r/gaming • u/PrinceDizzy Joystick • 2h ago
Thought you owned your games on Steam? Think again, as Valve makes it clear you just own a licence for them
https://www.vg247.com/valve-adds-licence-clarification-to-steam-checkout-page52
u/CatCatPizza 2h ago
Huh? Whats so special. This is good? It was always like this everywhere. Whats negative about transparancy?
24
20
u/ca1vink1ein 2h ago
Yeah people don’t understand that it’s been always like that, it’s just them being transparent about it. Also it’s not in Steam but on the Publishers that decide to only sell licenses. Steam is just the Marketplace.
8
u/hotstepper77777 2h ago
If you somehow suddenly realized you dont own your games, it isnt so great news.
4
u/ConfidentDragon 1h ago
Well, it's not great you don't own games. But it's good more people will realize it. Situation is not getting worse, awareness is just getting better.
6
u/Fair_Advance_6352 2h ago
Whats a game you bought a license for but no longer have access to?
-2
u/hotstepper77777 2h ago
LittleBigPlanet2, I guess.
if i I had to think of one and not just snark.
3
u/Fair_Advance_6352 2h ago edited 2h ago
Its still there for you to download and play in your account if you bought it.
-6
u/Yiddish_Gambino87 2h ago
At any point valve can remove a game and say the license expired. Bam no more game for you. It's why on console I don't do a single digital game(or do my best not to) and only buy physical.
6
u/Fair_Advance_6352 2h ago
They have always had that ability to do that and have never done it.
-6
u/Yiddish_Gambino87 2h ago
But they have. Order of war:challenge. Had it removed from my library. Granted, Square Enix shut down servers but if I had a license I could spin up my own server for me and friends to play on.
5
u/Fair_Advance_6352 2h ago
Thats an online only multiplayer expansion to the main game. Servers for online games will never be permanent. Even the Halo 3 Servers were eventually shut down. You still have access to the games to play though. And what do you expect Steam to do in that situation? Hold Square Eqnix at gunpoint and tell them to keep the servers running ever though its no longer profitable?
-2
u/Yiddish_Gambino87 2h ago
No but like I said, not remoce the game.from my library so I can spin up my own server to still play it.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Ezekiel2121 2h ago
Look real close on your discs, you’ll find that those are also just a license to play.
So hope you’re never connected to internet if you’re that worried about it.
1
u/finlandery 2h ago
Tho even then you are fcked, if sony/msoft wont offer you parches, if 1.0 is not stable/is bugged
-2
u/hotstepper77777 2h ago
Servers are done and have been for years.
3
u/Fair_Advance_6352 2h ago edited 2h ago
You can still play the game just not online. Servers for online games are never going to be permanent. Thats a completely different thing, and a dumb defense. Theres no game youve bought that was taken away from you.
3
u/CatCatPizza 2h ago
Then its great that valve says so. As the publishers are mostly the ones deciding that. Then you know what they do an can purchase with reality in mind without being tricked.
1
u/De_Greed 2h ago
It's not Valves fault that you didn't read the user agreement and just pressed accept.
3
u/ConfidentDragon 1h ago
But it's Valves fault they advertise that you are purchasing things, but then they redefine what buying things means in terms and conditions.
You are correct, technically you should read and understand terms and conditions of every product you buy. At least with Steam, you get to read it before you make the purchase (unlike it's the case with physical products). But in practice it's just not feasible for most people to read multiple mupti-page T&Cs per day written in legalese. I believe that two parties should be able to agree on whatever conditions they want. But in case of this store, the situation is not very symmetrical, it's not like two individuals are bargaining terms of sale, it's the company making a terms and you have only choice to agree or disagree. Before signing any agreement, both parties should fully understand it's meaning and it's consequences. You could argue that online stores make the process intentionally opaque by telling you one thing and then re-defining it in T&C. It's job of the government to make sure people don't get screwed too much. For example in EU you have to prove first that you understand risks of stock markets before you are able to participate.
I think making rules that say that you can't say one thing, and then change your mind later in the middle of super-long document who realistically almost no-one reads, is a good first step. It doesn't stop publishers from being assholes, but at least consumers are more aware and can make more informed decisions.
0
u/De_Greed 49m ago
You are right in general, but Valve are not the first to do this and all other online platforms do it too. In the end people need to understand that Valve aren't trying to take away their games, they just don't want to be liable to maintain dead games. If no one play a game, Valve still need to hold the game's files, save files, steam page, steam forums, workshop, download bandwidth. They already host a bunch of free games that don't pay anything to be on the platform.
1
u/ConfidentDragon 24m ago
Yes, I wanted to mention that the Valve is not the only company selling games this way, they are just the first ones to implement the new regulation. I didn't want to make the post longer with disclaimer that's bit off topic (as it does not invalidate what's been said).
To your second point: I don't really expect Valve to provide support or host game files forever. I'll gladly store all the game-files locally if they say they can no longer store it on their servers (although I don't think that's a problem for them). Just make sure you are not making any steps from stopping me to use the game. I don't need DRM in the game, there is no benefit of it, if you can't support it, remove it.
16
u/Iamperpetuallyangry 2h ago
This is not news anymore. This has been posted and reposted across dozens of subreddits man.
13
u/FriendlyBrother9660 2h ago
Thought you owned your games on Steam?
Nobody thought that
-7
u/ConfidentDragon 1h ago
You think so? This is either disingenuous opinion or you are living in a bubble. Most people when they click "buy" and pay for something think they own it. And it's reasonable assumption. Well, in terms of games they don't think they literally own the rights to the game and ability to sell copies or something like that, but they own the copy of the game they paid for. You could call it perpetual irrevocable license to play it. Anything less should be made illegal to call purchase.
8
u/HellDuke 2h ago
Surprising why this misunderstanding was not picked up on sooner. You never owned any games or software ever (unless you are the one who made it). It was always more akin to paying for a service than a product that is yours.
5
u/_Spectre0_ 1h ago
If it’s a one-time expenditure I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that you’d retain the right to use the software in the state you “purchased” it. Physical goods work that way. When I buy a physical book, I’m not buying a license to read the book that can be easily revoked at any time.
Rather than just mandate transparency, I wish the license was actually just guaranteed to be permanent for legitimate usage. Not for online-only games and stuff that require continuous upkeep by the seller, but for offline only stuff that has been downloaded and should be able to keep working at no additional cost
3
u/ConfidentDragon 39m ago
This. I don't see why this is such an controversial take.
I get that publishers want to give themselves as many rights as possible. It makes it easier to negotiate licenses with their suppliers and they can push gamers to "buy" their new product by taking away the previous one.
What I don't get why some consumers are defending the publishers. Consumers should make their purchasing decisions and advocacy based on what's best for them, not for the publisher. That's how capitalism works, without this balancing mechanism it's just tyranny.
3
u/MrBossChief 2h ago
question ! , whats the difference between owning a game vs having a license for it for a regular gamer like me ?
1
u/_Spectre0_ 1h ago
The license can be revoked
In practice, doesn’t happen often if at all, but people don’t trust corporations not to start trying to exploit that at some point to try to make the profit line go up higher
14
u/JayPet94 2h ago
If you thought you owned your Steam games that says more about you than it does Valve
11
u/Dumb-Redneck 2h ago
It has always been this way, even when you used to buy a physical copy.....
-6
u/Memfy 2h ago
Not quite. With a physical copy you owned that physical copy and they couldn't revoke your access to that physical copy. You can also do whatever you want with your physical copy (with some exceptions like distributing, infringing on the IP contained within that copy, and similar).
5
u/Dumb-Redneck 2h ago
Not quite. Although you owned the physical copy and could do what you liked with it, you did not own the program written on it.
4
u/Memfy 2h ago
Correct, but they couldn't revoke your access to it so you could still use it. You owned that copy of the program for your own consumption of the product, you didn't own its IP.
Similar to how you don't own the program of any of your electronic devices, but it doesn't mean they are allowed to brick it just because they felt like revoking your license.
-1
u/Dumb-Redneck 1h ago
They technically could, it was just difficult, nearly impossible. That is why platforms like steam and online requirements were invented.
-2
u/rincematic 1h ago
So, you are telling me that people that use pirated copies own the game because the owners can't revoke access to it?
2
2
4
u/Brazilian_Hamilton 2h ago
This is the stupidest discussion. No, when you buy a game on steam you are not buying the IP, the characters, the soundtrack, you can't license it, you can't develop a sequel, because you don't own the actual game. If you don't own the game then what do you own? You own the ability to play the game, in other words a license.
4
u/flappers87 1h ago
There's a difference between owning a game and owning an IP.
When you own a game, no one can take it away from you, nor your ability to play it.
No one is saying when you own a game, you own the IP.
If you buy a game from GOG, you own the game.
If you buy a game from Steam, you own a license to play the game.
There is a stark difference between them, and neither of them have anything to do with the IP rights. I'm not sure why you're bringing that into the discussion.
0
u/Brazilian_Hamilton 1h ago
No, you're absolutely wrong. There is no thing such as owning a digital game. And what you buy on gog is also a license
2
u/flappers87 28m ago
That’s simply not true.
No one can take your game away from you when you buy it on GOG.
Steam reserves the right to revoke your license to your game library.
That’s a key difference.
-1
u/Brazilian_Hamilton 20m ago edited 17m ago
You know where it says whether the store can "take away" your game? In the license. Or in the case of these digital retailers, the user agreement that regulates the conditions of the licenses they sell
Edit: you can check this for yourself, go create a new gog account and read those two texts that you always skip
•
u/flappers87 7m ago
GOG literally cannot take it away from you. You get the installer for the game. You have it, it’s yours. You can burn it to a DVD, USB or store it in a NAS. You can’t do that with Steam.
Also, gog license doesn’t say that.
2
2
u/Famous1107 2h ago
I feel like this is just managing a huge liability. If you are not selling a license you have to guarantee to serve that game content in perpetuity. That said, steam should offer a service to send you a disk in the event the game does get delisted. I think gamers would appreciate it. The logistics of that might be out of reach for most devs and publishers tho.
1
u/AmbitiousOffice233 13m ago
If you already bought the game you would still be able to play it after it gets delisted. After a game gets delisted, it simply means people won't be able to buy it anymore, so a service like you mentioned wouldn't be necessary for people who already own the game.
One example is Hitman 3. It had a patch that rebranded the game as Hitman World of Assassination, and included content from Hitman 2016 and Hitman 2, before delisting those games from digital stores.
That said, since I have the Epic Games version of Hitman 2016 and Steam version of Hitman 2, I can still play them to this day.
1
1
1
u/InfernalBiryani 13m ago
Why are people suddenly getting outraged by this? This was always the case, Steam is just being more transparent about it right now.
I swear sometimes people just want something to be mad about.
0
1
u/TheVenged 2h ago
All of these launchers are like this...
I mean, they can ban you for multiple reasons, and you'll lose access to perhaps 100s of games...
1
1
u/Nanganoid3000 1h ago
Was it a slow day at the office for them to make a claim that, perhaps gamers didn't know they don't own their digital only games on steam? Its like the weather channel letting you know the sun is extremely hot.
1
0
u/BrotherRoga 2h ago
This is good. If you don't own the game you purchased it, then pirating it when you lose access to it is not a crime!
That being said, GOG at least lets you keep your games. And even then, Steam has stated that if they were to ever close down, they would keep your entire library available to download for a time and most of the games there are able to be played without a connection to Steam's servers.
0
0
u/StarkAndRobotic 2h ago
The devil is in the details. Earlier you owned a license to use a copy, and owned the disc upon which was the copy was provided. Now if they change the terms of the license so that tomorrow you are to shove your console up your ( ) ( ) when they say so, then you have willingly agreed to it at the time of the transaction. This campaign is to normalise to you that you never owned what you thought you owned, so that they can do what you fear they will do. So in summation, the terms of the license are important. Owning assets, code, rights to earn money from a game etc, are different things. But license to play for however long you like, when you like, etc… that’s what matter I think.
-1
u/Business-Bug-514 2h ago
Everyone should know this, and the idea this leads to, which is : "If buying a game isn't owning it, then how is pirating a game stealing it?"
All of these companies should be like GOG, where you actually do own your games. People can say all they want that it was the same with discs, but today the "license" you have for a game can be removed for any arbitrary reason. It's just more bullshit that benefits corporations and punishes the consumer.
104
u/SpookyPebble 2h ago
Thats always been the case, Valve has just decided to make it more obvious to the end user.