Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
The amount of comments on social media that I saw of people surprised by this means this really wasn't something the average person knew about, it's natural to think if you paid for digital content it should've the same rights of physical. Though reselling will get messy.
The answer is to introduce law which would force digital products to be owned, not licenced for non commercial users.
I think the answer was to introduce a law which would force digital market places to clearly describe what users are paying for, for folks who weren't around during the controversial time when Steam and Xbox Live Arcade came out and can't grasp the concept; folks who didn't observe the reality before and after this shift.
Even though it was abundantly clear already, this is what the California law is all about.
If, with this clear explanation, you still want to merely get a license to use games via a service, you should be able to do it.
Valve isn't doing anything wrong: far from it. Steam is awesome and I understand that one day, it could all go away and with it, all the games I have access to.
I also understand that, at any time, Valve may decide that they don't want me to use Steam anymore, or that someone may hack into my account and I won't have access anymore.
Finally, I get that even now, things that I could do with physical games; I can't do with my Steam library (eg. Easily play a game on my Steam Deck while someone also plays another game on my desktop, or sell a game disc that sits on my desk).
I understood this when I reluctantly signed up to Steam to play Half Life 2 back in the day when it was a complete dumpster fire of a buggy mess of a service. But it has improved so much since then.
Hey, do you, but I don't see what the big deal is. We've already protested that Steam was a bad idea, and Valve was literally the devil, but it's actually turned out to be objectively more convenient than any alternative to play games, and it's no longer Valve forcing us to install Steam to play their games. Practically the entire industry has shifted, plus there are now alternatives (besides piracy) like GoG. Hopefully this law causes more competition in that DRM free space.
What exactly would that entail? I “own” Hades, thus I can depict Zagreus in my own works, as his likeness is my property? I’m allowed to copy the game to a dozen thumb drives and sell them on the street?
What exactly would that entail?
Go figure 🙄
Somewhat ironically, both of those things would actually require a license as opposed to ownership
It would mean that you were allowed to sell your license to somebody else, just as you would be able to with a physical copy.
It would mean that you could continue to have it, and be able to reinstall it on future hardware if Valve closed shop tomorrow.
Currently you can do neither of those things.
We knew it 10 years ago, we know it now, how is this news to anyone consuming online digital content?
If the game is FOSS, does this warning still show? 🤔
Yes.
Thanks, new California law!
We know about we been buying a license not a game.
Maybe the average lemmit, not the average gamer.
gestures to the other 99% of gamers
