• Facebones@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    plus you don’t own games on steam

    I think you misread my comment somehow. I never said you did, just that they’re good about maintaining access to content that gets pulled from the market for one reason or another.

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean I’m pretty sure that if the owner of some IP actually asked them to remove it from peoples’ libraries due to them stopping sales on Steam, they would legally have to do it.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Probably, but while I can’t say it hasn’t happened it’s certainly not common. I don’t have a count but I know I have a handful of stuff that were pulled years ago. Alot of it is tedious rights crap with music and the like which makes them ineligible for sale.

        I imagine in the case of steam, there’s not much reason to give a crap. They’re not paying to store the files. Plus, while we all have known the days of “purchased” content being stripped were coming, who wants to be the company to really pop that lid?

        Now that a few companies have broached the policy maybe we’ll see more of it in the gaming space, but idk letting steam hold onto a copy of game files is also less of an “investment” than storing something locally and streaming it.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Perhaps the comment entirely about how we don’t truly own anything digital that EXPLICITLY states “I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership” isn’t the best place to be a stout contrarian for no reason other than to puff your chest with an “um, ackchyually?”

        I used common language commonly used to describe the state of having paid for a product because “but you’ve paid for a digital license to access said content which offers no sense of ownership which can be revoked at any time for any reason” is tedious and pointless.

        The intent, purpose, and meaning of my content is clear. You’ve added nothing to the conversation, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      • Vanix@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Of course I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership”

        How did you read this sentence then not get the implication he meant ‘own a license than can be revoked’ when he then used the word own? This is lemmy, everyone knows that implication for digital “ownership”