Oh, okay, thank you.

Yeah, multiplayer is a different animal, which by nature requires outside support not always guaranteed to be there. I don't like it that this may have happened, but I am sorry but I can't get up in arms about pulling multiplayer from a game you own but you still can play single player. So, you still own it. To me multiplayer games should move from requiring dedicated servers but that's like a multiplayer DRM issue, not an ownership one IMO.

No, because I'm only interested in buying games.

Here's the story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/steam-removes-game-order-of-war-challenge-from-user-libraries/
Looks like people were confused and thought both single and multiplayer are gone, it's only multi that went down.
And here's the game, still on Steam:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/34600/

Thank you very much for linking the details. +1

Interesting. My cable provider has a similar service but they offer an offline player so that after the content is downloaded, provided you have the player on the PC, you don't need ties to the provider anymore (or internet at all).

Unless they introduce time-restricted rental, then it not going to mean that much for me. Even the games I have on discs without DRMs are not really mine. Yes, I have the discs and boxes and they are mine, but the game - I only have a single license to use it.

No opinion on Netflix, as it's not available in my country.

Personally such a change would mean nothing to me because it wouldn't even begin to solve the *many* other problems that Steam has, namely:

* Games for 'rent' on Steam are a similar price to games I can purchase and own outright elsewhere. If I'm renting a game, I expect to pay a much lower price than the price to purchase and own.
* Customer service is atrocious to the point of non existent.
* Steam lets anything on to its shop, quality is a huge issue with many developers allowed to dump broken games there with little comeback from Steam itself unless large amounts of negative publicity follow.
* Steam has (and will continue to) break games that many people still play for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.
* No refund policy, though my third point suggests they need one.
* DRM is included for many releases on Steam.
* Compulsory client to access many games.

That’s how it is. The added benefit of a disc was that you could freely resell your game. However, with current account-based or online-based technical protection measures, you can’t even do that. While you could download unlimited copies on GOG and give them to your friends, you are still not allowed to. The difference between Steam and GOG is that the latter won’t hinder you with technical protection measures. In the end, you still obtain a single-user licence that you cannot sell.

I’ve been using Netflix for a couple of years now and I honestly never want to buy a DVD or BluRay again, if I can avoid it. To me they’re ‘dust collectors’.

Admittedly, I pirated a lot of films and series while it was legal in the country I lived, mostly because there was just no online shop where I could get them (not even iTunes or Amazon). I realised that by downloading high-quality films and series, I wasted so much space on my hard drives with files I accessed perhaps once or twice per year. Often I would just delete those and simply download them again when needed.

Even though Netflix is only subscription-based, it is utterly satisfying to know that you can stream your films whenever you want to and don’t have to hoard anything. While Netflix’s catalogue is still not fully satisfactory, I do use it a lot. However, you can’t meaningfully compare Netflix with Steam. A better comparison would be with iTunes. You can buy films and download them (Steam shop), but you need to use iTunes or QuickTime to watch them (Steam client) and you may lose access if iTunes ever shuts down. In addition, you need to authorise your PC to even watch these films, which would lead to a similar result if Steam is no longer available.

You never 'own' a game. Not even when you buy it retail. It's ALWAYS a license

Rockstar:
...Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, Licensor hereby grants you a nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited, and revocable right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal, non-commercial use for gameplay on a single Game Platform....

Namco Bandai:
...The Game is licensed, and not sold, and this Agreement confers no title or ownership to the Game program or any copy thereof. In addition to the terms and conditions hereof,...

Sega:
...THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD. Sega Corporation of 1-2-12, Haneda, Ohta-ku, Tokyo, 144-8531 Japan...

Take-Two:
see rockstar, it's the same.

Infogrames(ATARI now I gues ?):
INFOGRAMES (hereinafter "the Licensor") grants you a non-exclusive licence to use this disc and any accompanying docu-mentation (hereinafter collectively known as 'the Software') subject to y...

Maybe you should do some verifying of your "fact" before calling anyone an idiot. It's not a fact just because you say so.

Ah yes, the second hand market. Good point, I forgot about it, probably because I've never sold any of my games, and bought used only once - just because that particular version was quite hard to obtain in reasonable price.

If I recall correctly, Steam introduced these "subscriptions" shortly after Europen Union Court stated that one should be able to resell digital copies of software. And it would hurt Valve badly, so they introduced all that lifetime renting.

You own the license, which gives you a right to use the software.

Renting a license is still different from owning a license. Renting a license to use software makes it plain there is a limited time period. Owning a license implies an unlimited time period. It also implies the right to transfer and/or sell said license and that's where Steam and other digital retailers really muddy the waters.

That is true. However, when you buy a game on a DVD or BluRay, the law permits you to resell that disc (as you own the disc itself). The licensor cannot prevent you from that other than by incorporating technical protection measures which you are not allowed to circumvent. If GOG would provide their games on a disc, you could sell those to whomever you want. That comes very close to ownership I would say. In Europe, the European Court of Justice expanded that idea to downloaded games too, so we might see some development in that area in the future.

I am not sure, but it seems plausible. However, it was anticipated that game sellers like Steam would make an attempt to get around the judgment. As far as I can remember, the Court of Justice explicitly held that it doesn’t matter how the game seller calls it, whether subscription or ‘lifetime rental’. It’s business hasn’t substantially changed. I’m confident, the court will take care of that soon enough.

That’s just semantics. For the law, both are mere contracts in which you are the licensee. If that contract says that you cannot transfer the licence to another person, then that’s how it is. The same would be true if you buy a DVD or BluRay. The difference is that the law recognises and values your ownership of the disc more than the licensee’s copyright, which is why the first-sale doctrine allows you to resell your disc to whomever you want, even if the licence forbids it. With games downloaded on Steam or GOG, that rule doesn’t apply yet. It’s undeveloped law at this point, even in Europe where there is now some precedent that you should be able to resell downloaded games too.

And I would call you an asshole because it's true. :P

You don't "own" retail games, either. Just the license.

Yes, a little.

In this instance Steam would use correct definition of its services, so there would be accordance of name and content. A little bit of honesty. Maybe it would clarify for some of those who don't realize what Steam really is.

But anyway I'm not going to use it. And consequent Four B would be really great - Steam-tied retail versions of vg make me call all the curses to publishers. Its monopoly over almost all vg distribution, not only digital, is absolutely horrible.