Sorry Alan Wake 2. I won’t download Epic to play you. I want to play with you, but that’s asking too much.
I hope you stop being exclusive someday. But by the time that happens, I’ll have probably forgotten about you. If you’re lucky, I might remember and pick you up on sale.
I really hope this will be a lesson to other developers that signing up for Epic money to be an Epic exclusive means you exclude a huge chunk of the PC market.
Haven’t played Alan Wake 2 yet, is it good? I remember the original one fairly fondly (it played really well on my underpowered laptop and thought the story was decent).
My wife is the Alan Wake fan. I never really saw much of the first one but when 2 was released I sat and watched her play it on PS5 and it was awesome. As just a watcher I was blown away and could watch her play it again. It’s a very well designed game imo.
Yes Alan Wake 2 is very good. It’s very unique and oozes with style. I really like the track Remedy is on lately, first with Control and now with Alan Wake 2, whereas their earlier games did not grab me.
Alan Wake 2 was my personal GotY last year (and yes, I also played BG3). It’s both great as a video game, but also doing something very different from other AAA games with a very unique artistic POV, which I admire. It’s also dramatically enhanced by having played AW1 and Control, as the Remedy Connected Universe is doing a sort of Marvel thing. Hell, it even pseudo-ties into Max Payne and Quantum Break.
I definitely recommend it, not least for that one specific moment which I can’t spoil. Also the soundtrack is an absolute banger, I still listen to Poe - This Road frequently.
Ok, but it was planned as one. I’m very wary of this project, to be honest. Seems like they developed one thing, changed it, then went back to the original vision - not a good sign for a cohesive, stable project.
the fact that gog is even in business is impressive to me.
You mean to tell me you can actually make money and run a successful company by just, respecting the customers? And giving them what they want? Even in late stage capitalism?
If the words on the internet are to be believed, GOG’s been running at a loss all this while, with papa Witcher covering the costs. Maintaining a large library of games is expensive.
Imagine inheriting a GOG account originally registered by your great-great granpa containing ungodly amount of games you can’t possibly play all of them in a lifetime.
There is VM software like VirtualBox you can use the run older versions of Windows. I’ve had better experience running old games through Windows XP in VirtualBox than directly on Windows 10.
To be fair, a lot of GOG games are already for CPUs and OS’s that don’t exist. Like, a significant amount of their library was meant to run in DOS on a 486. They’re pretty fucking good at making that not be a problem.
Like other mentioned, a lot of old games sold right now actually packaged with dosbox. Some even packaged with Wine so it can run on different platforms. The real problem would be emulating current modern graphic stacks but that would be future preservists’ problem.
It’s confusing phrasing by GOG, but I take it to mean a court order settling an estate or other similar documentation. Which makes sense, since otherwise you could claim someone is dead and just social engineer yourself a free account.
Their full statement is really just that they’ll comply with a court order specifically relating to the library, less a general estate settlement.
In general, your GOG account and GOG content is not transferable. However, if you can obtain a copy of a court order that specifically entitles someone to your GOG personal account… we’ll do our best to make it happen.
This is really just a more casual phrasing of valves policy.
Steam accounts and games are non-transferable. Steam support can’t provide someone else with access to the account or merge its contents with another account. Your Steam account cannot be transferred via a will.
It’s not like valve is going to ignore a court order either.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand where you’re getting your limitation on GOG and expansive interpretation on Valve.
GOG’s says a court order that “specifically entitled someone to your GOG personal account” is enough. Arguably a will that leaves “my personal GOG account,” recognized by a court determining estate, would suffice. Why wouldn’t it?
Conversely, Valve is specific that Steam accounts “cannot be transferred via a will.” Not only is Valve affirmatively denying a will qualifies, it seems Valve is likely relying on an interpretation that the account is not descendible in the first place.
No, you need to think like a lawyer. Let’s start from the end, if a court ordered GoG/Valve to transfer the account, they would do their best to do so, so saying so is meaningless. So the question becomes: How can a court order them to do so? Valve specifically states that a will is not valid, GoG doesn’t, but if the court decides that the will is valid Valve’s wording is meaningless, if on the other hand the court decides that a will is not valid for digital licenses then you wouldn’t get the court order for GoG, therefore mentions to will on their legal agreement is meaningless. And just a will doesn’t give you right to the account without a judge ordering so.
So long story short, both are meaningless, one says we will comply if forced and the other one says you can’t use a will, both means: you can’t use a will, but if a judge forces us we will comply.
I really think it’s a case of valve being explicit (no, your uncle can’t will you his steam collection), and gog having the same policy but looking for the closest way to say “yes” to avoid falling into the same PR trouble.
“No, access is lost when you die” is a valve support person giving a direct response to an individuals question.
“Yes, if we are given no legal choice” is a gog PR person answering a reporter to sound as good as possible.
It’s one of the better known downsides of digital media, so this whole thing feels a little… Much ado about nothing new.
A probate court validating a will isn’t a court order is the thing.
For both companies, they agreed to provide you access to the titles in exchange for money. You can’t generally will a service to someone else. It’s why things like bank accounts get crazy weird with estates (weird for anyone other than a banker or lawyer). We’ve had a very long time to work out how we handle it. The money in the account is an asset owned by the estate. It’s a “thing” that you can will. The account itself is owned by the estate, but it can’t be willed because it’s an agreement between the bank and the deceased.
When the estate is being handled, only the person managing it can access the bank account, and then they move the money to the accounts of the person who gets the money, even if it’s at the same bank.
Games in your game library aren’t assets like money is. They’re non-transferable licenses. A physical disk is an asset.
We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
Their user agreement is particularly approachable, and includes nice explanations next to the sections.
This is whole thing is really a case of valve being very explicit about a significant drawback of digital assets to avoid confusion (their support has clearly had to address this situation before 😔). Gog is answering a press question being asked in response to the explicit reply from valve, so of course they’re going to avoid saying “our policy is the same”.
If it were routinely transferable via normal estate transfer, they wouldn’t need to specify the need for a court order, or that the installers are drm free so they couldn’t revoke access. If it went to an estate, the account would transfer automatically with the estate like every other tangible good.
Wouldn’t Steam also need to follow a Court Order? Like, wouldn’t they be legally forced to? Because if they didn’t adhere to it they would be found in Contempt of Court, which is a pretty big deal legally speaking.
IANAL, but… I’m guessing GOG is of the opinion that they’re selling you a license that you own, and can thus bequeath to your heirs, where Steam is of the opinion they’re selling you a nontransferable license, so a will bequeathing it to someone would be seeking to enforce something you lack permission to do.
Aren’t non-transferable licenses basically illegal or void in the US because they violate the First-Sale-Doctrine though? Or perhaps it does not apply to digital products and that is how Valve applies it to Steam accounts?
As far as I am aware, most of the game and sofrware companies get around it by stating you're no longer buying a thing, but buying a non-transferrable licence to use the thing but you never actually own anything.
Microsoft, yes but they use the wording to buy windows license for example. Game companies still use wording “buy” game. Unless they change the purchase wording, I, as a consumer, am assuming I am buying a copy of the game I can play indefinitely while I own the game.
Yes, I understand that point. However, the point I am making is (going to make as black and white as possible, oversimplifying it on purpose):
If you’re selling a digital product (a non physical item), and use any of the following terms:
buy (ex. Buy now, buy today, etc)
purchase (ex. purchase now, purchase today, purchase to play, etc)
Own (ex. Own today, own and play today, etc)
Copy (ex. Get your copy today, your copy is waiting, we have your copy waiting, etc)
Then, I, as consumer of physical goods, being used to these types of wording meaning ownership of a copy without the ability of the manufacturer to come to my house and take the product away when they feel like or disable/remove songs, parts of movies or whatever by coming to my house and scratching off that part of the Blu-ray or DVD or whatever, should not be tricked into this by having to then read a 1000 word essay of legal speak saying you do not own what you are buying but are infact:
Renting
Licensing
Borrowing
Leasing
Said product, then that should violate some law about false advertising.
However, no one has taken the companies that started doing that to task, and now even companies like John Deer have been pulling that shit.
Hell, Monsanto actually took farmers to court on that principle for growing crops that had been naturally cross pollinated with "their" GMO crops using that principle.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am stating what we have allowed the rich fucks to get away with.
Licences are different than physical goods.
With a physical good you’re transferring ownership of that “thing”, and the new owner can do as they like, except for the exceptions made for copyright.
With a licensed thing, it’s closer to a rental. Just because you rented the tool doesn’t mean you can sell it, and it doesn’t mean that the rental company is obligated to let your next of kin keep using it.
This goes double for things like digital media, because the rental company is also the one who has actual possession of the thing. They’re not taking anything, they’re just not giving someone they never did business with access to it.
With a physical good you’re transferring ownership of that “thing”,
A use-right is also a thing that can be sold and for which stuff like the first sale doctrine applies. Possession and property of the use right is all yours, even if it does not include the right to make additional copies, that is, to sublicense.
At least that’s how it works over here, always has. You can get perfectly valid Windows Pro keys here on the cheap, there’s a small cottage industry buying up volume licenses at bankruptcy proceedings and the like and unbundling them. If Microsoft can’t stop that then Valve won’t, either.
I’m sure someone will challenge it in the EU then at some point.
In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like “accounts”.
Valve and gog have the same policy. I’m fairly confident that both of them didn’t decide to violate the law in the same way that’s also consistent with how other digital licensing arrangements work without consulting with some lawyers on their user agreements.
In the US not all licenses are transferable, and that includes things like “accounts”.
That’s maybe a service that you can’t transfer but it’s still holding property of the account holder. More like escrow.
As to lawyers, well, they aren’t hiring lawyers to follow the intent of the law but to write terms that they think they might get away with, at least for a while, and if not, not be nailed for fraud or such. Corporate lawyers are just as slimy in the EU as they are elsewhere.
I don’t know what to tell you beyond “in the US, not all licenses are transferable”. Different countries have different laws.
It’s a pretty well trod area of law, so it’s not really contentious that it’s a legal license term in the US. www.shadesofgraylaw.com/…/cant-transfer-this/ is an example. It’s less tested for consumers.
The lawyers are definitely there to protect the company. No lawyer is ever there to follow the intent of the law, because it’s the letter that matters in almost every circumstance.
Knowingly adding an illegal term to the terms of the agreement is a great way to not only fail to protect the company, because the entire thing might get tossed out, but to risk professional consequences.
Even the Microsoft terms of service say “non-transferable unless you’re in Germany or other EU jurisdiction where such clauses are unenforceable”.
So I’ve spent a few minutes trying to see what the internet thinks, and it looks like there’s not a clear consensus that the First-Sale-Doctrine applies to non-physical goods similarly to physical ones, and does seem to be a consensus that digital goods make it a lot messier. Seems like the law hasn’t caught up to technology, still.
And in absence of clear law, it makes sense that companies are making their own opinions, and unfortunate that some are being greedier than they could be.
More like the technology hasn’t caught up to the law. There certainly isn’t a consensus that the First Sale Doctrine doesn’t apply to digital goods, and should never be because that’s absolutely wrong.
I think is a bit strange that Steam is so adamant on that. Sure in total every game of an inherited account might be a lot, but most are old games they sell for 5 bucks or less. How many of these old games would’ve been bought again from the new owner? I have little time for old games or old media, so it would be like getting grandpa Joes old book collection. It’s not worthless but the emotional value is probably higher than the real use. Steam gets 30% of every game sold, seams enough to cover account forwarding.
At this point I believe Steam is just trying to avoid a rabbit hole. Given how massive and easily abused Steam platform is… it does not align with their interest.
They’ll be forced to accept it, at least in the EU, they will also need to enable you to resell your games. EU law on this is clear, rulings in other cases are clear, all we’re waiting for is for Valve to stop appealing or lose before the ECJ, whatever is first.
The tl;dr is if they want to argue that they’re simply renting out licenses then they shouldn’t be taking one-time but regular payments, or only give out time-limited licenses for one-time payments, or some such. They should also avoid terms such as “buy” and “summer sale” like the plague.
They probably don’t care, but are dealing with a lot of publishers they want to keep happy. If they’re forced to transfer the titles by a court, they can wipe their hands of any of their publishers being angry at them.
I think the phrasing is wrong. GoG wants a public document detailing the legal estate transfer. Can’t just email them a death certificate and claim your a beloved grandson.
People have died because of wills. Shit gets messy.
I think they may have meant a probate court. Steam can ignore or argue against a probate court on several grounds and might have to be taken to a judicial court, GOG may be claiming they would accept the judgement of a probate court. Definitely needs to be expanded upon and clarified.
If the law says you can transfer licenses posthumously to someone, businesses are compelled to do so. No private agreement is above the law.
If the business granting the license doesn’t consent and they pull it they are then able to be sued for violating a law allowing posthumous transfer of license.
x.com
Hot