MetalMagpie said:
I think he means that Steam offers a service whereby you can pay for unlimited access to a game. The way software is sold is that you purchase a license to use it, rather than purchasing the software itself. Otherwise there would be legally nothing to stop you from copying a video game disc a million times and selling the copies. If you own it, you can do whatever you like with it.
For what it's worth, this is also the way that other digital media such as films and stock images are sold. You buy a license to use it. You don't gain ownership of the content. A license can be a one-off payment, a subscription or even just in exchange for handing over your email address, but it always comes with terms of use. Generally speaking, licenses don't tend to be things you're allowed to "sell".
This was all a bit muddy whilst video games were entirely distributed on physical media. You absolutely own the plastic disc (and thus have a right to resell it) but you don't own the information on it, you've just bought a license to use it (under specified conditions). Bit of a mess for consumers to understand and difficult to game publishers to enforce anyway. But digital distribution (combined with most of the target market having internet access) means that publishers are now in a position to actually enforce one-license-one-user policies.
I'm personally fine with companies selling software using whatever type of license they can dream up, providing they make the terms clear to consumers (something I'm not sure Valve have done as well as they could). The company I work for sells software on the SaaS model (Software as a Service). We run the program on our own hardware and customers pay us a subscription fee.
TLDR: Selling software is not the same as selling cars.
And that is a major part of the problem with the understanding of this issue. Buying a copy of a game is not ownership of the intellectual property, it is ownership of something that was produced for mass consumption and distribution where in each copy is functionally identical to every other copy. Owning a copy of something, and owning the intellectual property of something are two completely and very clearly defined things.
For some reason those who defend Steams anti consumerist practices seem to not want to acknowledge and differentiate between the two. Buying a copy of something you are completely free to do with it what you want. However in doing so you are not free to take it, alter it, then try to resell it and claim it was your own creation, under the original name of the creation, and that it is a brand new product of your own design.
Imagine the painting of the Mona Lisa. You buy a canvas print of the painting. When you own that print, thats what you own, the print. Not the original product. You can repaint the whole thing so the colors match the scheme of your living room. You can even resell it (as used of course) as an altered print of the painting, but you cannot try to sell it as "THE" Mona Lisa. You cannot try to expect the same value of your alteration of a reproduction of the original as the original is worth. At the same time, Zombie Da Vinci cannot rise and demand all the money from the sale of your altered copy of the print because the print was produced for mass distribution. Each copy is its own entity and owning that copy is what one owns when they buy it, Not claim on the original work.
Now knowing this difference, which is honestly a clear cut and obvious distinction, Steam has no right to try to claim that what they sell is the service, because there is no service steam provides other than the distribution of the product. The only reason people come to steam is to buy the products they want. Steams service is that of distributing those products in a digital format. The fact it is in a digital format does NOT give them the right to claim they offered a service when none was provided but that is EXACTLY what they are doing and trying to cement because it is obvious, if you can change a product into a service, you are no longer governed by the laws of selling a product which comes with consumer protections, you are governed by the conditional laws of providing a service which can be terminated with or without your consent, with or without recompense for the individual transactions made.
If steam was an "access" Service, it would mean all games in the steam library would have to be accessible. THAT would be steam providing a service. Sort of the way Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu plus offer services of access. However where steam still sells the products as individual products they under no rational law of man or commerce have the right to claim what they sell is a service.
Is steam the only party guilty of this? Not by a long shot, From a corporate perspective its a great idea because it gives you all the control and power over the service, the freedom to stop the service as you see fit and leaves the customer with nothing if it is and no recourse if you do. The problem isnt that companies are trying to do this nearly as much as the real problem is that Steam has found a way to get people to willingly abandon their protections and allowing Steam convert the entire industry into transforming products into services. Thais why attention needs to be focused on Steam. Because they have managed to find that niche that is giving them the financial clout to forcibly transform products into a service and as they prove this business model viable they will continue expanding outward (Productivity software, Music and how long before Video comes into the steam fold) as well as giving other distributors ideas on how to emulate the same tactic.
That is the real problem here. We are honestly on the verge of an economic revolution thanks to digital distribution. The problem is that the rules of this new economic world are being written by corporations, in their favor and being voted into effect by way of financial support by an apathetic audience who simply does not care if everyone's rights are lost, so long as they get what they personally want. Even when want something that will end up not only hurting them, but everyone.
So lets use your TL;DR for a moment. If we let Steam write the rules today on what is the industry standard operating procedure for digital distribution today and run all companies who are doing digital distribution but still respecting that a product is a product off, what happens in 10-20 years as digital 3d printing takes off and we ARE buying cars via digital distribution? We let the rules be written that its a subscription. So just because you paid a boat load of money, your vehicle could be taken away at the distributors discretion because thats what you agreed to it.
