You’re renting it until Steam decides to revoke it. The article talks about these not being owning but you have to know going into it that you’re not buying the product, you’re buying a seat to use the product. That’s renting. You’re paying for access.
Steam changed that after people complained, rightfully and a lot. Also, them granting a “license” is part of the problem. There’s no reason for them to not sell you your own copy of the game other than to benefit shitty game devs.
It honestly never ceases to amaze me how eager some people are to get fucked over by corporations. Why are you even defending this?
“grants a license” not “grants ownership”
You’re renting it until Steam decides to revoke it. The article talks about these not being owning but you have to know going into it that you’re not buying the product, you’re buying a seat to use the product. That’s renting. You’re paying for access.
Steam changed that after people complained, rightfully and a lot. Also, them granting a “license” is part of the problem. There’s no reason for them to not sell you your own copy of the game other than to benefit shitty game devs.
It honestly never ceases to amaze me how eager some people are to get fucked over by corporations. Why are you even defending this?
everything steam did for consumer protection is less about “people complained” and more about “EU courts don’t fuck with that shit”.
Defending what?
Shitty business practices that actively fuck over consumers.
Where have I defended that?
gestures wildly all around