The relevant section is blunt. “The Software is licensed to you, not sold,” the EULA states. “You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for.”
The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony’s EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.
This is why the stop killing games movement exists
Then stop calling the button purchase and call it rent.
Arr me hearties.
if buying isn’t owning the piracy isn’t stealing.
Steam users: First time?
To be fair, i recall Steam and GOG said that in case of a platform shutdown or if a game from your library is delisted, they can provide you a copy of the game files that you can keep and use.
The Sony policy is much more shady.
in very limited terms I think Valve might fully remove games (like the crypto miner one) from accounts but other then that if you bought it you own it as far as I’ve seen with Steam. I have transformers devastation which was delisted, and while the achievements won’t really show up on my account iirc, and I can’t sell the card drops on the market, I can still install and play it fine
Nah see my other comment. You don’t own shit on Steam. In fact the agreement specifically says you may need to use the client and be connected to the Internet in order to even play your games. Like if steam shut down tomorrow and just stopped existing it’s very possible they could legally just give you the middle finger and say sucks for you.
IANAL and there’s more to it than just the contract you have with Valve as far as the law goes but the way the contract is written you have no ownership of anything on the platform.
The Sony policy is much more shady.
It’s not.
There’s a lot more in the agreement but this is the start of the licensing part.
Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
(Emphasis mine)
It says “limited” but does not define what limited is, so you legally paid for nothing guaranteed. You just give them money but they are obligated to give you nothing.
Not that this gives them a pass, but just to clarify the term: “limited” means you’re only allowed to use the software in the specific ways described by the EULA. The whole purpose of the EULA is to define exactly what “limited” means. In contrast, “unlimited use” would indicate that you’re allowed to use the software however you want unless specifically forbidden by the EULA.
“Limited” does not mean that they can just make up whatever they want later and say “well that’s what we meant when we said limited.” The EULA describes the agreement you make, and both parties are bound to exactly what is described in that EULA.
They can decide to change the EULA later and technically you are free to choose whether you want to accept those new terms, but the nasty part is that they can revoke your current license if you decide not to accept their new EULA and you’re just out of luck because you don’t actually own a copy.
TL;DR it’s a shitty deal either way, but I think it’s important to be accurate. They do define what “limited” means or it wouldn’t be a valid license agreement. That does not imply that the EULA is a good one.
The only solace is at least the majority of AAA games coming out now are so ass that i don’t want them anyway.
no way this is not gonna backfire for them somehow or somewho
It won’t. Even with GoG, you have limited rights. This has been the same since the ps3 era.
Umm way longer then that. Its always been this way with video and software.
Should change the “buy” button to “rent”
AS A CONSUMER YOU MAY HAVE RIGHTS UNDER APPLICABLE LOCAL LAWS THAT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED, LIMITED OR CHANGED. THOSE RIGHTS TAKE PRIORITY OVER ANYTHING IN THESE TERMS.
So they’re saying we should write to our law making representatives and have that changed?
Sounds like a fucking great idea to me.
Yeah, first you have to have representatives that write laws in your favor.
Not only that, but make sure that those laws are enforced
Or have enough money to
bribelobby for laws in your favorMaybe write to them with certain unidentified substances enclosed first
Pretty much all software EULA’s are like this. Anything you “buy a license for” certainly. Same as it ever was.
Shortly after announcing that there won’t be anything else soon.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn;t theft.
If you pirate the games, you actually own them and they can’t take them away from you. Funny how that works.
“Within their legal toolbox to take them” and “practical ability to take them” are wildly different.
Actually, they can take them away.
They don’t have enough tanks
Ẃ̵̧͝ͅÉ̴͕̟̿ ̶̗̗̊R̶͍̃͝E̵̩̗͝͠Q̶̮̒Ų̴͋̃I̶͈̼̓Ȓ̴̢̼Ḙ̶̓͗ ̵̛̪̤̆M̷̰̾O̸̻̽R̵̲̉̉E̵̱̎ ̶͎̀V̴͖͐̂È̶͓̻S̸̝̱͠P̴͖̤̈Ẽ̷̢̤N̵͚͙͋̀Ȩ̷̽ ̷̧͖̈G̵̛̰̘͑A̶̬̎͝S̶̤̍
I’d like to see them try that.
If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing.
What is piracy then?
It’s definitely stealing. I don’t understand why people on here can’t admit it to themselves.
My guess is people here think that stealing is wrong, no matter what. They also think that piracy is moral. Because of that, they incorrectly deduce that piracy isn’t stealing.
Look up any definition of stealing, and it always boils down to: taking something that you don’t have permission to take.
No, this isn’t limited to physical items. Companies steal our data all the time.
I think people need to shift from “Piracy isn’t stealing” to “Fuck the corps, they don’t wanna play fair I’ll steal their shit and they won’t see a penny”
I know but why do people care. I don’t their massive corporations if I’m stealing from them in don’t care.
Absolutely! Corps can eat a dick
It’s definitely stealing
It’s definitely denying money to someone who is asking to be paid.
But since they, nor anyone else is affected by the copying activity I don’t think it can be called stealing.
How about
“Fuck the corps, they don’t wanna play fair I’ll
stealuse their shit and they won’t see a penny”You can make up definitions all you want, it’s still stealing.
Piracy doesn’t fit the definition of stealing, because the owners still have the property.
That’s literally wrong. If I stole all your personal data from your laptop, you’d still have it.
Companies steal trade secrets from each other all the time. That doesn’t mean the knowledge just leaves the other company.
Stop making up definitions and just accept that it’s stealing. Just because it’s stealing doesn’t make it wrong.
The argument goes that stealing involves taking something from someone, whearas pirating produces a copy. If you take someone’s car, they don’t have a car anymore, but copy their game and now you both have one.
That said, I don’t think it follows from “buying isn’t owning” that “piracy isn’t stealing”. Its a pithy slogan that captures a mood, but I don’t think it really makes sense.
Your position, I believe, is more coherent: “I don’t care if it is stealing”. It might not technically be stealing, but its a breach of the terms of the sale that you tacitly agreed to when buying.
Something similar can be said for adblocking. People argue that it is “stealing” because there is a breach of the terms of use, and the ads fund the content. It might not really technically be stealing, but it is simpler to just say “I don’t care what it is, I don’t feel bad for giant corporations”. You can also say this about shoplifting.
What buying was supposed to be: owning
And if buying isnt owning, that means you’re paying 70+ dollars to rent a game that can be taken away from you at any time… with no refund or recourse.
Would anyone be stupid enough to rent a game for 70+ dollars? especially under those conditions?
But you’ve never owned movies or games. Purchasing let’s go really far back VHS gave you a license to watch the movie. Always has been this way.
Coming from that era myself, buying a VHS tape absolutely gave you ownership of that copy of the movie. Same with music, which is why homemade mixtapes were such a popular and permitted thing.
Studios didn’t like it, but no one went after the guy with the little vinyl briefcase of 100 different mixtapes for every sort of occasion.
Open sourcing of operational licenses.
