Buying licenses rather than buying games.

[Linkmeanie]

My girlfriend just bought me La Noire today, on pc, because she loved it on xbox.
I popped it in, and this was the first line of the EULA:

"THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD."

It goes on further to say:

"...Licensor hereby grants you the nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation."

Now this just makes me angry. The thought of buying a game, only to be told straight up I do not even own the game, I only own a license to it. I only have limited right and control over a product that was bought for me, that I own. Does this not piss anyone else off?

I realise that the wording of this does not directly effect me much, and it is possible that in many other EULAs it says much the same. However, this is the first time I have noticed the wording of "License" rather than game, or product etc.

So what do you think? Can you abide by only buying lincenses to games, or does it infuriate you too?

For those who want to see it, this is pretty much exactly what the La Noire eula was: http://www.rockstargames.com/eula

(please note that this is my first thread, and while I have spent a large amount of time reading other peoples threads, sorry if I have broken any spoken, or unspoken laws)

Edit: I do suppose the word license is right there in EULA, so maybe it has always been this way.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The EULAs aren't even legally binding. They don't present them to you before purchase.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

It's always been this way, at least as long as the EULA has been around. Presumably its to draw a more definitive line between "ownership" (i.e. of the ip, franchise, rights of sale, and what have you) and ownership (possessing a physical copy of the game). It's mostly just lawyer jargon, it actually doesn't change anything in regards to your use of the game.

It's also there to set in stone that piracy of the game is, in fact, illegal. As you do not own the actual software (just a license to play it. Sort of like a key) you don't have the right to reproduce and redistribute it. Before you get in a huff, it's always been that way.

 

[Shpongled]

It's because games themselves aren't actually physical in the same way a car or book or whatever is. A game is just a ton of information which your computer/console then uses to "create" the game. If you were sold the game itself, you'd own the intellectual rights for everything to do with the game. Everytime you buy a game you're buying the license to use the blueprints on the disc so your computer can "make" the game on its own system. They can't sell you the intellectual rights to own the game, only the license to use the information.

 

[Linkmeanie]

Well that certainly put more light on it.
What you say makes sense, if I actually owned it, I could use the soundtrack in my own movie, or use the engine to make my own game. Copyright non withstanding of course.

I thought this just may have been a new development, but I realised after I posted that EULA meaning "license agreement" not ownership agreement, and EULAs have been around since the beginning of time.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[masticina]

The next question is it even legally binding

Remember the xbox 360 metro update, in what stands that you cannot pull Microsoft before the court as user.

In europe that is simply unenforcable, and said parts are simply not in effect..

You bought the game you can resell it simple as that. If it has a key and you need to bind the key to a steam account well then th ey got you!