Do I own my games or not?

[Rain for x-gods]

I’ve been around since the early days of Steam. Back then, it wasn’t easy to trust a new platform with something as valuable as our games. We were transitioning from physical copies—discs we could hold in our hands—to a digital library that promised we’d still own what we paid for, just in a different format.

Over time, many of us put our trust in Steam. We accepted this shift under the assurance that our purchases were permanent, that our games were ours to keep. Now, I’m hearing a very different message: that games are merely a service, and ownership is an illusion.

What the hell happened?

This isn't just a technical change—it’s a betrayal of the trust built over years. I want clarity. Is Steam still committed to the original promise—that when we buy a game, we own it?

I still consider myself lucky to own my games. I don’t want to end up like what I half-jokingly call “Gabe Newell’s digital slaves”—those who gave up their consumer rights without question, surrendering the idea of ownership for the convenience of access.

It's not funny. In fact, it’s heartbreaking to see so many fellow PC gamers abandon their dignity and logic as consumers. They paid real money, yet have nothing to show for it if the service ever disappears or decides otherwise.

I say this not out of bitterness, but sadness. We should never forget that as consumers, we have rights. And one of the most basic rights is ownership of what we pay for.

[Beltneck]

We've firmly established that you cannot own the material of something you paid for, instead you only own a very conditional promissory note that gives you limited access to the material.

So it should be completely reasonable for me to market and advertise a car, then have people pay the full advertised price of that car, but I still retain full ownership of the car - because I really only sold them a piece of paper that says they can use it.

How about if I rebuild the roof on your house after a hurricane? We agree on a price, you pay the price, but I now own that roof because I only sold you permission to use my roof system. Our agreement even allows me to unilaterally change the conditions of that contract at any time. So I might move you over to a monthly paid service, with a tech support line that never answers the phone or email, and failure to pay could result in me revoking your permission to use that roof. Then charging you with theft if you continue to use it.

How about grocery stores just selling permission to eat food?

I'm sure nothing can go wrong if more people adopt such business practices.

[datCookie]

Beltneck a écrit :

We've firmly established that you cannot own the material of something you paid for, instead you only own a very conditional promissory note that gives you limited access to the material.

So it should be completely reasonable for me to market and advertise a car, then have people pay the full advertised price of that car, but I still retain full ownership of the car - because I really only sold them a piece of paper that says they can use it.

How about if I rebuild the roof on your house after a hurricane? We agree on a price, you pay the price, but I now own that roof because I only sold you permission to use my roof system. Our agreement even allows me to unilaterally change the conditions of that contract at any time. So I might move you over to a monthly paid service, with a tech support line that never answers the phone or email, and failure to pay could result in me revoking your permission to use that roof. Then charging you with theft if you continue to use it.

How about grocery stores just selling permission to eat food?

I'm sure nothing can go wrong if more people adopt such business practices.

Thats not how the system works and you are grossly over exaggerating it.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Beltneck a écrit :

We've firmly established that you cannot own the material of something you paid for, instead you only own a very conditional promissory note that gives you limited access to the material.

So it should be completely reasonable for me to market and advertise a car, then have people pay the full advertised price of that car, but I still retain full ownership of the car - because I really only sold them a piece of paper that says they can use it.

How about if I rebuild the roof on your house after a hurricane? We agree on a price, you pay the price, but I now own that roof because I only sold you permission to use my roof system. Our agreement even allows me to unilaterally change the conditions of that contract at any time. So I might move you over to a monthly paid service, with a tech support line that never answers the phone or email, and failure to pay could result in me revoking your permission to use that roof. Then charging you with theft if you continue to use it.

How about grocery stores just selling permission to eat food?

I'm sure nothing can go wrong if more people adopt such business practices.

You have full access to the games you paid for... not limited.

[Nerv]

datCookie a écrit :

Nerv a écrit :

most of the people in this discussion will change their stance soon when big game companies start scheduling the removal of a game yearly so they can sell it to you again for 90 dollars in the future or something

I think everyone here would be against such an obviously shady and probably highly illegal practice.

game devs can already remove games whenever they want and release a copy and pasted version with slight differences, and it's already very normalized. nobody would care ( take overwatch, the crew, and csgo for example )

[Lystent]

Addressing the title: Advancements in DRM means that publishers can now better realize the terms of service they envisioned, and, often enough, some would rather pull services on a "whim" if they felt they would benefit enough from that. Customer protection regulations helped make things into a bit of a tug-of-war, AFAIK, countering some of the more ambitious wishes of publishers, but it appears as though those are often "in the back seat", as it were.

End result: We pay for permission to download and play their products, conditionally under their terms, and they can do more about it too.

[sandokanski]

Here? No. You don't.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

sandokanski a écrit :

Here? No. You don't.

or Ubisoft, or GoG, or Epic...... or the EA app

[superblake_]

Beltneck a écrit :

We've firmly established that you cannot own the material of something you paid for, instead you only own a very conditional promissory note that gives you limited access to the material.

So it should be completely reasonable for me to market and advertise a car, then have people pay the full advertised price of that car, but I still retain full ownership of the car - because I really only sold them a piece of paper that says they can use it.

How about if I rebuild the roof on your house after a hurricane? We agree on a price, you pay the price, but I now own that roof because I only sold you permission to use my roof system. Our agreement even allows me to unilaterally change the conditions of that contract at any time. So I might move you over to a monthly paid service, with a tech support line that never answers the phone or email, and failure to pay could result in me revoking your permission to use that roof. Then charging you with theft if you continue to use it.

How about grocery stores just selling permission to eat food?

I'm sure nothing can go wrong if more people adopt such business practices.

How can someone reparing a roof that already exists makes it not the person who owns the home the person who owns roof that is just nonsense. The roof already exists they are just reparing it.

[Nerv]

in the future, you will have to pay to have temporary access to water in your home instead of it just being a bill, and they will cut it off if they don't like you. then they will sell you a water battlepass and deploy you to africa to fight for more water. the tier 100 reward is human rights. when the earth 2.0 update drops, we will have something like skynet in real life

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Nerv a écrit :

datCookie a écrit :

I think everyone here would be against such an obviously shady and probably highly illegal practice.

game devs can already remove games whenever they want and release a copy and pasted version with slight differences, and it's already very normalized. nobody would care ( take overwatch, the crew, and csgo for example )

I have a full library of delisted games that says you're wrong and in some cases they give existing owners, the updated game foe free.

CS2 isn't a new game, it's an update to CS:GO. Which is one reason VAC bans and game bans carry over from GO.

[sandokanski]

C²C^Guyver |NZB| a écrit :

sandokanski a écrit :

Here? No. You don't.

or Ubisoft, or GoG, or Epic...... or the EA app

Nah. I have my entire GoG library downloaded. I don't need them to run the games.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

sandokanski a écrit :

C²C^Guyver |NZB| a écrit :

or Ubisoft, or GoG, or Epic...... or the EA app

Nah. I have my entire GoG library downloaded. I don't need them to run the games.

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog

GOG License a écrit :

2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'licence') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This licence is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this licence in some situations, which are explained later on.

[sandokanski]

C²C^Guyver |NZB| a écrit :

GOG License a écrit :

2.1 We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a 'licence') to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This licence is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this licence in some situations, which are explained later on.

No, they cannot do that. They can't legally enter the place where I live. So they can't suspend anything. But they can complain, I guess.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

sandokanski a écrit :

C²C^Guyver |NZB| a écrit :

No, they cannot do that. They can't legally enter the place where I live. So they can't suspend anything. But they can complain, I guess.

Does not change the fact that you purchased a license to access the games, not the games themselves.

[sandokanski]

C²C^Guyver |NZB| a écrit :

Does not change the fact that you purchased a license to access the games, not the games themselves.

Yeah, but no. The pragmatic view is that I own the game. Just like I own a book that I bought from a bookstore. Of course you can't copy any of them, unless you want to break the copyright law. But you can have your game CD stolen or your book stolen. Otherwise you can't go complain to the police. They'll rightfully say "it's not yours, stop complaining". And also the contents of the book and the CD do matter, as if they give you another book or another CD you might not be very happy about it. Unless it is a book or a game that you want to read / play.