Gamers Don't Get to Keep OnLive Purchases

[craddoke]

The tl;dr version is as follows: Valve is under no obligation to release the games from the DRM should they go bust. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't.

It does mean, though, that subscribers do not own the content they purchase on Steam - they're renting it.

What the HELL are you talking about?

When you buy a STEAM game, you own it. Sure you have to start STEAM first, but even assuming STEAM were to crash and burn you could still start it in offline mode and play your games like you normally would. The idea that you are just renting the games you buy from STEAM is utter rubbish and used as a lame argument by people who hate the service.

You should really take the time to read your terms of service (not product purchase) from Steam. Contrary to what you say, I don't "hate" Steam - I just don't think the software as service model is a good deal for the consumer regardless of vendor. Sure, Valve may be completely honest and trustworthy and give you no reason to worry - but legally they could screw you over without liability (as can Apple, Amazon with their Kindle service, B&N's Nook service, OnLive, etc.). You're absolutely right that these companies avoid the word "rent" - after all, how could they justify their prices if we're talking about renting services? - but what else can you call a purchase that doesn't guarantee you indefinite ownership of the item being bought?

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

I fail to see what the big deal here is, seeing as only about 3 people are actually going to buy OnLive.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Wow, Onlive launched?
I thought it died out years ago.

Yeah, that appears to be the prevailing view. I recall mentioning it here a year ago and being told it wasn't feasible. Thought the idea had tanked after that. Interested though I may have been at that point, I'm a lot more sceptical oftge whole enterprise now. Especially with this inevitable ownership tomfoolery. Can't really see myself using the service, except maybe for the occasional rental. Even then, though..big draw of PC gaming for me is RTS games, and I can't see the Total War series going down too well as a rental.

On somewhat unrelated note, does anybody know whether Zeno Clash is coming to consoles?

 

[XMark]

Sounds interesting. I don't think I'd ever buy a game through OnLive because I wouldn't really own it, and the prices seem to be about the same despite the added limitations. But I would definitely use it to rent games.

It would also be a great way to deliver an MMORPG online, since all the architecture of the game world itself would be in the cloud instead of having to be installed on every user's computer. And an MMORPG is by definition a subscription-based online-only game already. They should really look into that.

Of course, I'm in Canada so it'll be a while before they get it set up here for me to try.

 

[Timbydude]

I guess OnLive is good if you don't have a good computer, but that's just too risky for me to spend money on. Steam may also be a "rental" service in a sense, but it vows to never take away my games, and it's run by a company that has already proven that it knows what it's doing. If I become disinterested in gaming for a year and forget about OnLive, it's effectively like someone coming into my house and taking all my discs forever.

 

[Veylon]

This article is misleading in the notion that your "buying" anything at all. The games stay on their servers; in fact the entire point of the thing is that you are using their state-of-the-art systems to play with instead of your own box. I wouldn't expect to own anything in this setup anymore than I expect to own the machines at the arcade because I put a quarter in.

Granted, I'm not going to be putting any of my quarters in this crazy scheme, but why get outraged over the fact that this isn't any more than it claims to be?

 

[thePyro_13]

Well they have now guaranteed that any customer who leaves for a long period of time will never return to their service.

 

[wonkify]

And thus exactly my distrust of 'buying' any games via the cloud. You own exactly that, vapor. Until I get certainty of keeping my copy of any game I purchase in perpetuity, it isn't owned by me.
The only ones I truly own are the disks I possess that date from times predating DRM snares that restrict my use of them in any fashion.
I have installed, played and uninstalled various games repeatedly, on different machines I own, over the years. And will continue to do so as long as I can get them to run.
Freedom Force and Thief 2 are on this laptop as I write this, and I look forward to playing them yet again.
THOSE games I own.

 

[GamerPhate]

Ha Ha .. oh Microsoft ...

 

[GamerPhate]

It's shit like this why digital distribution won't work.

@Topic

This has officially destroyed any interest I have in OnLive.

Yeah, I got banned from steam for no reason when I had like $70 on there, but I also on another account got taken away around $15-$30, so in conclusion, steam is a rip off.

No, in conclusion, you are a moron and you can't protect your account data, and can't tell the difference between a fake phishing site and the real thing.

Either that, or your are one of the hacking, cheating scum I despise in Source games (GOD I LOVE VAC!!!).

I have 1000 dollars + in my steam account, and i've had it since 2006.

If you have a brain, you can protect your shit, if not, well, tuff' luck bub.

Hacking and Cheating WILL get you banned... so DON'T do it ...
That is the only way I have seen accounts get taken on Steam, short of someone stupidly giving out their password online or something.

 

[Jfswift]

This looks alot like the game console idea I suggested a month ago and I like it. I probably wont get one though because that's crap if they wont let you keep the games you paid access fees to use if you drop the subscription. What they should do is have you setup an individual account like on steam or playstation and record your purchases. I'd be okay with it then.

 

[Deef]

I'd only use OnLive to rent games anyways. I like tangible boxes, makes me feel better.

 

[theultimateend]

So it is exactly the same as the Kindle or Steam.

Not too shocking.

 

[Buccura]

People complain about not actually owning games you buy on Steam. At least they are locked onto your account and you actually do get the hard data on your PC/MAC.

This further ensures that OnLive goes on my "Can't be arsed" list.

 

[Kollega]

I don't usually do that, but i have to. I have to yell as loud as i can, one simple thing:

[HEADING=1]TOOOOOLD YOOOUUU![/HEADING]

Who couldn't have seen this coming?

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I've read and re-read this post a few times. I've been unable to find any part of this article that is news.

I've read the comments. "blindsided" or words to the same effect comes up fairly often.

Help me out here. Onlive is an online only service thats always claimed (ever since it was a twinkle in that webtv jackass' eye) to stream "games" from centralized locations through an unholy hybrid of three business models (subscription plus rental and "licensing"). What part of that implies one would ever be making "lasting" purchases from it?

I mean, even if we live in the fantasy world where this isn't a blatant pump-and-dump or "long con," and its not only possible for onlive to do everything it claims, the service actually manages to turn a profit... why would anyone ever think they'd spend the money to keep every game hosted indefinitely?

I mean if even in a pure fantasy world the service has crippling limitations, how could anyone not predict at least whats contained in this news post?