Future of Games :: Suggestions / Ideas

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Suggestions / Ideas > Topic Details

Gray Knight 26 Jun @ 10:06am

Future of Games

More and More publishers are pushing the "You don't OWN your game, you are renting a license to play it" trend. Can we get a store update to cut it off now?

For instance, when someone uploads a game to be sold, they must choose whether the buyer is renting or buying the product.

Renting: Sold at a lower price. if the developer or publisher says they "don't want it on the store anymore", it is removed from the store and the user's library. Rented games don't go on sale, and their prices don't change.
The Model Xbox Game Pass uses

Buying: Sold at market price or higher. If the developer or publisher says they "don't want it on the store anymore", it is removed from the store, BUT the user can still own their copy and can use it however they want.
These games can go on sale and their price can change over time, either because they came out of early access, got a huge update, got vastly popular since release, or it has been so long since release that it's no longer worth the standard price.
The Current model Steam uses

This way both sides can be happy and users can't complain about a game they bought being deleted from their library (The Crew Situation) because they rented the game for a lower price instead of buying it for a higher price

< >

Showing 1-15 of 27 comments

mldb88 26 Jun @ 10:19am

You’ve always only ever owned a license. Just read the licensing agreement on any game manual from back in the 80s and you’ll see basically the same thing as you see in the EULA license agreement on modern games. People finally now being AWARE that you only own a license doesn’t mean anything’s changed.

Also it’s not renting a license either.

Last edited by mldb88; 26 Jun @ 10:20am

William Shakesman 26 Jun @ 10:33am

Software licensing has always been a little silly because they are selling, essentially, a series of 500 billion ones and zeroes. You cannot "own" a series of numbers, nor can you steal it.

Not to dismiss your concerns but quite often in these arguments people, especially those defending the license agreements, have no knowledge of the history of why this peculiar arrangement came to be and what constraints forced it to evolve in this manner. The result is a bunch of ill-informed "well ackshually the contract says..." word game nonsense rather than addressing the competing needs.

The problem is you need to figure out the definition of owning a series of numbers and what it would take to insure that. This is not an easy question. "I want access to a game I purchased for an arbitrary and unlimited future date" is a perfectly reasonable thing for a customer to demand, but it runs into issues in implementation sometimes.

I do not know if making two seperate purchasing formats solves the problem you state so much as possibly a warning that the game is contingent on an outside service to function and a lack of such service would end the game. It feels like making an entire separate schema is a bit too complicated for the problem

Last edited by William Shakesman; 26 Jun @ 10:39am

mldb88 26 Jun @ 10:59am

Originally posted by William Shakesman:
Software licensing has always been a little silly because they are selling, essentially, a series of 500 billion ones and zeroes. You cannot "own" a series of numbers, nor can you steal it.

Not to dismiss your concerns but quite often in these arguments people, especially those defending the license agreements, have no knowledge of the history of why this peculiar arrangement came to be and what constraints forced it to evolve in this manner. The result is a bunch of ill-informed "well ackshually the contract says..." word game nonsense rather than addressing the competing needs.

The problem is you need to figure out the definition of owning a series of numbers and what it would take to insure that. This is not an easy question. "I want access to a game I purchased for an arbitrary and unlimited future date" is a perfectly reasonable thing for a customer to demand, but it runs into issues in implementation sometimes.

I do not know if making two seperate purchasing formats solves the problem you state so much as possibly a warning that the game is contingent on an outside service to function and a lack of such service would end the game. It feels like making an entire separate schema is a bit too complicated for the problem

That’s…. Not it at all, and you’re not owning a series of ones and zeroes…. Have you actually read a license agreement before? It lays out what you can and can’t do with the software, you own the license to use the software under the specifications within said license, which is tied to your account or in older days, either your PC or the storage media it was on like a disc or cartridge for console games.

Maybe you should do a little research on licenses yourself because nothing in your post is remotely accurate to how licenses actually work or what they are….

Crazy Tiger 26 Jun @ 11:19am

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
More and More publishers are pushing the "You don't OWN your game, you are renting a license to play it" trend. Can we get a store update to cut it off now?

It's not renting, you purchase a license. A license with terms. Steam has worked like that since the beginning. As does all licensed software, mind. People conveniently forget that.

Not sure why you're THIS late to the party, but you're decades late.

Last edited by Crazy Tiger; 26 Jun @ 11:58am

Ferox_Stormdragon 26 Jun @ 11:22am

games are always licensed not sold.

AmsterdamHeavy 26 Jun @ 11:24am

Welcome to the mid 20th century, I guess.

nullable 26 Jun @ 11:26am

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
More and More publishers are pushing the "You don't OWN your game, you are renting a license to play it" trend. Can we get a store update to cut it off now?

No. Valve is a software developer too, not a big stick to push your values onto gaming industry.

And you're very confused about the history of software licenses, and really you're just upset developers have the power to enforce their licenses now. Well, it's not likely to change so buckle up.

I mean overall it's such pedantic nonsense. And after gaming for like 35 years the number of time I've run afoul of software licenses has been zero. So getting all worked up over what's always been the case seems silly to me.

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
For instance, when someone uploads a game to be sold, they must choose whether the buyer is renting or buying the product.

Renting: Sold at a lower price. if the developer or publisher says they "don't want it on the store anymore", it is removed from the store and the user's library. Rented games don't go on sale, and their prices don't change.
The Model Xbox Game Pass uses

No. And if you like GamePass and MS'es store, just use that. But FYI, you're still subject to the same license.

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
Buying: Sold at market price or higher. If the developer or publisher says they "don't want it on the store anymore", it is removed from the store, BUT the user can still own their copy and can use it however they want.

Games delisted on Steam can still be accessed by people with a license. It's how I can play Transformers Devastation right now, and you can't. (I'm assuming you don't have the game in your library)

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
These games can go on sale and their price can change over time, either because they came out of early access, got a huge update, got vastly popular since release, or it has been so long since release that it's no longer worth the standard price.
The Current model Steam uses

This way both sides can be happy and users can't complain about a game they bought being deleted from their library (The Crew Situation) because they rented the game for a lower price instead of buying it for a higher price

Users will always complain, and you can't accommodate every Chicken Little who melts down every time an assumption they have proves false. "I thought it worked differently." isn't an argument that "it must work differently."

Also some users being incapable of differentiating owning the medium and owning the software are always going to be hopeless, and software isn't going to realign around that bit of ignorance.

Last edited by nullable; 26 Jun @ 11:31am

William Shakesman 26 Jun @ 12:34pm

Originally posted by Ferox_Stormdragon:
games are always licensed not sold.

OH NO! Quickly, someone alert GabeN! Some intern must not have gotten this memo because they just now started something called a "Steam Sale!" We might still be able to get them to fix it in time!

Last edited by William Shakesman; 26 Jun @ 12:36pm

Leonardo Da Pinchi 26 Jun @ 12:50pm

I mean...that's kinda always been Steam's stance on it too, that you purchase the license to access the game, not the rights to the game itself.

Even states so in Steam's own announcement/ToS.

So..kinda sounds like Steam's on board with it, not that Devs are pushing it.

mldb88 26 Jun @ 1:05pm

Originally posted by William Shakesman:
Originally posted by Ferox_Stormdragon:
games are always licensed not sold.
OH NO! Quickly, someone alert GabeN! Some intern must not have gotten this memo because they just now started something called a "Steam Sale!" We might still be able to get them to fix it in time!

In which they sell the game license…

#10

Crazy Tiger 26 Jun @ 1:09pm

Originally posted by mldb88:
Originally posted by William Shakesman:
OH NO! Quickly, someone alert GabeN! Some intern must not have gotten this memo because they just now started something called a "Steam Sale!" We might still be able to get them to fix it in time!

In which they sell the game license…

It's weird how people deliberately keep ignoring that a license is something that can be purchased.

#11

Start_Running 26 Jun @ 2:17pm

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
More and More publishers are pushing the "You don't OWN your game, you are renting a license to play it" trend. Can we get a store update to cut it off now?

You're about 30 years too late to be complaining about that.
Just shows you never paid attention to those important documents that you agree to when installing a game.

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
For instance, when someone uploads a game to be sold, they must choose whether the buyer is renting or buying the product.

Already done m8. Thing is the PRODUCT is a license to use/play the game.

Originally posted by Gray Knight:
Renting: Sold at a lower price. if the developer or publisher says they "don't want it on the store anymore", it is removed from the store and the user's library. Rented games don't go on sale, and their prices don't change.
The Model Xbox Game Pass uses

\Game Pass is actively losing Microsoft money though so that's not sustainable.
Secondly as said. the feature already exists Developers can already do that aon any platform except Gog.

Last edited by Start_Running; 26 Jun @ 9:21pm

#12

William Shakesman 27 Jun @ 6:35am

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:
Originally posted by mldb88:

In which they sell the game license…
It's weird how people deliberately keep ignoring that a license is something that can be purchased.

Very true. It leads people to trying silly sophistry like saying "games are licensed, not sold."

#13

mldb88 27 Jun @ 7:02am

Originally posted by William Shakesman:
Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:
It's weird how people deliberately keep ignoring that a license is something that can be purchased.
Very true. It leads people to trying silly sophistry like saying "games are licensed, not sold."

Or things like:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:
Software licensing has always been a little silly because they are selling, essentially, a series of 500 billion ones and zeroes. You cannot "own" a series of numbers, nor can you steal it.

Not to dismiss your concerns but quite often in these arguments people, especially those defending the license agreements, have no knowledge of the history of why this peculiar arrangement came to be and what constraints forced it to evolve in this manner. The result is a bunch of ill-informed "well ackshually the contract says..." word game nonsense rather than addressing the competing needs.

The problem is you need to figure out the definition of owning a series of numbers and what it would take to insure that. This is not an easy question. "I want access to a game I purchased for an arbitrary and unlimited future date" is a perfectly reasonable thing for a customer to demand, but it runs into issues in implementation sometimes.

I do not know if making two seperate purchasing formats solves the problem you state so much as possibly a warning that the game is contingent on an outside service to function and a lack of such service would end the game. It feels like making an entire separate schema is a bit too complicated for the problem

#14

Crazy Tiger 27 Jun @ 7:41am

Originally posted by William Shakesman:
Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:
It's weird how people deliberately keep ignoring that a license is something that can be purchased.
Very true. It leads people to trying silly sophistry like saying "games are licensed, not sold."

It's technically correct. The games are indeed licensed, not sold. After all, it's the licenses that are sold.

#15

< >

Showing 1-15 of 27 comments

Per page: 1530 50

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Suggestions / Ideas > Topic Details

Date Posted: 26 Jun @ 10:06am

Posts: 27

Start a New Discussion