Why no games on Steam?

[Cranyx]

When you purchase a "game" on Steam, you're not sold an actual product, you get a license to use their games. Because of this, if you're ever banned from Steam or Steam shuts down for whatever reason you'd lose all of your games with 0 refund.

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
-Steam Terms of Service


Does anyone know *why* they do this? I don't see any advantage of selling a licence as opposed to a product, except maybe removing the ability to resell.

 

[Dendio]

Won't be surprised if this method of trading expands to other markets and one day we buy licenses for things like cars and music, instead of outright ownership

 

[BirdKiller]

This is the case with almost any other software you buy. Normally in the page where you have to "Agree" or "Disagree", you're agreeing on a license, not the actual product itself. Valve isn't alone nor the first to do this, I remember this going back since the 1990's.

As for advantage, to sell a license means selling that license to that person only. You can't transfer the license, duplicate the license, or do anything else that lets another user use the software as opposed to selling the actual product. Furthermore, you can't really use that product to do anything else beyond what it's used for or stated in the license. It gives more control to the software publisher/developer on its product in essence.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

This is the case with almost any other software you buy. Normally in the page where you have to "Agree" or "Disagree", you're agreeing on a license, not the actual product itself. Valve isn't alone nor the first to do this, I remember this going back since the 1990's.

As for advantage, to sell a license means selling that license to that person only. You can't transfer the license, duplicate the license, or do anything else that lets another user use the software as opposed to selling the actual product. Furthermore, you can't really use that product to do anything else beyond what it's used for or stated in the license. It gives more control to the software publisher/developer on its product in essence.

Yeah this. It's been that way forever, it's just that now in the age of broadband and DRM they can actually enforce the license thing so people are noticing.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Unless you've downloaded and installed the game, and then can launch it from your PC, like any game that doesn't directly have a Valve stamp on it.

 

[Tony2077]

i doubt I'll still be alive or care when steam dies

 

[oplinger]

This is the case with almost any other software you buy. Normally in the page where you have to "Agree" or "Disagree", you're agreeing on a license, not the actual product itself. Valve isn't alone nor the first to do this, I remember this going back since the 1990's.

As for advantage, to sell a license means selling that license to that person only. You can't transfer the license, duplicate the license, or do anything else that lets another user use the software as opposed to selling the actual product. Furthermore, you can't really use that product to do anything else beyond what it's used for or stated in the license. It gives more control to the software publisher/developer on its product in essence.

Just to add to this, because this pretty much sums up why

But, because software is not tangible, you cannot actually sell it. It would be like selling an idea. Even if you buy a game in a retail store, you agree to a license, you are not buying the software, you're buying the ability to use the software.

Because software is intangible, it is a service, not a product.

 

[Bostur]

Partly out of habit because thats how other software is sold. For productivity software one reason may be to force users to update, but that would be unecessary for games. Another reason is probably to 'legalize' the DRM that is used. And of course to prevent resales.

Just to add to this, because this pretty much sums up why

But, because software is not tangible, you cannot actually sell it. It would be like selling an idea. Even if you buy a game in a retail store, you agree to a license, you are not buying the software, you're buying the ability to use the software.

Because software is intangible, it is a service, not a product.

Well other intagible things are sold as products under normal copyright rules - books, music and video for example. The purchaser buys a copy of the work, not a license. Part of the idea of copyright is to commoditize the stuff, to make it tangible in terms of trading.

I never had to 'agree' to an EULA when I bought a book or a movie.

 

[oplinger]

Partly out of habit because thats how other software is sold. For productivity software one reason may be to force users to update, but that would be unecessary for games. Another reason is probably to 'legalize' the DRM that is used. And of course to prevent resales.

Just to add to this, because this pretty much sums up why

But, because software is not tangible, you cannot actually sell it. It would be like selling an idea. Even if you buy a game in a retail store, you agree to a license, you are not buying the software, you're buying the ability to use the software.

Because software is intangible, it is a service, not a product.

Well other intagible things are sold as products under normal copyright rules - books, music and video for example. The purchaser buys a copy of the work, not a license. Part of the idea of copyright is to commoditize the stuff, to make it tangible in terms of trading.

I never had to 'agree' to an EULA when I bought a book or a movie.

Books are tangible. eBooks are licensed.

You also do agree to an EULA when watching a movie. You agree by watching the movie. Asking is just a courtesy. You agree, by owning and watching the movie, to not copy or reproduce any segment contained on the disc, you also agree to not have public screenings of the movie.

You do the same for music.

When buying all of them, you are technically receiving a copy of the work, and the license to make personal use of that work. You agree, be it written in front of you formally, or invisible to you, to not copy the work for any reason, except when covered by fair use, or with permissions.

Just because the agreements are not the same, does not mean they are not there.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Does anyone know *why* they do this? I don't see any advantage of selling a licence as opposed to a product, except maybe removing the ability to resell.

It's because when you buy a game on physical media the media itself is the product not the game on it, and comes with a implicit (well, explicit if you go into the legal parts) licence for the game.

This is why publishers can't stop you reselling physical media... but no one can legally prevent them from adding in DRM that makes that resold media worthless.

 

[Bostur]

Books are tangible. eBooks are licensed.

You also do agree to an EULA when watching a movie. You agree by watching the movie. Asking is just a courtesy. You agree, by owning and watching the movie, to not copy or reproduce any segment contained on the disc, you also agree to not have public screenings of the movie.

You do the same for music.

When buying all of them, you are technically receiving a copy of the work, and the license to make personal use of that work. You agree, be it written in front of you formally, or invisible to you, to not copy the work for any reason, except when covered by fair use, or with permissions.

Just because the agreements are not the same, does not mean they are not there.

I do not need to agree not to copy or reproduce a movie because copyright laws state that I'm not allowed to do this. I don't need to agree to a law, because it applies no matter what I think about it. Movies often have informational bits that explain what I'm allowed to do, but whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Those legalese walls of text are often inaccurate, but thats another issue.
Software licenses however go beyond that. They assume that the user enters into a binding contract which makes it more of a service than a product. If software is released without an EULA it's still protected by copyright laws.

 

[Da Orky Man]

When you purchase a "game" on Steam, you're not sold an actual product, you get a license to use their games. Because of this, if you're ever banned from Steam or Steam shuts down for whatever reason you'd lose all of your games with 0 refund.

Not quite right. Valve has, and continues to state that, if they went bankrupt for any reason, they have deals which will allow you continued access to your games, as well as sending out a final update making all games DRM-free. No time to look it up now, but it shouldn't be hard to find.

 

[Reaper195]

When you buy a physical copy of a game, you are buying a license to use the software/game. The game itself still belongs to the developer/publisher.

THis is nothing new, except that Steam now have the ability to actually uphold the punishment for fucking about with their terms/services.

 

[EHKOS]

I remember Valve saying that if Steam ever went bust, or the studio shut down, they would release a patch to bypass the DRM.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I remember Valve saying that if Steam ever went bust, or the studio shut down, they would release a patch to bypass the DRM.

Yep, Gabe Newell himself once said on the Steam Forums that they have tested turning off the Steam Authentication process that Steam games go through to be able to play, and the games do work with it off.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I remember Valve saying that if Steam ever went bust, or the studio shut down, they would release a patch to bypass the DRM.

Yep, Gabe Newell himself once said on the Steam Forums that they have tested turning off the Steam Authentication process that Steam games go through to be able to play, and the games do work with it off.

But would we still be able to copy and paste and use steam games you have paid for on other new computers you own years later?

And if so, wouldnt that basically give the world cracked copies of all these games?

 

[Easton Dark]

I remember Valve saying that if Steam ever went bust, or the studio shut down, they would release a patch to bypass the DRM.

Yep, Gabe Newell himself once said on the Steam Forums that they have tested turning off the Steam Authentication process that Steam games go through to be able to play, and the games do work with it off.

But would we still be able to copy and paste and use steam games you have paid for on other new computers you own years later?

And if so, wouldnt that basically give the world cracked copies of all these games?

Yes to both questions. But the copies were paid for, and honestly, that day of steam's shut down is so far down the road, I bet every game released or being released would be considered share-ware anyway.

Except Activision games. They'll be at least $30 forever.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I remember Valve saying that if Steam ever went bust, or the studio shut down, they would release a patch to bypass the DRM.

Yep, Gabe Newell himself once said on the Steam Forums that they have tested turning off the Steam Authentication process that Steam games go through to be able to play, and the games do work with it off.

But would we still be able to copy and paste and use steam games you have paid for on other new computers you own years later?

And if so, wouldnt that basically give the world cracked copies of all these games?

Yes to both questions. But the copies were paid for, and honestly, that day of steam's shut down is so far down the road, I bet every game released or being released would be considered share-ware anyway.

Except Activision games. They'll be at least $30 forever.

If valve actually sees their death coming and accepts it. What if something happens and they are still selling new games months or even weeks before they shut down?

 

[Easton Dark]

If valve actually sees their death coming and accepts it. What if something happens and they are still selling new games months or even weeks before they shut down?

? Um... same thing? Just because they're still selling doesn't mean you couldn't start saving your games.

That'd actually be better, just in case people wanted to purchase just a few more games before the steam-pocalypse so they can have them forever.