3. NO RIGHT TO OWNERSHIP

[FunTomAsh™]

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU SHALL HAVE NO OWNERSHIP OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PRODUCT, AND YOU FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT ALL SUCH RIGHTS ARE AND SHALL FOREVER BE OWNED BY AND INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF SEGA. Except as expressly licensed to you herein, all right, title, and interest in and to the Product and any and all associated copyrights, trademarks and intellectual properties therein and/or related thereto and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any patches, updates, copies, derivative works, titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialogs, catchphrases, locations, concepts, artwork, images, animation, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, text, methods of operation, moral rights, “applets” incorporated into the Product and any related documentation) are owned by SEGA or SEGA's licensors.

The Product is protected by United States copyright laws, international copyright treaties and conventions, and other laws. All rights are reserved. The Product contains certain licensed materials, and SEGA and SEGA's licensors may protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement.

The limited license granted to you under this Agreement does not give you any title or ownership in the Product and should not be construed as a sale or transfer of any intellectual property rights in or relating to the Product.

SEGA really disgusts me with their new EULA - u can't even own a singleplayer game you bought. If buying isn't owning, then pirating isn't stealing? Right Sega?
https://store.steampowered.com/eula/1875830_eula_1

[SadPlatty©]

Origineel geplaatst door FunTomAsh™:

I dont want to waste my time on your fantasies, you anyway wouldn't understand, but i say only this: To access a singleplayer game you need only your own hardware (besides game itself). For multiplayer game you also need (in most cases) access server. Banning in almost every game means closing access to that server. Steam is a bit different case.
Also, I'm not just saying - I'm pointing to the EU directives, where IT IS WRITTEN.

Am just putting in what I see coming out of this thread tbh; you just keep telling me what I said is true - this time in your last sentence.

The software I mentioned is effectively a single-player game. I buy a license, and then install the "game"/software. It doesn't then phone home like Denuvo, it doesn't even need you to be connected to the internet after (use it for home network to see connected devices, IP addresses, MAC addresses, possibly more if left open).

If I choose to then stop outside a place with WiFi and connect, I am still just "playing my game", but it happens to have functionality that allows me to connect with others (in a way). The only "banning" that can happen to me is I get told to remove the software from my device (which to your point, I legally don't need to do within those 2 years).

Though - I guess that's a special permissible case; just like how Steam makes it so I can't play Dark Souls Remastered online on Tuesdays while they push updates (literally preventing me from doing something I paid for once a week during what could be considered peek hours for a Tuesday - 6PM ET).

[the_randomizer1889]

Just because the EULA is law doesn't make it morally right

[Emerald Lance]

Origineel geplaatst door MESeele:

I thought something like this happened before a few times. A game had a ludicrous personal EULA, but despite people signing it, it did not supersede the government's laws... I don't know this stuff well at all though.

A EULA cannot supercede law. However, no law is being broken here. We are being told exactly what we're buying, and are agreeing to it when we sign the EULA. Selling a license to use a software is legal as long as the seller is honest about what they're selling.

Where it gets murky (in the US at least) is that the end user owns the 1s and 0s on their hardware, assuming it was put there legally. In this case, it is. So even if the license is revoked, the end user isn't obligated to delete the software from their hardware. And reverse engineering the software so that you can have easier access to it (ie cracking it) is also legal, assuming you don't use that knowledge to promote piracy (the illegal sharing of software, which this is not).

In other words, them selling you a license to rent the software is legal. And the publishers aren't obligated to honor that license if you break the agreement. However, once the software is on your machine, it is considered yours, and you can legally crack it if you want to as long as you don't share. This is why mods are legal in US.

[MESeele]

Origineel geplaatst door Emerald Lance:

An interesting read. But I didn't sign a EULA when purchasing the game...only when I tried to start it. Sounds pretty dishonest.

edit: I'm not complaining btw. I'll have my fun with the game either way. I'm just curious about this.

[Paladin Larec]

This is why I always buy the physical copy of a game (preferably on Switch, but this game I bought on PS5) and then buy it on Steam to actually play it here. Like the new Dragon Quest 3 remake, I have it pre-ordered on switch so I have a physical way to play it that can't be stopped through online trickery. I'm fortunate I have the money for it, but it IS a really crappy reality.

[TheShadowHatter]

I mean...that's why piracy exists OP. If there's ever a moment where Steam takes access away from our games (I highly doubt it seeing as how Valve/Steam/Gaben have a good record of good consumer practices), people will most likely pirate those games and regain access to them through those means.

Unfortunately in the digital age we can't really expect to own the things we buy. That's why it's just a general consensus that most people support piracy anyways. Besides, it's technically not stealing since you're only making a digital copy of something and nothing was reduced by doing so. Since you can download something infinite times, you're not really stealing anything when you pirate a game.

[RDG]

Origineel geplaatst door Overeagerdragon:

Origineel geplaatst door FunTomAsh™:

Yes, I'm serious. Why is it normal? These EULA's are going against European Union's consumer protection law. If they just "take away" my ownership I can take it to the court. Companies spitting in your face and you are here to protect them?

It doesn't... you signed the EULA so if you take it to court you'll lose... Dunno where you live but you've obviously missed the whole sony debacle where they removed heaps of content from people who bought it on their storefront.

But feel free NOT agreeing to the EULA and subsequently not playing any game ever anymore

If they suddenly took off your access they would lose to any court very easily unless they refund you (maybe even if they do). It may be "a license" but it is not marketed as such, nobody says "OH YEAH IM FINALLY GOING TO BUY A LICENSE TO PLAY THIS GAME!". You are "buying a game".

It should also be stated before you buy the game, not after you paid, AND in a 500 page long document.

[Astellin]

honestly you have never owned a game in your life

[TheShadowHatter]

Origineel geplaatst door Astellin:

honestly you have never owned a game in your life

lol what? you have if you own a physical copy. they can't just suddenly go to your house and take your game away.

[MESeele]

I hear some PS3 titles just had nearly blank discs and would make you download the game through an internet connection...

But anyone old enough to have owned a PS2, Gamecube, or earlier certainly owned their games.

[mimizukari]

Origineel geplaatst door FunTomAsh™:

I didn't accept it. And you know that according EU Digital Content Directive, I have at least 2 years guarantee period for digital content and services? So, just not letting me in a game I bought is already goes against laws. And each country has it's own laws, including about ownership of digital goods. Also, and Steam and Sega can just delete game from your library, because of the consequences. Just like Valve approves refunds which are within 2 week period but with >2 hours. Because it's also the right on refund within 14 days of purchasing and the time doesn't matter, according to EU Directive on Consumer Rights (Directive 2011/83/EU).

I started this discussion to see if people ok with this, that they can be screwed like that, but that mentality really impressed me.

Origineel geplaatst door Overeagerdragon:

It doesn't... you signed the EULA so if you take it to court you'll lose... Dunno where you live but you've obviously missed the whole sony debacle where they removed heaps of content from people who bought it on their storefront.

But feel free NOT agreeing to the EULA and subsequently not playing any game ever anymore

you accepted the EULA by buying the product and registering it to your account, that's why the EULA is available on the store page. You signed your rights away after having read and agreed to this.

Origineel geplaatst door MESeele:

I hear some PS3 titles just had nearly blank discs and would make you download the game through an internet connection...

But anyone old enough to have owned a PS2, Gamecube, or earlier certainly owned their games.

Wrong, same kind of copyrights still applied, you did not OWN any part of the ip/copyright/etc and while you could make a backup for personal copy, reverse engineering/modifying/etc would fall under an IP breach, you did not own these games either.

[Benji]

Has anyone ever bothered to tally up how much it would cost to change the laws to make clauses like this not enforceable? I think that's a better use of our time then debating on if we should be agreeing to the EULA. We already know people don't like the terms and agreeing upon them is the path of least resistance. How about we actually figure out how to fix the issue.

[Tenshu]

Origineel geplaatst door RDG:

Origineel geplaatst door Overeagerdragon:

It doesn't... you signed the EULA so if you take it to court you'll lose... Dunno where you live but you've obviously missed the whole sony debacle where they removed heaps of content from people who bought it on their storefront.

But feel free NOT agreeing to the EULA and subsequently not playing any game ever anymore

If they suddenly took off your access they would lose to any court very easily unless they refund you (maybe even if they do). It may be "a license" but it is not marketed as such, nobody says "OH YEAH IM FINALLY GOING TO BUY A LICENSE TO PLAY THIS GAME!". You are "buying a game".

It should also be stated before you buy the game, not after you paid, AND in a 500 page long document.

If you have an old game somewhere lying around, like a Genesis game, a PSX game, etc... look inside the instruction manual. This kind of policy has existed for a long time. It's mostly legal mumbo jumbo, but read it carefully. It's saying you don't have the legal right to say for example "I own Shin Megami Tensei V Vengeance" just because you bought this and can tinker with the game's code to market a derivative work for your own gain. This technically means you can't mod the game but we all know that's case-by-case. Companies have to tell you this ♥♥♥♥ to cover their asses in a worst-case scenario but it's case-by-case who actually enforces it. To OP look at the context, it's talking about a lot of in-depth ♥♥♥♥ and copyright.

[Lonewolf]

Check the terms and conditions on games from 20 years ago that you have physical copies of, same thing, this isn't new. Even when you had a physical game you didnt own it, just the right to play it.

[Topzchi]

WE ARE RUINED! ALL IS LOST!