I'm done with Steam! Just another dictator in the gaming industry!

[MattJE9601]

Until now I've always thought pretty highly of Steam, but today while trying to set up gaming computers for my kids I just realized how greedy and crooked Steam actually is as I can't share my large and very expensive game library with my kids.

By this I do not mean playing the same game at the same time. For that I obviously expect to purchase another license, and would have done for the games they like. I mean playing DIFFERENT games at the same time, each of which I have paid good money for a license for 1 person to play... but it seems that Steam doesn't believe I have the right to use more than one of my games at the same time. I am so sick and tired of the walled gardens and control surrounding the gaming industry as a whole. I'm trying to move my kids to PC gaming to get away from xboxes as I already can't stand Microsoft... and how many times I've had to pay for Minecraft just for a single person!

So here's the deal... unless this changes, I will no longer be buying my games through Steam. I will buy every game direct from the developer separate from ANY game launchers, and I will use an open source launcher to manage my games from now on. AND I WILL LET MY KIDS PLAY GAMES I'M NOT USING... like it used to be when we actually OWNED the games we paid for! I will also most likely dump my Deck and will not be buying one for each of my kids as I planned on doing.

I'm royally pissed, and everyone else should be too! This is like buying 2 cars from a dealership and them telling you that only one can be driven at any given time. Absolutely absurd and I'm done tolerating this BS! I only wish I could get my games away from Steam so I can completely dump it altogether, but unless I feel like paying for games again (which I honestly might just on principal) I'm still stuck using it for games I already stupidly bought through here. Lesson learned I guess.

I really wish enough people would throw a fit about this. I really don't want to hate Steam but I feel I don't have a choice here. I mean who the F do they think they are to tell us we can't use more than one of the products we own at a time? They simply do it because they have the power to and it makes them more money, plain and simple. Do the game police kick down our door because we shared a game of checkers with our kids? NO! But if it can be tracked digitally it will be shoved right up your *** every time. So goodbye Steam! Thanks for being just like everyone else...

[Nx Machina]

引用自 MattJE9601：

Also, I can't speak to any specific DRM / CDPR, but typically the term "PERSONAL USE" refers to the individual as well as immediate family / household. It's generally not a rock solid all limiting 'you are the only person who can lay eyes on it' sort of thing.

CDPR disagrees as they clearly state:

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212184489-Can-I-share-games-with-others-?product=gog

YOUR ACCOUNT and GAMES are for YOUR PERSONAL USE only. If you want to share them, you can always BUY a gift for that person.

The DRM-free nature of our service means that we TRUST you that this will NOT be abused.


YOUR - personal, plus they specifically use the word BUY when talking about sharing.

[RiO]

引用自 Komarimaru：

引用自 Knightspace：

You were always legally able to share games, it wasn't legal to make a copy of the game. If you shared a game, it wasn't a breach of law, it was a breach of an agreement. It wasn't piracy, it was just what companies didn't want you to do.

But at least you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ owned the games you paid money for.

Again, it was never legal to share games. And you never once owned a game ever. Software has been licensed since the 60's and 70's.

You owned the media it came on, that was it. Why developers started to make Code Wheels, Code Sheets with Film, make users look up a certain Word on a Page Number and Line Number. Eventually they just moved to Keys.

So no, you were never legally, ever, allowed to share a game.

引用自 Nx Machina：

引用自 Knightspace：

You were always legally able to share games, it wasn't legal to make a copy of the game. If you shared a game, it wasn't a breach of law, it was a breach of an agreement. It wasn't piracy, it was just what companies didn't want you to do.

But at least you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ owned the games you paid money for.

Nope you were because the eula was on the disc YOU purchased and was personal to YOU.

Secondly you owned the disc which you could not resell and you never owned the content.

So riddle me this then: Why did Nintendo lose the law-suits they started around the world back in the 80s and 90s when they and Sega were top dog, to try and get shops to stop second-hand sales, if it's illegal to pass on the medium to someone else to play?

How did those shops manage to continue to exist to the ire of game publishers; if there existed some law by which they could've easily been slapped with a cease-and-desist?



Also; want to know something else funny?
I just opened a random old boxed game, grabbed its EULA and gave it a read.
It's one of those simple one-sheet things from a bygone era, without too much legalese bull. It use a simple list of "YOU MAY" and "YOU MAY NOT" bullet points. And under the first, it lists: "Transfer the complete Program Package on a permanent basis, provided that you retain no copies and the recipient agrees in writing to the terms of this Agreement."

Looks like those EULAs did allow transferring the game to someone else - i.e. selling it on.

And while you had to permanently transfer it and were not allowed to loan it out; you were allowed to permanently transfer it to someone else - i.e. transfer it to someone else and erase your copies of it - and then have them permanently transfer it back to you when they were done with it. Basically; you had to uninstall the game before loaning it out. Big whoop.


Opening another one. From the original manual to Simcity 2000:
[...]

Hah. This doesn't even make mention of the software being bound to a single user.
It mentions you're only allowed to have it installed on a single system at a time. But that's it.

Humorously; it mentions that Maxis will offer replacement under warranty if the medium on which the software ships is damaged. But will only do so for the original purchaser. Meaning they acknowledged the existence of secondary owners and operators implicitly.

[MattJE9601]

引用自 Nx Machina：

引用自 MattJE9601：

Also, I can't speak to any specific DRM / CDPR, but typically the term "PERSONAL USE" refers to the individual as well as immediate family / household. It's generally not a rock solid all limiting 'you are the only person who can lay eyes on it' sort of thing.

CDPR disagrees as they clearly state:

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212184489-Can-I-share-games-with-others-?product=gog

YOUR ACCOUNT and GAMES are for YOUR PERSONAL USE only. If you want to share them, you can always BUY a gift for that person.

The DRM-free nature of our service means that we TRUST you that this will NOT be abused.


YOUR - personal, plus they specifically use the word BUY when talking about sharing.

Legalese is not the same thing as english.
These same things apply to movies and other content as well. Doesn't mean you can't watch them with our family.

[Aluvard]

引用自 Knightspace：

引用自 Start_Running：

You have the SAME legal ownership and rights as you do on Steam. The only difference is GoG quite literally has no way of enforcing the terms. And that is why you'll notice many devs and publishers kinda steer clear of GoG.

Also Gog is not doing so well finacially

BIG developers steer clear of GoG because it doesn't have an integrated DRM and doesn't allow other DRM, like Denuvo. Which is asinine, because, as CDPR games showed, piracy isn't that big of an issue as greedy publishers would want you to believe. But that's the state of the gaming industry and we let this ♥♥♥♥ happen.

Also, where's your source for GoG failing financially? The oldest reports i can find that state this are from way back in 2019.

https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/gog-will-rethink-its-strategy-after-disappointing-financial-results-3107840

https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/investors/result-center/

GOG isn't failing but it has ups and downs. It has its own niche but taking into account profits, it's barely on positive.

[Kargor]

引用自 Start_Running：

And when you shared that game you lost the ability to play that game while it was shared. Just like when you share your library, you lose access to it while it's shared.

Still, back in the day, I didn't share the entire CD-box with all the games -- just the one game.

[Crazy Tiger]

引用自 MattJE9601：

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

That depends on the perspective and viewpoint. To me it's the developers, as they choose to not make their games DRM-free. As said, Steam DRM is not mandatory in any way, it's a choice by the game devs and thusly they're the ones actually imposing the limitations.

You probably will say Steam.

Funnily enough, we both are correct in our own way.

Not really. If I buy the games from different sources I can play them at the same time. If I buy the game from the same source (in my case Steam) I can't. This is a restriction imposed by Steam. But according to Steam, only one person can access the library at a time. Whether or not it's DRM-free is of no consequence. Sure, maybe I can launch it separately from Steam... but that only furthers my point about Steam imposing the restriction and not the developers of any particular game. Even if a game uses DRM, this to make sure people don't copy the game and play it in 2 or more places at once. Where does the DRM say I can't run it at the same time as another game? If I buy 2 DRM games from different sources I can play them at the same time. DRM has nothing to do with it. Again... it's Steam.

As I said, it depends on the perspective and viewpoint. You can argue in circles all you want about that, it won't change that there are more than one perspective and viewpoint.

[Komarimaru]

引用自 RiO：

引用自 Komarimaru：

Again, it was never legal to share games. And you never once owned a game ever. Software has been licensed since the 60's and 70's.

You owned the media it came on, that was it. Why developers started to make Code Wheels, Code Sheets with Film, make users look up a certain Word on a Page Number and Line Number. Eventually they just moved to Keys.

So no, you were never legally, ever, allowed to share a game.

引用自 Nx Machina：

Nope you were because the eula was on the disc YOU purchased and was personal to YOU.

Secondly you owned the disc which you could not resell and you never owned the content.

So riddle me this then: Why did Nintendo lose the law-suits they started around the world back in the 80s and 90s when they and Sega were top dog, to try and get shops to stop second-hand sales, if it's illegal to pass on the medium to someone else to play?

How did those shops manage to continue to exist to the ire of game publishers; if there existed some law by which they could've easily been slapped with a cease-and-desist?

That's not what the suits were over. And you do know, Nintendo won, right? The suits were over renting games and making COPIES of the manuals.

[Crazy Tiger]

引用自 Kargor：

引用自 Start_Running：

And when you shared that game you lost the ability to play that game while it was shared. Just like when you share your library, you lose access to it while it's shared.

Still, back in the day, I didn't share the entire CD-box with all the games -- just the one game.

Sure, but ultimately that's not really relevant as the sharing on Steam is not game sharing, but account sharing.

[MattJE9601]

In regards to most physical copies of games, books, movies etc, first sale doctrine or exhaustion of rights typically gives the purchaser of such material the legal right to lend, sell or dispose of the material however they want without permission from the copyright holder. This is why it's always been completely legal for the secondhand market to even exist. Why do you think game developers are so hellbent on moving everything to digital copies and games as a service models? Different laws apply that give them more power and control over the content.

[MattJE9601]

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

引用自 Kargor：

Still, back in the day, I didn't share the entire CD-box with all the games -- just the one game.

Sure, but ultimately that's not really relevant as the sharing on Steam is not game sharing, but account sharing.

If I use the family share feature to share a game with my kid, am I sharing my account or just the game. Second, since this is even possible in the first place doesn't it render the whole argument about sharing your "PERSONAL USE ONLY" game with your kids (or apparently anyone else you choose for that matter) completely irrelevant since Steam let's you do it in the first place? Shouldn't that violate the license according to many people here? How is it that sharing a game with someone else from my account is ok and not violating the DRM, but apparently does violate it if I want to play a different game at the same time? Anybody?

[RiO]

引用自 Komarimaru：

引用自 RiO：

So riddle me this then: Why did Nintendo lose the law-suits they started around the world back in the 80s and 90s when they and Sega were top dog, to try and get shops to stop second-hand sales, if it's illegal to pass on the medium to someone else to play?

How did those shops manage to continue to exist to the ire of game publishers; if there existed some law by which they could've easily been slapped with a cease-and-desist?

That's not what the suits were over. And you do know, Nintendo won, right? The suits were over renting games and making COPIES of the manuals.

That particular lawsuit came in a time when Nintendo America's CEO publicly bemoaned rentals as "commercial rape." It was in a time when the first sale doctrine still very much was a thing on software in the US.
In fact; it came in a tumultuous time just before the US would pass the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act that would've axed rentals. Except that act was slated to specifically exclude cartridge rentals for console games, because that was a very lucrative market segment for rental businesses and Congress ended up giving them that.
(Note: that act would make rentals illegal. Not reselling. That only came to an end when EULAs started to appear in the mid '90s that limited your rights as an end-user. And even then, the industry couldn't limit the first sale doctrine through EULAs everywhere in the world. But they could in the US.)

That avenue closed off to them, Nintendo instead decided to go after Blockbuster specifically.
And via a different means: the fact that Blockbuster were copying the manuals so the originals wouldn't be damaged.

Blockbuster actually settled that matter outside of court with Nintendo. (Nintendo didn't actually win anything.) And from then-on they had third parties create alternate manuals for their rentals instead. But the rentals went on.

This is just one of the most famous American cases where Nintendo tried to stop rentals and ultimately failed. But it's far from the only one. The same or similar played out in multiple European countries as well. And it concluded there in much the same way: Nintendo didn't get what they wanted.

[Herr Pietrus]

OK, so good luck with Epic or EA (who removes from EA App games no longer available in their store and claims that they won't restore them - even though you have the game purchased on your account - because the games are old and the app is new) - the companies who own the best, feature rich and flexible launchers on this planet.

ROTFL

However I must admit it's a top quality trolling since I wrote this post to answer.

[Knightspace]

引用自 Start_Running：

引用自 Knightspace：

You were always legally able to share games, it wasn't legal to make a copy of the game. If you shared a game, it wasn't a breach of law, it was a breach of an agreement. It wasn't piracy, it was just what companies didn't want you to do.

But at least you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ owned the games you paid money for.

And when you shared that game you lost the ability to play that game while it was shared. Just like when you share your library, you lose access to it while it's shared.

You lost access to installing it, yes. Not playing, if you had it already installed, until things like secuROM started to rear their ugly heads.

[Herr Pietrus]

Before SecuROM games were still looking for CD in the drive, many times because there were some data essential to launch them...

[RiO]

引用自 Herr Pietrus：

Before SecuROM games were still looking for CD in the drive, many times because there were some data essential to launch them...

This may sound scary old to you, but there was a time before technologies such as SecuROM and Starforce shipped as a form of on-disc DRM. Back when CDs didn't have automated copy protection schemes and games relied on code wheels and such for checks; or didn't implement checks at all and just went on good faith alone.

There was even a time games shipped on series of 3.5" disks. Fancy that.
Or 5.25" inch floppies before that. And magnetic tape drive before that.