Games

10/10 law can we please get this in Canada too?

Soon, GOG and all other storefronts will state that you're purchasing a temporary digital license for any game who's publisher uses an EULA that states you don't own the game. This is due to the recently signed California law that forces storefronts to be transparent about the publishers EULA.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog

Check 2.1, GOG is the same.

I would say, if you’ve purchased, just get a free version.

Nah fuck all that, you own the game already. You pirate it.

Also don’t forget to download the offline installers from GOG. I spent all of last week doing that

Hey thanks for describing this hypothetical situation, I pay Steam for a lot of game licenses so I've lost touch with the current philosophy of hypothetical alternatives.

True, with some modifications:

Some games had online activation built in. Some games would simply not install on a second or third machine without getting permission from the publisher.

Regular CDs have a lifespan of 5-10 years, shorter if not stored ideally. Almost all games had sophisticated mechanisms to prevent backups being taken.

Even if you could take a backup, record associations and publishers lobbied to make it illegal and punishable by severe fines in many countries.

Sony shipped fucking root kits on their CD that would hijack your PC and screw with backup software. EA shipped CDs with autoexexuting software that would actually delete CloneCD and other CD copying software and prevent new installes from working. My copy of Sims 2 came with that bullshit and OH MAN I was not happy about it.

I think the answer was to introduce a law which would force digital market places to clearly describe what users are paying for, for folks who weren't around during the controversial time when Steam and Xbox Live Arcade came out and can't grasp the concept; folks who didn't observe the reality before and after this shift.

Even though it was abundantly clear already, this is what the California law is all about.

If, with this clear explanation, you still want to merely get a license to use games via a service, you should be able to do it.

Valve isn't doing anything wrong: far from it. Steam is awesome and I understand that one day, it could all go away and with it, all the games I have access to.

I also understand that, at any time, Valve may decide that they don't want me to use Steam anymore, or that someone may hack into my account and I won't have access anymore.

Finally, I get that even now, things that I could do with physical games; I can't do with my Steam library (eg. Easily play a game on my Steam Deck while someone also plays another game on my desktop, or sell a game disc that sits on my desk).

I understood this when I reluctantly signed up to Steam to play Half Life 2 back in the day when it was a complete dumpster fire of a buggy mess of a service. But it has improved so much since then.

Hey, do you, but I don't see what the big deal is. We've already protested that Steam was a bad idea, and Valve was literally the devil, but it's actually turned out to be objectively more convenient than any alternative to play games, and it's no longer Valve forcing us to install Steam to play their games. Practically the entire industry has shifted, plus there are now alternatives (besides piracy) like GoG. Hopefully this law causes more competition in that DRM free space.

Isn't this only because it's soon to be legally required in California? I don't think they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.