And look, I’m not saying its defensible, I’m just saying that they technically trick us into subscribing, and thus we can’t technically say we’re buying these games. So, GOG ❤️
The fact that it’s legal to have a purchase flow that looks like you’re buying things without the seller being legally obliged to have a disclaimer in big fat letters that says something like “THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE, IT’S A LICENSING AGREEMENT. LICENSING AGREEMENTS CAN BE REVOKED AT ANY TIME AND YOU WILL LOSE ACCESS TO THIS MEDIA YOU ARE LICENSING” is the actual problem.
IMHO, Corruption amongst Lawmakers and Regulators is the actual problem.
People should be avoiding like the plague any stores whose media they can’t actually download and keep in an open DRM-free format in their own devices, but they don’t because they’re not aware of it as the whole thing is one big bloody mess of expert legal domain and the fraud of misportraying a sale to be one things whilst it is a different thing being totally legal when it comes to digital media.
Can’t blame people for not understanding this and thus not navigating it in an informed way, but I sure can blame Politicians and Regulators for not doing their jobs which is to make sure that sales are fair and the consumer can make an informed choice when evaluating a potential a purchase.
I mean… They ask you to agree to the Steam subscriber agreement for each purchase. Pretty sure Epic has a similar disclaimer on each purchase as well.
People just don’t read. 🤷♂️ But yeah, it should be like a TikTok format video for all the inattentive people I guess. More people deserve to be aware of it.
Long document full of legal language than can only be truly comprehended by those with Legal Training isn’t at all the same as BIG FAT TEXT INDICATING IN A SIMPLE WAY THAT THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE.
Absolutely, in the absence of actual Pro-Consumer Regulatory Obligations, the whole “Agreement” is a valid way for sellers of digital media such as Steam to legally cover their asses and not actually saying to prospective buyers the true nature of what they’re buying.
It is, however, not a means to help a purchaser make an informed purchase, rather it’s a way for Steam and other such stores to, in the current legal and regulatory environment, legally get away with doing the very opposite and obfuscate the true nature of what the purchaser is purchasing.
Think about it this way: if the intention of Steam was to be honest and make sure purchasers were making informed purchases, then why not inform purchasers upfront in the product page in a simple way that what they would be buying was a REVOCABLE LICENSE rather than ownership of a PRODUCT, and even explain the difference, rather than hide it in a long document that requires Law training to fully understand?
That is not informing the potential buyer in a simple way, that’s hiding the information in a different page, one which is a long text made up of legalese which one need Legal Training to fully understand.
You’re just making my point.
You know what would be a simple, obvious, honest way of in that page of telling the purchaser that they’re buying a license?
To the left of the discount and the price put the text “BUY A LICENSE FOR:”
“Strangely” Steam chooses not do any such thing or similar and instead chooses to “inform” buyers with a link to a different page which is a wall of legal text.
I’m not really arguing against your point either though. I’m just saying it’s there. But I agree it can and should be clearer. I’m agreeing with you. 😉
Almost, but not exactly.
And look, I’m not saying its defensible, I’m just saying that they technically trick us into subscribing, and thus we can’t technically say we’re buying these games. So, GOG ❤️
The fact that it’s legal to have a purchase flow that looks like you’re buying things without the seller being legally obliged to have a disclaimer in big fat letters that says something like “THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE, IT’S A LICENSING AGREEMENT. LICENSING AGREEMENTS CAN BE REVOKED AT ANY TIME AND YOU WILL LOSE ACCESS TO THIS MEDIA YOU ARE LICENSING” is the actual problem.
IMHO, Corruption amongst Lawmakers and Regulators is the actual problem.
People should be avoiding like the plague any stores whose media they can’t actually download and keep in an open DRM-free format in their own devices, but they don’t because they’re not aware of it as the whole thing is one big bloody mess of expert legal domain and the fraud of misportraying a sale to be one things whilst it is a different thing being totally legal when it comes to digital media.
Can’t blame people for not understanding this and thus not navigating it in an informed way, but I sure can blame Politicians and Regulators for not doing their jobs which is to make sure that sales are fair and the consumer can make an informed choice when evaluating a potential a purchase.
I mean… They ask you to agree to the Steam subscriber agreement for each purchase. Pretty sure Epic has a similar disclaimer on each purchase as well.
People just don’t read. 🤷♂️ But yeah, it should be like a TikTok format video for all the inattentive people I guess. More people deserve to be aware of it.
Long document full of legal language than can only be truly comprehended by those with Legal Training isn’t at all the same as BIG FAT TEXT INDICATING IN A SIMPLE WAY THAT THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE.
Absolutely, in the absence of actual Pro-Consumer Regulatory Obligations, the whole “Agreement” is a valid way for sellers of digital media such as Steam to legally cover their asses and not actually saying to prospective buyers the true nature of what they’re buying.
It is, however, not a means to help a purchaser make an informed purchase, rather it’s a way for Steam and other such stores to, in the current legal and regulatory environment, legally get away with doing the very opposite and obfuscate the true nature of what the purchaser is purchasing.
Think about it this way: if the intention of Steam was to be honest and make sure purchasers were making informed purchases, then why not inform purchasers upfront in the product page in a simple way that what they would be buying was a REVOCABLE LICENSE rather than ownership of a PRODUCT, and even explain the difference, rather than hide it in a long document that requires Law training to fully understand?
But yeah, I definitely agree with you in general. You have perfectly valid points.
That is not informing the potential buyer in a simple way, that’s hiding the information in a different page, one which is a long text made up of legalese which one need Legal Training to fully understand.
You’re just making my point.
You know what would be a simple, obvious, honest way of in that page of telling the purchaser that they’re buying a license?
“Strangely” Steam chooses not do any such thing or similar and instead chooses to “inform” buyers with a link to a different page which is a wall of legal text.
I’m not really arguing against your point either though. I’m just saying it’s there. But I agree it can and should be clearer. I’m agreeing with you. 😉