PC Gaming

8568 readers

344 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

302

Steam now tells gamers up front that they're buying a license, not a game (www.engadget.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It informs customers, that licensing a game on Steam is not like buying a pair of pants on pantsshop24.org. That's what it's meant to do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I thought it would only apply to certain games. I feel like it's just normalizing it rather than really being educational. Now companies can go fullboar with games only being a license and just point to the disclaimer as an excuse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Well, in this case, it is actually Valve that does the licensing. I don't think the original companies have much to do with it, other than maybe being more willing to sell through Steam than e.g. GOG.

But all in all, yes, it would be a much more useful law, if it declared such a licensing model void.
I'm guessing, they didn't tackle that problem, because there are more legitimate uses of a licensing model, like World of Warcraft only giving you access while you're paying the monthly fee.

Nothing unsolvable, but you need some solid laws and it'd be a lot less likely that you'd get support from enough political parties to carry this into actual law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You only buy a license to watch/listen media private in most cases. Even if yo buy a DRM free copy of a film/track/game, you only have a license to consume it private. If you want to show (or share) with public, you need another (way more expensive) license to do that legally.

The only difference is, when you only stream the media or there is DRM on the files, it is not possible to archive it easily and the danger of lost media is far greater.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Dude, you just cannonballed into the Achualy pool. You know that's not what we're all talking about.