GOG will have a "buy now" button like before, everyone else will have "License now" or something similar.
Comment has been collapsed.
GOG has pulled DRM free downloads before... so I doubt they will be able to do different than others.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not being able to download the game in a future is not the same to losing access to the game. You can keep a backup of the installer and you're able to install and play the game whenever you want. This is not different than any physical good: the store is not responsible of giving you extra copies if you lose what you bought.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is not different than any physical good: the store is not responsible of giving you extra copies if you lose what you bought.
Except this is more akin to buying a lifetime of supply of X from a store then them removing it preventing you from getting more of it.
requiring users to keep potentially thousands of installers stored just to prevent losing access to games they bought a license for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except this is more akin to buying a lifetime of supply of X from a store then them removing it preventing you from getting more of it.
Where in GoG does it says you're buying a lifetime supply?
requiring users to keep potentially thousands of installers stored just to prevent losing access to games they bought a license for.
That's exactly what you do when you buy a physical edition of a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think GOG still will be affected, as big point of buying something is ability to sell it, which GOG prohibits.
Comment has been collapsed.
It gives me an error when I try to open that page, but if this is about that new California law that Ross Scott was talking about the other day it seems a bit up in the air how exactly this is going to actually affect the current situation, also it's just California, it won't affect the rest of the USA let alone the whole world.
Also from what I heard this was about that debacle when Sony decided to stop providing downloads for people that had bought movies through PSN, it's older than the discontinuation of The Crew.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is.
You are right: Sony/Discovery and The Crew were mentioned as use cases for this law to pass. That's why I said "one of the use cases" ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
So instead of "buy", you will have "buy license" 🤷♂️
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't buy the license, it's more of a "rent license".
Comment has been collapsed.
In the end a small wording will change.
That's it.
People will still let the big companies do their thing and not boycott them till something really change.
So it will influence only the dumbest users because the smarter ones known before that they "buy" only a licence and not the game/program/movie itself.
Not worth to discuss about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess a lot of people will get confused with that change and maybe...maybe start to inform themself
Comment has been collapsed.
People will still let the big companies do their thing and not boycott them till something really change.
Heh you sound like you live in a shelter in the woods without internet, technology or games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why ?
Because i see the most people as loudmouths ones that are only strong in mobs on x/fb/whatsapp etc. when they do a shitstorm for absolute tiny stuff that are mostly idiotic on top (murican style) and aren't able to find their spine/balls and use their brains in the reallife ?
I, as example, have the publisher 505 on my hide list because of the HB bullshit with their Control game and the changed version direct after they sold it on HB. And they done something else in the same "quality" a short time before or after.
Did you expect that much people boycott them now ? I don't. Because they would lose the possibility to see and buy all this big titles that they sell too.
Did 505 learn something from it ? Yes. That they don't need to care for the customers and handle them like boot lickers that should be happy to be handled like worms that get the trash and paying for it like they get gold.
Not the type of behavior that i support and not the type of company that i support with my money.
But did i believe that the majority of players will punish companies for such behavior ? Absolute nope. The most let them do whatever they want or forget extremely fast the negative stuff that the companies done in the past (because it will be better next time... -lol-).
And i am old enough to be "old man shacking his fist against the clouds" :-DDDDDD
Comment has been collapsed.
So your some how better than the rest of us because you say no to one company? How many of the 8k+ games you have on Steam comes from 100% "good" companies that never did as you put it anything wrong and never will?
Comment has been collapsed.
Did i think that i am more intelligent then the x/fb etc. shitstorm mob people ?
Yes, absolutely.
Did this mean i am "better" than someone ?
Nope.
But at least i reflect what i do or don't do and communicate about it.
Which is more as a lot of other people do.
How many of the 8k+ games you have on Steam comes from 100% "good" companies that never did as you put it anything wrong and never will?
You don't want a answer to this "question".
And in all cases, to do something against wrong behavior of a company that you get/are aware of is better as to accept "that all companies do bad stuff now or in the future" and to do because of this nothing.
You are absolutely free to give each company your money, not from interest if they do bad stuff or not but i am the same type of free to give my money to companies that don't do bad stuff (or at least i am not aware that they do bad stuff).
Comment has been collapsed.
This could be bad in the future because we will be conditioned to know that we are just renting the license and accept it readily if it was taken, unlike today where we are renting it but it is generally unacceptable if it is taken.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what I'm thinking as well. Companys will just get more shameless in removing games and stuff because the negative publicity from doing so will be reduced thanks to the new wording. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see this as the pro-consumer move others see it :(
Comment has been collapsed.
We're already just renting it, but most people don't know / don't care. It's far from being "generally unacceptable". Having everyone to face what's actually going on is always a good thing, rather than doing the same while hiding it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hm, I have a different opinion on this subject.
A) I could see quite a lot of mainstream users - remember, when you are here, you are more educated on gaming than the average gamer - refraining from buying licensing/renting things when it will be written in clear daylight that they are no longer owning the things they have to pay for. Apart from the so called "digital natives" most people in the world are still used to the concept of owning things if you have to pay for them.
And apart from streaming only a minority of users are actively renting digital things, afaik. Although I have no reliable and valid numbers at hand. So this could lead to lesser sold licensed/rented copies.
B) If A) is true, this could, potentially, bring back demand for physical media. There are precedents for that: Vinyl is alive and sells more than CDs, physical movies on DVD/Blu-Ray are, albeit veeeeeery slowly, making a comeback. Maybe that will also happen with physical games?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think so, for so many things.
We already now this and still Gog gets a fraction of the sales that Steam gets, even if you know that buying a game in GOG will grant you access to that game as long as you have it in you Storage and have a functional OS.
But what´s the purpouse of a physical game if that game is incomplete. Most games on release now are incomplete or get patches during their lifetime. And many games are patched 10 years or more since their launch. So games are different in that regard to movies and music.
And People (many people) often buy or pay for digital goods for games that will be offline in a few years, knowing that they will get nothing then. I don't think this will change anything.
Streaming platforms have educated many to not get attached to something that you watch or listen. You own nothing, yes, but you have access to an incredible amount of entertainment yo hadn't access before. If I lose access to a game... I already have thousand of others.
If I lose access to Steam, I Still have Epic with hundreds of games.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be nice as not everyone lives in town and has access to unlimited internet. Downloading 100 GB games can be a choir when you don't even get 100 GB of data per month. Sadly it won't happen as companies would lose a lot of revenue a) purchasing the media and b) paying some other company to manufacture the game since most gaming companies have that capability. In fact if anything I see the opposite happening in that all these physical copies of console games will be phased out and end up being digital only. I mean they already sell digital only versions of consoles with no disc drive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes and for how long would a shop really want to stock a game - I mean I could go to a digital platform like Steam and buy a game from 10 years ago or even older than that - also remember that dlc is a thing that makes a great deal of money for the companies - which is why a lot of games go bundled in to packs like Humble Bundle monthly to sell extra add on DLC and furthermore to the subject look at retro on Steam bringing new life to decades old games and other smaller indie titles tha would never survive on disc (cost alone would kill some companies)
That doesn't even mention as others say patches for the games which may or may not still be about or fixes that solve problems that disc based media would never have and cutting down on plastic is a big thing - I mean you can go to my local C.E.X store and they have a whole upper floor of DVD which are 50p each the whole lot and almost no one is buying any of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
physical copies of games also supports the buying of games cycles where owners can sell old games to buy new games
this lets gamer with smaller wallets get their hands on things
like 95%ish of my physical game copies are used and i got for DIRT cheap
Comment has been collapsed.
The distribution will not change. What might change is how it is labelled. But yeah, a lot of people will now realize that they don't 'own' any games on Steam/Epic/Uplay etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose that's US only? Assuming it's not just California only.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hm... what happens in a scenario where a Steam purchase also gives you access to say a Itch.io or GOG copy of the game?
Wouldn't that count as "buying" the game then. Or would it count as "licensing" the game, but "buying" the itch.io or GOG copy along with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You do know how DRM works right? If it does not have DRM then you can do whatever you want with it as nobody can do anything about it. If there is DRM then whoever controls it controls your copy of the game as well. Plain as day. Doesn't matter that you have access to multiple versions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm talking what ifs, if you were to buy a license but along with the license you get a redemption on a site where you can always download a game from. For example GOG or itch.io. Since there you can just download the game and play whenever, doesn't need to connect to anything after you've downloaded it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol nope. I just know you get games in the past that gave you a key to activate on another store.
But I was thinking of a what if example haha.
Like I know you get itch.io games that you can buy that give a Steam key when it releases on Steam. I was sortoff thinking of the opposite being a scenario.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam is now complying with law (implemented worldwide rather than California only).
Comment has been collapsed.
yep... i see it too... not just California... here's the fine print: The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.
Steam and your Subscription(s) require the download and installation of Content and Services onto your computer. 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.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's interesting how so many people do not read fine print, never have and never will. So really, outside of the realm of lawyers, this means absolutely nothing. The term leasing extends far in scope beyond digital goods. And honestly from what I understand this is only to cover companies from being sued by that guy with the glorious P1 running windows 95 that lives in an underground shelter in rural Montana because they no longer support a game that's company went out of business 7 years ago and the rights to the game are dubious at best. Everyone seems to think that every legal change is the man trying to stick it to them but usually it's not the case. I mean I'm paranoid but I honestly don't see how this will affect me in the slightest. I remember when GFWL shut down and I lost everything from the store and I'm sure a lot of people sued Microsoft. I mean eh whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. While this is framed as a "consumer protection" change, it is actually just to protect companies from getting sued. They get to keep doing exactly what they have been doing as long as they post a disclaimer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes but does the small print really matter it's not like you have two versions of a game on Steam one - for $5 with this "temp licence" and one for $10 which is a forever copy - it is there way or nothing
Comment has been collapsed.
sooo do i own everything i purchased with a buy now in my past???
Comment has been collapsed.
No, that won't change. We own nothing and we're supposed to be happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
here's the fine print: The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.
Comment has been collapsed.
AB-2426 Consumer protection: false advertising: digital goods.
In effect in 2025.
This could be huge and - regarding our hobby - requires every game shop to change their wordings.
To summarize: This means "...that shop operators will have to point out in future that digitally purchased media, such as films, books or even video games, cannot actually be ‘bought’. The difference to actual ‘purchases’ is that the buyers do not actually own these media and their access to them can theoretically be withdrawn at any time."
"In any case, the law makes it clear that words such as ‘purchase’ or ‘buy’ can be categorised as misleading. Instead, it must be clearly stated that purchasers only acquire a single licence."
One of the use cases that lead to this law was the "The Crew" disaster by Ubisoft :D
Comment has been collapsed.