If the games are cheap that is good enough for me, owning the license. But with Steam you don't get even that. They can take it away without notice, without reason. Maybe the question should be "do we own our game licenses". The answer should be yes. But not with Steam/Origin and the likes.

Actually, under german law, those are two different concepts. E.g a thief can control my bike, but he doesn't own it, nor can he transfer the ownership to another.

I can be an owner without control and vice versa. Of course those are law technicalities. I was never bothered by the fact that Steam could shut down my games for a) I would have no trouble taking them to court over it and b) piratebay.org

I find manual backups and retail boxes more of a hassle than a possible "lock out" due to whatever reason.

You never own a game, but the copy you bought. Atleast there was with older/console games be there copy protection or not. You also pretty much own your copy on gog (aslong as you downloaded it noone can take it away).

With steam and the other filth, you have to continually ask if you can still use the stuff you bought, and the DRM tells you yes or no. Actually steam is worse than others I believe as you can eg. create an offline account on GfW without requiring an internet connection (did so with Burnout Paradise).
Any criticism against Origin, Impulse, etc is more than valid for Steam aswell. EA once was the poster-child for a company valuing devs and consumers alike, Valve has long ago focused on milking money over everythng else

OP: you don't own any game from GOG neither. You just bought a license. Technically and legally, if your license is removed for any reason, you will lost your right to play the game.

The only difference is: GOG doesn't give a shit if you do use your games after losing your account.

But, for example, you cannot sold your games to anyone, because you can't transfer gog license to anybody else.

We've never owned our games, Steam or otherwise. All we ever owned was the licensed rights to use the game and, in the case of games on disk, the media the game is stored on. The game itself always has belonged to the publisher and or developer that gave us the license to use the game. The only difference with Steam is that the seller now has the ability to actually remove our access to those games that we have purchased the rights to use. Steam has basically made the non-ownership of games enforceable.

Then how does the article linked by the OP fit into this mindset?

With the way you are thinking, nothing is owned. Because I could go into your house and take aways your PC. Why can't I do it? Laws. The same laws that bind me are the one protecting you against Steams "shennanigans". It might be more difficult to enfore them, but that comes down to everyone and how he uses his rights.

True. But if you own a disk, you can transfer a license that comes with it (you can't keep a license and sell the disk and the other way around)

If you have gog account, you can't sell it, because you don't even own an account.

this. valid since the dawn of man and until the end of times.

the sob story on RPS omits the fact that the guy whose account got locked temporarily was one of those who 'gifted' cheap Russian games to Western customers on an almost professional level.

not only is that against the SSA (like it or not, but if you sign up for a Steam account you agree to it) it's also morally wrong IMO since Russian Steam prices are artificially low to combat the rampant piracy in that region. basically, we (Western Europeans and Americans) subsidize the lower Russian prices with our higher Western prices.

But weren't those licence officially "untransferable" due to their EULAs? I know everybody did it and consumer laws protects you doing that. But they protect you not because you are allowed to sell a licencse, but because the average joe couldn't distinguish between licence and property.

I remember that one time in germany, due to a legal fuckup, "lending games" to a friend (as in giving the disk to him) was illegal due to the licencing. Back then any violation was considered piracy, as you can guess it was changed again rather fast.

No. What you own is license to play the game.
Difference GOG vs Steam license is:
Steam: you have it as long you have access to your Steam account.
GOG: you have it as long as you have access to game files.

There's a lot of talk about whether you own your games, but the word "own" doesn't have any particular meaning in the context of downloaded software. If you want to discuss whether you own a game then you need to establish what you mean by "own" in that case or your conversation is likely to go in circles.

I have edited that post to specify license right after I had posted it. Like less than 1 minute after posting. Why does everyone ignore that part???

yet they are criticizing steam and valve here and even comparing to EA which when they ban you they at least tell you why. While Valve does not.


anyhow

it is not that simple. while you don't own games any less than you own books and movies... law is not that clear on that matter. It was never tested apparently.
Valve taking your access from you just cause might not really go well with customer agencies (especially in EU. USA is more corrupt so more protection for companies) nor with judges.
Valve in my opinion can close your account when closing everyone else accounts in your part of the world or in every part.
Closing account after single issue while you have 100 purchases made without any issue? That might not be legal.
Especially when it comes to third-party software. I made a deal with publisher when I bought the game (not with steam. steam is only a shop) so even if steam kicks me out valve should not have any more right to your purchase than game or EB has over your retail purchases.
I am guessing tough, based on what I know about law but really, it is up to judges and lawyers to actually state legality of steam bans.


With more and more of the world going digital the issue will soon arise in court. whether it will be good for us or for corporations is not certain tough.