This is in reference to a post titled Amazon Prime Video is able to remove a video from your library after purchase.. The title is kind of self-explanatory and piracy was brought up in the comments. Someone mentioned GOG and Steam granting users indefinite licenses to users regardless of whether or not the game is still being sold.
While I could see that with GOG something tells me that's probably not the case with Steam but I can't find a specific quote to back it up. I can't seem to find an instance of them removing a game from someone's library even when a game was banned in a country like in the case of Disco Elysium and Rimworld being banned in Australia.
I couldn't see Valve removing games from people's libraries without a good reason due to the amount of backlash that would cause but maybe under specific circumstances they would.
On a similar note I was curious if anything in the terms and conditions talks about Steam emulators. There's a section it that says:
“… host or provide matchmaking services for the Content and Services or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by Valve in any network feature of the Content and Services, through protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Content and Services …”
But I am not sure if I am misunderstanding what it's trying to get across.
I looked through a majority of the Steam Subscriber Agreement but it can be a bit hard to decipher. There could also be comments from Valve staff elsewhere like on Twitter or Reddit that may at least shown their thoughts on the matter.
This might be a bit boring for a lot of people but I am curious about the DRM behind Steam. I feel like people have placed a lot of trust and money into Valve and Steam so I am curious about potential worst case scenarios.
One interesting thing about Valve, especially when people start talking negatively about Epic in relation to Steam, is that they have attempted to argue in court that Steam is a subscription based service. It did not work out for them, but the end goal was them wanting to say that they did not have to provide access to purchased titles.
I did not know that. I wonder if it was argued to give them the freedom to do as they please to potentially cover their asses or if it was with a goal in mind like a rental service or a streaming service like Stadia.
I wonder if it was around the same time Steam Machines or Steam Link were really being pushed.
I'm not really sure why, but most people aren't aware the extent that Valve has been litigated against. When they went into Australia, they basically disregarded numerous laws and we're fined and called out on all of them. The subscription-based service idea they tried to pass was in a French court though. I think that was 2018. Here's a link to more of it: https://www.engadget.com/2019-09-19-french-court-valve-steam-resold.html
Thanks for the link.
I wonder how long they plan on dragging this out for. I heard a bit about the debate regarding reselling games but I don't recall hearing about Valve backing down.
I'm confused by your comment; are you saying Steam claimed they were a streaming service, or Epic claimed they were a streaming service, and what was the end goal? Do you by chance have an article about it? I'm interested in reading more.
I'd search myself but I don't understand enough to know what to search for.
I tried throwing some keyword soup into Google and got nothing. "steam epic claim streaming service court legal"