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.
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
536 points (98.0% liked)
196
16359 readers
2330 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Guys, this is a standard license agreement. This isn't them saying "haha we can remove games at will from your library!"
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.
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
Yeah isn't this like the thing that California required them to do?
They can though
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.
People going on about being authorized do do this, not authorized to do that. General rule, don't listen to others telling you what to do and what no to do if they can't enforce their own rules. Steam and the rest of the digital corpos talk big, and act small. Do what you want, play your games not through steam, they handed the files to you and asked you nicely not do do what you want with them, you're perfectly free not to listen to them, and honestly you shouldn't listen to them 🏴☠️.
view more: next ›