Rule of owning

I appreciate the transparency tbh. Would be better if things were different but it is what it is for now.
- For context, Steam is now forced to display this due to a new law passed in California: https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426
  Valve is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Its pretty much up to the developer. You can have no DRM and not even require steam to be open, or you can make your game unplayable.
- Imo Steam should tell people whether or not a game actually requires Steam (or another form of DRM) to run. I know they already do it for things like Denuvo, but they should also note if the game actually uses Steam as DRM or if the game can be launched without it.
  
  Yeah that would be nice.
  
  PCGamingWiki has that info for most titles I believe. It would be nice to see it in Steam though.
  
  Steam DRM isn't even really DRM in the traditional sense and it's very easy to put games into a program or use an injected/patched .dll to bypass the Steam Launch check. It's annoying sure but it's not something that people should be concerned about.
- Afaik, Steam only sells licences.
  
  Steam sells DRM-free games too, you can download them and then uninstall Steam and they will work. In this case though, on top of purchasing the game, you are buying a license to download updates for it through Steam. It's a developer decision.

This was always the case, just stated explicitly now

Did California's new law requiring this already go into effect?
- January 1 2025, guess Steam preferred not waiting in this case

This is also the case for physical copies, and has been since software was first sold
- According to media lawyers, maybe. But when I have a CD of music, or a game cartridge, I can sell it to someone else. For money. Because it's my copy I'm selling. So, what the fuck are you talking about except ceding the point to corporate lawyers for no good reason?
  
  You own the license and can sell the license (generally), not the actual game. To use an analogy, if you buy and own a car, you could take it apart or replace any part you like, put the engine into another car, etc. You can't do the equivalent with a typical game and other propertary software, at least not legally, because you don't own it, you just own the right to use it.
  Might not make a noticable difference to most people because most people don't do much with games/software apart from using it, but there still is a difference.
  
  That's technically piracy. You should be careful as some have been sued for selling 2nd hand goods.
  Just because it makes sense and is intuitive doesn't make it correct legally speaking
- Yeah, if a game needs online activation it doesn't matter which medium you buy...
- That's a lie told by every new industry since the printing press. Books tried writing "by anonymously exchanging money for this mass-produced object, you've secretly entered into a contract that limits your" blah blah blah. Courts threw that shit out, one hundred years ago. Same thing happened for videos and music.
  Only software emerged recently enough, and under enough corruption, to keep pretending that opening shrink-wrap was magically the same as ink-on-paper agreement to some negotiated tradeoff.
  Moving to digital distribution changed nothing. These assholes would be the first to insist as much. They would agree, you own Factorio on Steam in exactly the same way you own SimCity on SNES. But anyone who points to the cartridge in your hands and insists "you don't own that" is being a fucking idiot.

- If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.
  
  Bad argument piracy has never been stealing
  
  If buying becomes owning, will people stop pirating?
  
  You know, I tried telling them this at Hertz, but they still called the cops on me! WTF! I gave them money, they gave me car. What's the problem officer?!?!?
  
  based and property tax should be illegal pillec

- They can though
- Yeah isn't this like the thing that California required them to do?
- You know what else used to be standard? Slavery and feudalism. Things don't have to be this way.
  
  I mean, slavery is still standard if you consider the prison industrial complex
- I've been trying to tell people for years this is how it actually works, now they're being ultra transparent about it so maybe people will actually care.

it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing it's not stealing

Twitter is bad.

This is literally how it has always been.
You don't own any of the games you paid for, you bought a license to play those games under specific circumstances. It's the same with books & movies.
Valve have (allegedly) stated that in the case of Steam shutting down, games they can update to remove Steam DRM, they will.

Gog games
- Good Old Games Games
- By now my GOG library has far exceeded my Steam library in size. I was surprised by how many games on my Steam wishlist are also on GOG.
  
  I would love to do that, but GoG does not have the better regional pricing that steam does.
- GOG shills no longer make full sentences to spread their lies now.
  
  As a clueless gog-game-buying normie, can you elaborate?

Personally I think we should bring back physical games to PC. Imagine a cartridge like device that can effectively use external storage as swap memory (which copies to ram as needed), laptops and desktops can be built with this while other computers could use an adapter.
- Or we could stop humoring companies that want to take people's money and pretend that's not a sale.
  
  Absolutely, ideally we would absolish capitalism
- And hopefully it dosent require the original game drive to be plugged in all the time when you want to play
  
  The problem is how do you do that while preventing fraud?

no need be angry at steam. that is how it always has been. kudos to them to point it out very cleanly and not hiding it on page 400 of the 3rd EULA.

It's a good job Gabe Newell has made gamers comfortable with not owning their games.
- You also won't be authorised to play them if your account is banned for any or no reason, or if steam somehow shut down (at least for any you havn't already downloaded or if you ever uninstall them).
  That doesn't sound much like owning to me. Could you imagine if gamestop banned you from their store and suddenly you couldn't play any game you bought there? Would any logical person consider that ownership?

OK. I know I'm about to get blown the fuck up but... You will own nothing and be happy. But. Like. Unironically.
I really don't think most people want to manage thousands of music files on their computer. Or hundreds of movie files. Or thousands of picture files. Or hundreds of video game files.
There are definitely options for doing this, but people who go this route are usually tech elite nerds. Not your parents or grandparents. Not normies.
(I self-host Navidrome, Jellyfin, Immich, etc.)
- You will be blown up, and you will be happy. Enjoy the technofeudalism you so desperately long for.
- That's why sharing tools or information via libraries is the most convenient and efficient way of managing. We don't need to own everything if it's easily available for everyone.
- May be true but the core of the problem with buying games online is that you can pay for the game, the platform holder can just remove the game from the storefront at any tile, and essentially remove any access to the game you had previously purchased under the pretense that it is yours to keep, since you've paid for it, without citing any reasons or giving warnings. When we buy something, we usually assume, since that's the way it is with physical goods, that you're keeping what your buying.
  I feel like this transparent language is a good step in the right direction
  
  Currently I have multiple games in stream which have no store page and I still am able to install them just fine. And they even run on Linux guys proton

Thank you California law!

new law

Remember the people who long ago told you "in the future you will own nothing, and you will be happy"?
How'd you react? Did you call them crazy? Conspiracy theorists? Perhaps a Doomer?
You know what they should be called? Correct.
- Yeah I called them all those things and I still do.
  Steam doesn’t have a monopoly on digital games distribution if you’re unhappy with their service just use another one that allows you to own a direct software license.
  Stop being a conspiracy nutjob.

The reason people buy from steam though and develop for them though is because of their service.
Thor from pirate software mentions that even as a developer there are good reasons for them to use steam.
Even just the cloud saves and such is awesome

I hope we don't get expiration dates now...

This is solving the wrong problem entirely.
You do own games. They're products. They're mass-market goods, as surely as when they came on plastic rectangles or glass circles.
Being permitted to continue having things on your hard drive is not a service.

Steam doesnt make you pay for subscription fee and theres no expiry date for those games, so it's fine I think?
- It's still something granted to you at all times, you don't own it. If a fart gets stuck in their asses they can change the grant. It's why actually owning is something desirable.
  
  I agree, owning what we purchase is much more desirable. What I was trying to say is, Steam did not change their business model with or without that notice. Moreover, it isn't as bad as some of their competitors - they dont use subscription model for example-, so I think, for me, it is still okay.