Thoughts on STEAM saying we don't own the game

[SIDEKICK]

i would like to get a feedback from Coffee Stain Studios regarding STEAM announcement that we don't own the game. its hitting some nerves and i wanna know,

do we have rights to play these games outside of STEAM ? i realized typing this that the answer may not be good since we bought a copy from steam. i hope there was a direct website in coffee stain studios where we can buy a copy, which is an offline game, and play it as we please without the threat of it being taken away someday.

[Fenix]

Nothing has change, We have always only owned a licence for the game, Steam is just forced to disclose it.

[wux]

Steam isn't going anywhere any time soon, there's no threat of it being taken away from you.

[ShelLuser]

I've been gaming ever since my Commodore 64, now a long, long time ago. Even back when you bought games on physical media you never really owned the game itself according to the included licenses.

Or what about professional software? I'm an audio nut and have both Ableton Live 12 (suite edition) as well as FL Studio (all-plugins edition) as part of my home studio. Here's a fun little snippet for you:

Originally posted by Ableton EULA (not gaming related!):

You, through your act of downloading, installing, copying or using any Ableton Product, do not acquire any ownership rights to such Ableton Product. Ableton Products are protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The rights to use Ableton Products as set out in this EULA are licensed, not sold, to You by Ableton.

Fun fact... this isn't a $40 game, but a $599 digital audio workstation. And you can see above, you still don't own the software itself.

Nothing changed here, nothing at all.

[Psycho]

That legal agreement you pressed, "YES I agree with all terms and conditions of sale?" to when you bought the game? Yes, you are bound by your agreement, and yes, you legally and permanently agreed you would be getting a "licence to use" under those terms, which also includes the ability to change those terms (dependant on applicable laws in your country etc).

In practise, nothing has changed (with some small exceptions) and you should have nothing to worry about. This is very likely a legal tactic by Valve to limit their liability, ironically, because they were too nice to customers. Cite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0c8Kka8bko

[Tera]

The devs won't care, every service that provide digital goods like games and movies does this nowadays. So there is no good alternative to this unless the devs publish it on their own platform which they aren't.

[Sokaku]

This has been happening for decades. "You will own nothing and you will be happy."

As far as software licensing vs. ownership goes, nothing has changed. When you buy a game, whether hard copy or digital you never "owned" the game. You "owned" a license to play that game, and that is what the court case is forcing Steam to clarify. Steam does not sell you a "license to play the game" like how a site like GoG does, they sell you a "licence to play the game on Steam". If you buy a game on CD/DVD, you don't own anything other than the physical material the game was distributed on. As far as installing & playing the game, you purchased just a license from the publisher.

The distinction in Steam's case is that if Steam decides you as an individual breaks its terms of service etc. and suspends your account, you lose access to ALL past purchases. With something like GoG, if you break their terms of service and have your account suspended you lose the ability to buy games on their platform but your existing licenses from the respective publishers are unaffected.

When you bought games on CD/DVD you can opt to link those to Steam and add them to your library. If Steam shuts down tomorrow or suspends you for whatever reason those licenses you purchased from a retailer are unaffected. So the issue is that Steam needs to be clear that when you spend $80 to "buy" a title from their library, you are buying a license to use a license of that game on the Steam platform, and not buying a licence for the game as you would be with GOG or from a store. (whether you link those licenses to Steam or not) It gets murkier because you can buy Steam Keys from 3rd parties.

This is being played out in courts now because of the rug pull that happened with digital movies where streaming platforms offered the option to "buy" vs. rent titles but then notified customers that had "bought" titles that they wouldn't be able to view the titles after that service's licensing agreement with the media studios were not renewed. What you thought you were "buying" was actually an "unlimited rental, while available". Two very different things. Often titles for "sale" were not available to watch via regular streaming offerings, or you would want to keep the title once it were likely removed from regular offerings to make room for new titles. I doubt anyone would reasonably expect that if they "bought" the movie that they would be still dependent on the title being available on the platform without the option of downloading a copy etc.

[Oceanstorm]

Bear in mind that Satisfactory is DRM free meaning that you can download the game, move it to a completely different location and then run it without steam if you want to.
Just need to create a shortcut with “factorygame.exe -nosteamclient”

Hopefully that helps to allay the concerns of the OP.

[NocheLuz]

This hasn't changed since the day you own the physical copy. You buy the physical copy. You own the physical copy. But you never own the game. As long as you have the physical copy, you can play the game. But if your physical copy got damaged and cannot play anymore, you are screwed. That is why most of the game Dev/Publisher has a very negative view of making a backup copy.

While in Steam, you never own the physical copy. But as long as Steam stays, you can download and play the game. While GOG is also the same, you'll own the installer, but never the game. If you lost the installer, you can download it again, as long as GOG stays.

[Oceanstorm]

Love GOG....I run the gogrepoc.py script once a week to backup all of my GOG games from their server to my local storage so even if they have an outage, I have all of the installers, patches and extras available to hand

[Sokaku]

Originally posted by Oceanstorm:

Bear in mind that Satisfactory is DRM free meaning that you can download the game, move it to a completely different location and then run it without steam if you want to.
Just need to create a shortcut with “factorygame.exe -nosteamclient”

Hopefully that helps to allay the concerns of the OP.

Yes, publishers using Steam still have some control over how the game is "sold". Many will simply opt for the default. Steam isn't being evil in any way, just mainly called out on wording. For the vast majority of customers you're not likely to find yourself doing something so bad that Steam locks down your account. What's more likely is you break the ToS of a particular multiplayer game and that company opts to temporarily or permanently void your license. And it's very unlikely Steam as a platform is going anywhere.

If you do want to "purchase" your licenses then there are some games on Steam that works to a degree, or you can purchase through GOG or a store etc. As for Steam charging $80 for an "on Steam" license vs. $80 for a game license, with Steam you get a platform where you can re-download/install a title /w rolling patches etc. rather than managing your own backups etc. A fee of convenience.

[Gal Kraft]

Rest assured, you will always own your student loan debt. (U.S.)

[TH3R4BB!T]

Would be fun if we own the game, then we can do with it what ever we want without CSS having anything to say. Even a physical copy can be a 'code in a box', like most publishers do, and so you are still forced to play on an online platform

[Dirtyshadow]

Doesn't matter, unless its a Valve game... Steam is a middle man. The license is with the publisher/developer at the end of all those EULAs.

If Steam collapsed faster than FTX, my games on all those third party launchers will still exist... and it may be up to the publishers and developers to honor the licenses we bought through Steam regardless of if it we bought if from Valve, Epic, Microsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard etc... it would also be in the interest of publishers and developers to resolve customer issues and return games.

The biggest issue still comes down to one thing... if Steam revokes your access to your account and bans you from the platform. That would make them liable for their decision, and may have to compensate you for losses, which you would have to pursue either through voluntary mediation or legal action. Because revoking your access to licensed products you fairly purchase can be seen as an unfair and punitive action.

[Cheesecake]

You have ALWAYS only bought a LICENSE and now its being disclosed upfront instead of buried in the EULA. Nothing has changed.

[Crunchy[Daz]]

You have never owned your games. Steam can take games away from you or just ban your account just because they feel like it. You have essential purchased a pass to get the game and play it through their system.