安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
You still do not own those games. You licence them. The Witcher 3 eula for example applies to both the GOG Galaxy version and the offline installer.
The offline installers are a backup in case you do not have Internet.
"We, the company, assume full control of the product. You have no rights to anything, and you own nothing. We still want to get paid for it as if you were actually purchasing ownership, though, and we'll dress it up to look like it to try and trick you."
May sound like a joke, but actually a very accurate summary.
For a company or investors, the golden goose is "selling a service", because that's a product you can milk indefinitely. If their product is a good or an item, many will either tack on a service, or softlock the product to require a regular fee to function. Like how a car manufacturer now wants to sell a subscription to make the heater elements in the seats work (physical goods that have already been paid for in production). Strip the corporatespeak nonsense away and it's just the same thing:
"We want you to be a cash battery and do not want you to own anything". Because ownership includes rights, and bars indefinite milking.
It's nothing new, but in the modern world everything's connected to the internet, everything requires regular updates, anything can be changed, disabled or have its service turned off at the flip of a switch, and so the "everything is a service" model has grown more popular.
It's not entirely dissimilar to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
A comparison I draw to point out that the essence of it is nothing new, tale old as history, and apparently it will re-emerge again and again unless there's unified agreement against it (like laws addressing the issue). Always owe = always pay. Own nothing = always pay. That's the basic idea.
And at the end of the day, legalese aside, it's ridiculous and it's gotta stop. Some consumer laws are coming into place to fix it, but it'll take some time before they're fully established.
There's a reason for that. And it is worth noting that GoG has the same clause that you are only getting a license...the difference is that GoG due to the way they designed their system, have no way of stopping you.
Though it is worth noting that while GoG games don't have hard DRM, they do akllow 'Soft Drm. so be wary of that for any newer installers you get on Gog.
If that's your summary you clearly did not read. :).
"You own a license use the software as defined and provided by the publisher for your personal non-commercial use on a single machine at a time."
That is what you own.
And spoler. That's all you've ever really owned. buut like many gamers I suspect you have a looong history of never reading the eulas or doccumentation that came with your games.
The license thing has been a thing since the late 80's
Thanks you for your reply with a p.a. smiley at the end, but you're either deliberately obtuse or just missing the general point.
The commentary is clearly about what the end takeaway is for the average user these days, as the broader message of the post should make pretty clear. Either you didn't read it in full or you missed the overall message. Think of it as deliberate exaggeration to drive through a more general point about the modern concept of purchase viz ownership.
I can re-summarize if need be:
Modern sales often coast on the premise set by earlier generations that a sale or purchase implies some form of ownership. This is the common perception and expectation to this day, and the drift away from this standard is becoming a problem, as buyers sometimes lose access to what they purchased, even though the average person can agree there was no clear need for this outcome, but it was the unfortunate consequence of a profit motive gone too far.
Then we get the usual:
"This sucks, I don't like it"
-"It's in the 50 page document you agreed to that only a lawyer can meaningfully decipher"
"That's unfair."
-"So what?"
Not very productive, is it?
Would be nice if buying something involved reasonable guarantees. You "bought a game" (re-dress with legalese to skirt inconveniences as desired), paid a full price that should cover all costs, would be nice to be able to play it again in 10 years, wouldn't it?
Nobody likes to pay for a game (again, re-dress with legalese as desired to technically disagree and skirt inconveniences) and then suddenly lose access to it because the publisher turned a dumb leaf. Yet this has happened.
Most of us reasonable people think that it sucks and the practice needs some regulation.
Most of us consider it reasonable that "buy this game" means you get to have a working copy now and in the future. And most of us aren't happy with how the average EULA is 50 pages in total, full of lawyer speak, and basically absolves the seller of any such guarantees.
One thing that can always be counted on though, is this:
"This practice is incredibly stupid. They're burning perfectly useful cows just to skip a tax fee."
-"Dude it says so in the document: 'We Burn Living Cows'. Read LOL."
"Yes, yes it does. It was the ignorance of the practice I was pointing out, not that it exists."
Not sure why people try to hide ignorance behind "it's not reasonable", when their own ignorance is the very thing that actually was "not reasonable".
Oh! The irony of not reading EULA's and bypassing them by simply clicking agree.
What did you agree to?
Some examples of EULA's.
Ubisoft: Assassins Creed Valhalla: This product is licenced to you, not sold.
CDPR: The Witcher 3: This licence is for your personal use only (so you can't give a sublicense to someone else) and doesn't give you ownership rights.
EULA's did not suddenly appear.
You made a typo.
They get money, you get user license.
People not reading the EULA and being completely ignorant to what they're agreeing to does not change the terms of an agreement.
I dunno about the average user, but there are indeed users who don't ever bother reading the thing they are giving their legal agreement to.
Except as said. this license thing has been around since the late 80's.
Except there has been no drift. and as offor common perception. If one's perception does not align with objective reality, that's a personal problem.
Especially since it doesn't take a lawyer to read the document, it just takes someone who can read at upper middle school level.
There is no 'full price '. Also you are free to only spend on publishers that grant youb that level of ownership. Though suffice it to say.. NONE do.
That's the risk one takes.
Regulation already came down on the side of the practice. and this is international m8 so sorry for you there. A seller isn't obligated to sell you something they don't want to sell. Just as you aren't obligated to buy something you don't want to buy.
And if you ever read the EULA's you'd realize they kinda all grant that , with certain caveats. I.e if uit's server based then the access will only last so long as the servers are up. (hence why one is advised to be very careful when buying games that are server based or have strong multiplayer focus).
Again. Might help if you read those EULA's rather than complain about them. might be surprised at what's actually in there.
You get a licence for a video game that allows you to download it, install it and play it.
Example from the Witcher 3 EULA
2. WHAT YOU GET WITH THE GAME
We (meaning CD PROJEKT RED) give you the personal right (called a 'licence' legally) to download, install and play The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on your personal computer as long as you follow these Rules. This licence is for your personal use only (so you can't give a sublicense to someone else) and doesn't give you ownership rights.
At all times we continue to own all of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, all in-game content, any updates or additional content for them, manuals or other materials about them and the intellectual property rights in them, including all copyright, trademarks, patents and legal things like that (all of this together we call the ‘Game’).
Exactly but the narrative is it happened just now.
Nothing has changed since 2003, it's just now valve has decided to have a Ubisoft moment and make it clear that you own nothing and will happy and gamer's for what ever reason aren't happy.
Be like Ganger.... accept that you don't own digital games and move on with your life. Think of it as renting your games instead.