Company complies with the law.
PCMR: Wow, what a great company!
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
302 points (98.7% liked)
PC Gaming
8568 readers
475 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
I just really want to pass on my game library to my kids one day. Can licenses be passed on, or is inheriting entertainment just dead now?
Buy from GOG, download and archive the installers yourself.
If i remember correctly, gog allows this
According to the EULA, no. According to common sense, leave the steam password in your will and you're fine.
Good. I like transparency and this has always been the truth. And I'm glad Valve isn't doing much to fight against it.
I find it indescribably funny that no matter what, every news site somehow manages to always put a mobile app install screen with the company's product as the banner image for their articles, even in this case, when I think most people would have probably never even thought of Steam as a mobile app, only as PC software.
You used to able to buy a game in a box and it came with a code. Games got too large and instead of the next thing after Blu-Ray, they went full digital. Maybe we can get legislation for PC game have to have a physical option and have discs for installing and when you use the code you can undo the code and be able to resell it. Thoughts?
To play devils advocate, which I seem to do a lot lately I admit, you were still just purchasing a license then as well. The process of revocation would be so convoluted as to be all but impossible, but you were never actually purchasing permanent and irrevocable access to the game.
And if you want to get back to that, just buy your games from GOG.
Or just pirate the games you purchase, and it won’t matter if your Steam account is banned or deleted. Which is honestly often the better option these days, because it has the bullshit DRM ripped out of it.
Or just pirate the games you purchase, and it won’t matter if your Steam account is banned or deleted. Which is honestly often the better option these days, because it has the bullshit DRM ripped out of it.
most games don't have DRM, so this is easily done by making a copy of the game files, and using the goldberg steam emu on it
Every game I bought before the wording change should be under my ownership imo. Retroactive shit is bullshit.
It was always in the EULA. You signed the contract when you made the account.
Nobody reads that shit.
It's still not retroactive
thepiratebay.org
If you didn’t already know this 20 years ago then you are special.
Oor you dont pay attention to tech news.
Theres a reason california passed that law, its not clear enough that you dont own the games
This was always the case. The only difference is the words they use.
The only difference is the words they have to use. They aren't making this change by choice
I feel like there needs to be some kind of way of recording what games have been purchased (licensed) so that if a store were using goes out of business we should be able to get it from another store, at least for a very reduced price just to cover their costs.
This isn't up to the stores. It's up to the gaming developers who own the right to license the games. I have been making this argument for years, and explaining digital (and physical) content licensing to people on the internet for years and almost always get downvoted because they don't like facts that interfere with their sense of righteousness.
I don't disagree that is scummy practice to randomly end a license and take something someone paid for out of their library or otherwise deny them access to it. but I cannot stress enough that this is the fault of both parties or the licensing agreement (the license seller and the entity that agrees to allow the license seller to sell licenses to the content). People will always blame Sony or Amazon or Apple. But never Universal, or Disney, or Paramount or whoever. It's both. They're both assholes in this scenario. One of them is limited by the law. The other one can offer that content by other means to people who have already purchased it once but won't because capitalism and greed.
If gamers weren't so against it, honestly NFTs could actually be that thing.
view more: next ›