It's mostly semantics for this context. You purchase the right to use them for an unspecified time, not the game itself. Steam can revoke that access by shutting down your account or the service at any time. DRM will make sure that not even games you have installed will continue to run.
They have no right to delete installed games, do they? How, exactly, is steam going to prevent you from accessing the files on your computer? They are always there and ready to be archived by you and even Steam itself.
Now, some, or even many, new games may refuse if they are somehow extremely dependent on the service. The ones that I have tried run fine. Most old stuff, though.
> How, exactly, is steam going to prevent you from accessing the files on your computer
The vast supermajority of games on steam require steam itself to be operable in order to even run. Valve absolutely can break or turn off steam and (legally!) revoke access to most games on most steam user PCs that way.
The very fact that you say so basically proves the parent's point: you believe that you bought a game (or a Kindle ebook or whatever), whereas in fact you have zero control over it and if the vendor decides you can't use it, you can't. It's not a theory, it's practical reality, already tested by Adobe.
> Laws trump ToS of any kind. Do you disagree with that?
What do you mean by that? The steam ToS (which are enforceable by law) make pretty clear that Valve can revoke your access to any game at any time. Further, your access is dependent on Valve's continued existence. The argument that you are "buying a license" is like saying you "buy a rental contract" at a car rental place. The contract you have with Valve to play the game allows you to play the game for an indefinite period of time, but crucially only while Valve is still in business and while they let you play the game. This is in the ToS and in the USA there is no reason (IANAL) that I see to think the courts won't enforce this contract.
> If things are different in your jurisdiction, please do share how and why
Which law in your jurisdiction makes the Valve ToS feel more like a purchase and less like a rental?
The big difference with the car rental vs a perpetual license is the perpetual aspect of it. Nobody is signing a contract with a car rental place to exchange money once and then have the car for a long, indeterminate time.
Rental contracts have defined time periods. Perpetual licenses don't. That's a massive difference.
Are you seriously arguing that ToS somehow override laws?
Since you're not a lawyer (your words) and seem to care about US laws (I don't), I am not sure what's the point of this response to a topic about digital purchases in the EU.
The confusion in this conversation seems to be centered on the difference between US and EU law. In the EU, Steam may have to change the wording on the "buy" button. It will be interesting to see.
In the US it is legal to have a "buy" button that actually purchases a longterm revocable license. I don't like it, but thats how it works on this side of the pond.
Fair enough. I think the "buy" text issue was somewhat resolved a while ago here in the EU. Yes, you may not own the game but do purchase non-revokable licence. Was it based on German law? Don't remember
I agree (hence the whole topic) however in practice steam has full control. If steam servers shut down tomorrow and the client destroys itself most games will refuse to start.
