PC gamers unite

[Sebree]

This goes without saying, every single gamer on Steam feels the same way about this scam "leasing" loophole that is being used for no other purpose but pure greed; has anyone ever heard of any other instance of paying money for a product they don't actually own? How is this legal? You guys must have OJ's lawyers. I want Post Scriptum; another user wants my Arma 3...what gives you the right to control the community and stifle trading? We both paid our money whats the big deal if we switched games. No wonder people pirate games; enjoy it while it lasts because I, along with many others, will not buy from Steam. These money grubbing greedy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ are so sick that they wont even let you pass your steam account in the event of your passing, look it up! My fellow PC gamers come out of the shadows; if we all stand together they will have to address this nonsense. I'm from a time when you went to the store, paid money for a game, and actually owned the game; if we're just renting it then why are we paying full price? Console gamers are allowed to trade games but not loyal PC enthusiasts? Such a shame and a disgrace to say the least. I'm sure they'll delete this comment, but I'll continue to post and get as many people behind me as possible. It doesn't matter what you put in your con artist contract you can't charge full price, but give us half rights like children. You better fix this or a few years from now you'll be thinking about this post and how you should stay out of our business!

[J4MESOX4D]

引用自 logicspace：

Nowadays, the only way to truly own a game is purchasing the physical copy. I heard even GOG is not truly DRM free.

Even physical copies today with a digital code are worthless plastic.

The only games which you can own 100% are those that aren't bound to DRM and don't require any forms of external online assistance to function.

[999999999]

So you made a thread along with this...?

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/1696048426803045111/#c1696048426812750557

[cinedine]

引用自 logicspace：

Nowadays, the only way to truly own a game is purchasing the physical copy. I heard even GOG is not truly DRM free.

"Ownership" is a legal concept. In the legal sense you never own a game unless you hold all the rights.
Same applies for books (or rather the story), music, or movies.

You only truly own the physical media the content is stored on. That is essentially what the Usesoft V. Oracle ruling was about. They were free to resell the CDs and the buyer was allowed to use these CDs as they see fit. It just happened that you could use them to install a fully working version of a software.

引用自 J4MESOX4D：

引用自 Sebree：

I'm an English major

Why is it always the self-proclaimed 'experts' of their respective field always have the most problems with it? It's like all the people with degrees in computer science getting phished by malware...

Everybody's an expert on the internet. Trust me, I'm an expert for interweb stuffs.

[Sebree]

I never insulted anyone whatsoever; I know there is no way to make you see my point; it makes me sad because they are winning. They are turning us against each other, acting as if people like me want something for free, when this is about simple property rights. Physical media? How does that make any difference? I never said console games bought digital could be traded, but I think we all know where they got that idea from..as for your first paragraph, it really adds no weight to your point and is desperately stretching to say the least; "not letting you play your game because of some other program you had." That still happens all the time and you know that is so unspecific and adds nothing to this discussion. Yes I remember how it was; the tech problems you mentioned were direct results of dial up internet and ancient OS's; this was a time when computer gaming was still mainly an idea, not a million dollar market like today. I don't mean to insult you, but you're so obvious; "oh no I don't like what he's saying...hmm I'll attack his punctuation and grammar because that's what's important here, while ironically telling ME to learn how to argue. I don't argue because I'm right about this; I wouldn't even bother shedding light on the topic if I wasn't. Steam's going down if they don't gain some integrity. You're essentially saying just because I don't have an outdated data disc packaged in a cardboard box with some graphic art on it that it makes a difference; like I said before personal music rights are the same. If I buy an album I can put it on as many devices as I want as long as I'm not making money.

[Start_Running]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 logicspace：

Nowadays, the only way to truly own a game is purchasing the physical copy. I heard even GOG is not truly DRM free.

"Ownership" is a legal concept. In the legal sense you never own a game unless you hold all the rights.
Same applies for books (or rather the story), music, or movies.

You only truly own the physical media the content is stored on. That is essentially what the Usesoft V. Oracle ruling was about. They were free to resell the CDs and the buyer was allowed to use these CDs as they see fit. It just happened that you could use them to install a fully working version of a software.

And thus, activation codes became a thing.

Also OP. Punctuation aside, would it kill you to use paragraphs?

引用自 Sebree：

. If I buy an album I can put it on as many devices as I want as long as I'm not making money.

As long as the devices are your devices and not someone else. Whether or not you make money is irrelevant to that law. Also even if you own an album there are rules regarding performance and what not. I.e it is for private use and playing that album for a crowd exceeding a certain number will net you hefty fines since you did not purchase the broadcrast rights.

Just because they may not be able to enforce the law, does not make breaking it any less a criminal act.

[tmwfte]

引用自 Sebree：

I'm an English major; do you think I give a crap about grammar on here?

You should. Clarity in communication is one of the hallmarks of the degree. An inability to present concise, coherent arguments in any forum suggests that you don't take the subject seriously and are probably failing.

[Winged One]

seriously OP, use paragraphs, for a supposed English Major you should no posting like that is hurting your argument as your posts are thereby painful to read..



but heres the thing, software licensing has worked this way since home PC's were a thing.. you have never owned the product, just the license to use the software.. not just games, litterally just about any software

heck, the only reason microsoft exists the way it does is because IBM took the time to explain software licensing to a young bill gates as he started up..

[Crazy Tiger]

引用自 Sebree：

You are right sir, although I don't consider the truth a "rant", but call it what you want; this isn't complicated; maybe it seems like a rant against Steam because, hmm, they're the only store that has the audacity to charge you full retail price to borrow a game until you die;

You obviously have little experience with digital stores. The Apple store has had games removed from the store and thus also removed from the purchase history, so you can not download them again.

So no, their not the only store to do that.

what is the sense in a game sitting in your library when someone else would love to play it and you would love to play something they have? That is part of the joy and beauty of gaming. I don't see a question to answer sir;

Well, I can play it again if I want to. I rarely sell on my games.

No questions? See these:

引用自 patje.lol：

Because Steam is the only digital games store that sells only licenses? The Apple/Google/Windows/GOG store are completely different?

what about mine? Why is Steam so special? Amazon, Wal Mart, Game Stop, any reputable company wouldn't be so defensive and greedy if you and another person wanted to trade a game you paid full price for. I really don't mean to argue; it's just clear as day to me and anyone else that isn't lying to themselves. "digital works differently"? You really can't tell me that makes any sense at all to you.

Yes, it does. Physical copies are less easy to shift around and share, because you need physical proximity. A digital key is easily sent by email to a couple of friends, while with physical media that's not so easy. It's something developers wanted and got.

[Sebree]

"the contracts have different names, like TOS, TOU, TOA, EULA, SSA, etc. Click "I agree" or "I accept" and you are signing a contract. Some are issued by Steam, some are issued by the game developer.

The developer does not want you selling/trading their games that have been used. They dont see any money when that happens." I am truly just absolutely baffled at the desperate defense of Steam's obvious selfish manipulation. Look at what you wrote; how the hell does the developer not see any money when games, that have already been paid for, are traded. Yea the contracts have different names alright...they have to make it as complex as they can and loophole their way into controlling your personal copy of a full priced game. This is just one of those topics that some of you will never admit the truth, and others, know their motives are as obvious as it gets; I already stated I don't buy from steam now, but that doesn't mean I should delete my account and lose what little privilege I've received for my full price money. I love you all and long live PC gaming! Steam is dead you'll see.

It may be painful to read, but that is a petty excuse to say the content of my argument isn't valid because I didn't make it look all pretty for people that obviously are brainwashed out of their heads.