you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Your example was paying rent and the quote is about buying. You do know that there's a difference, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    If you read the TOS then you'd see you're renting the game. Steam can revoke your access.

    Hence how it's not owned, you're paying for a period of use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (1 child)
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    "grants a license" not "grants ownership"

    You're renting it until Steam decides to revoke it. The article talks about these not being owning but you have to know going into it that you're not buying the product, you're buying a seat to use the product. That's renting. You're paying for access.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Steam changed that after people complained, rightfully and a lot. Also, them granting a "license" is part of the problem. There's no reason for them to not sell you your own copy of the game other than to benefit shitty game devs.

    It honestly never ceases to amaze me how eager some people are to get fucked over by corporations. Why are you even defending this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    everything steam did for consumer protection is less about "people complained" and more about "EU courts don't fuck with that shit".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Shitty business practices that actively fuck over consumers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments