 🤔?
I love how regulations that are intended to prevent abusive practices tends to backfire from the swiss cheese affect. If the user agreement at the time of purchase doesn't specify the expiration date of the license than it should by default to be forever licensed to the account or end user.
What's the difference between a subscription model like live and this?
 
To be honest this is kind of "non-news". Steam has always clearly been a "Subscriber Agreement".

You NEED to have an "active suscription" (although it's free) to access the content you "buy" on the platform.

In any case when you buy a game you're just buying the license to access the content, therefore the only difference between physical and digital is the location of the media that contains the software.

I'd even argue the software is "safer" on Steam server's than on a disc sitting on your shelf.
 
I still have hope and support companies, like Larian Studios, the dude that made Mindustry, the other dude that made Factorio and many other developers, publishers that still release games that are:

A) DRM free, meaning you can install it on as many machines simultaneously as you want and play without authenticity checks or internet access, like the games sold on GoG, CD Projekt Red's platform and

B) multiplayer games that support setting up your own dedicated servers with house rules, meaning you can play however your heart desires, like Minecraft, Don't Starve Together, Satisfactory and so many more.

The situation isn't as bad as it sounds and is mainly about really popular AAA games. We would know we're in real trouble once making games like the ones I listed above becomes suicide, which will never happen.

Computer games are important. I like where the legislation is heading. If only there was a way to remind, force, twist wrists of large publishers and developers that subscribe to the games-as-a-service model to not forget to create standalone, offline, playable version snapshots of their games with dedicated server options once they are done working on it for a plethora of damn good reasons, some of which being nostalgia, historical preservation or for those who've become emotionally attatched to it for one reason or the other.

I know how this sounds, I'm basically saying, Have a heart, dude!, to companies like EA and Ubisoft. But I can DREAM, Harold!
 
I hold a strong opposing view on this regulation. In my opinion, if someone purchases a digital product, they should have the same ownership rights as they would with a physical disc. When a company chooses to take a game off their servers (SSD, NVME, HDD, etc.), they should offer customers the option to sideload and install it at their convenience. In a different situation, when a game server is ultimately taken offline due to various reasons such as tenure, low player count, inactivity, or financial constraints. Players ought to be given the choice to host a server on their own device or buy a dedicated server. For games with time-sensitive licensed content, a selective removal approach combined with the above solution would be effective.
 
This regulation is not about changing the ownership to lease, it’s about stating the fact that it is a lease and has been so for a long time.

People seem confused about this.

It was obvious from the beginning that if a game is dependent of a server, even if it was only for delivery, they need a legal way to get rid of obligations if something bad would happen. Sure they have all sorts of systems in place for bad things, but the bottom line is, they are not going to be liable for the said bad things.

They just didn’t say it straight up, now they have to.
 
I still have hope in humanity. Hear me out.
At the end of life, all games have a stable version which any user can store on their pc.
If it is an online game, then it comes with a basic server software for anyone to be able to
host it. It is not that much to ask if a game made a decent profit. And if it is a requirement,
then it will become even cheaper to implement over time because all studios will be using the same
stuff that is easy to implement and is open source.
The access to your thing must be preserved. Right now, it is done by torrenting which is illegal and persecuted in many countries. This is wrong.
 
I still have hope and support companies, like Larian Studios, the dude that made Mindustry, the other dude that made Factorio and many other developers, publishers that still release games that are:

A) DRM free, meaning you can install it on as many machines simultaneously as you want and play without authenticity checks or internet access, like the games sold on GoG, CD Projekt Red's platform and

B) multiplayer games that support setting up your own dedicated servers with house rules, meaning you can play however your heart desires, like Minecraft, Don't Starve Together, Satisfactory and so many more.

The situation isn't as bad as it sounds and is mainly about really popular AAA games. We would know we're in real trouble once making games like the ones I listed above becomes suicide, which will never happen.

Computer games are important. I like where the legislation is heading. If only there was a way to remind, force, twist wrists of large publishers and developers that subscribe to the games-as-a-service model to not forget to create standalone, offline, playable version snapshots of their games with dedicated server options once they are done working on it for a plethora of damn good reasons, some of which being nostalgia, historical preservation or for those who've become emotionally attatched to it for one reason or the other.

I know how this sounds, I'm basically saying, Have a heart, dude!, to companies like EA and Ubisoft. But I can DREAM, Harold!
Makers of Ark survival released free server software with the game. And half the people I played with hosted their own servers, some on their own hardware. Encouraging people to host their own servers is a good thing.
It means that a lot of games will exist for a very long time. Games that have long life are good because they create communities of people who know each other for years.
 
Steam has become one of the first companies to admit that you do not own the games you buy.
I want to say something as a response to Steam's statement, but I'm very certain the TechSpot mods would be less than happy with it.

So instead I will paint a mental image:
I'm holding up both of my hands with a particular finger on each fully extended.

@ Valve,
You don't have the right to make this decisions. Our rights to ownership of what we pay for, or receive gratis, is a protected right, one you don't get to revoke on a whim.

Well, if buying isn't owning...
Exactly. Except that it is.
 
I want to say something as a response to Steam's statement, but I'm very certain the TechSpot mods would be less than happy with it.

So instead I will paint a mental image:
I'm holding up both of my hands with a particular finger on each fully extended.

@ Valve,
You don't have the right to make this decisions. Our rights to ownership of what we pay for, or receive gratis, is a protected right, one you don't get to revoke on a whim.


Exactly. Except that it is.
They’re not making a decision. You made the decision to accept the TOS every time you bought something, from day one.

We never had ownership, now they just have to admit it, instead of hiding it in the TOS.
 

Similar threads