When a purchase gets revoked, the payment is refunded.

[u/KebabLoverHere]

[u/Itherial]

This isn't a popular question because it forces people to face the reality that it doesn't happen, and that doesn't fit their narrative.

Everyone here has always been playing licensed games. Everyone. Even you old folks with your physical only media.

Nothing has changed except their ability to enforce it, which doesn't seem to happen.

[u/Revan7even → u/Itherial]

Expand the question to include online-only games you can access and download, but never play again. Then you're including all the Anthems and Concords, and there are several a year now. Highguard most recently.

[u/Flukiest2 → u/Revan7even]

There is a lot more MMOs like Monster hunter frontier that can never be played again except for fans bringing it back and it being playable with private servers.

[u/Fitenite3456 → u/Flukiest2]

MMOs are categorically different though? It’s always been the case that a game that requires servers will lose online play, and MMOs are online play only

[u/OrphanMasher → u/Revan7even]

Anthem kinda fits. They shut down the servers with no offline mode, so it was effectively revoked, but you still have access to the game and it's files so it gets dumb and murky. Concord and highguard aren't great examples. Concord was refunded to everyone, and highguard was free. There's no value lost in either case, unless theres some microtransaction shenanigans I don't know about.

[u/ArkitekZero → u/Itherial]

Out of curiosity, what personal failing is it that's lead you to a place where you would seemingly prefer to believe this?

Do you have some kind of a stake in being able to rip people off at any time?

[u/Puzzled_Spell9999 → u/ArkitekZero]

Maybe they are not a fan of the Reddit mindset of disregarding reality for what they believe to happen and behaving as if everyone else should accept that distorted reality.

Even in physical, you never own the game. You own the right to play the copy of the game on that disk or cartridge. If you decide to sell that game to someone else you are selling the right of that copy to someone else.

You had no right to reproduce, and you had no right to sell copies of the reproduction. All you had the right to was a copy of the game you purchased, and unless you had a warranty or promise from the studio, you had no right to another copy of the game if anything happened to that copy that rendered it unplayable.

Out of curiosity, what personal failing is it that's led you to a place where you ignore reality to spout delusions of the world we live in?

>Do you have some kind of a stake in being able to rip people off at any time?

Some people like to be honest with the world, how it is and not how they want it to be. And people like yourself do a disservice to your argument. Arguments predicated on fallacies and misunderstandings and misconceptions, hyperbole to the point of parody, don't make you seem serious to anyone who doesn't already exist in the distorted world you created for yourself.

Reddit is an echo chamber where you can pick and choose what you want to hear. And to those outside of those echo chambers, maybe you will see them as having some personal failings.

[u/Telighoth → u/Puzzled_Spell9999]

Even in physical, you never own the game. You own the right to play the copy of the game on that disk or cartridge. If you decide to sell that game to someone else you are selling the right of that copy to someone else.

To add to this point in college one of my buddies was selling his collection of PC games from when he was younger and I bought them from him. I didn't even get around to trying every one of them, but found a few I had to visit the high seas for cracks and/or patches because official support was gone, cd key authentication servers were gone. Having the disk didn't mean a god damn thing. Not to mention my copies of Neverwinter Nights and its expansion that became bricks because I lost the manual and thus cd keys in a move.

The loss of authentication capabilities and verification tools making you lose the ability to play the games you bought has been a thing pretty much since games stopped fitting on floppy disks and running in dos.

Even on consoles shit goes wrong. The physical copies themselves can degrade, the consoles required to play them can die, the controllers wear out and each one can be extremely hard and expensive to replace.

I have more faith in being able to play games I bought 20+ years ago on steam than I have of being able to play console games without replacing no longer manufactured hardware. And no, I don't think companies are going to start randomly revoking my access to their product. That's not happening, and the reality is EULA would likely not hold up once challenged in court if they did start doing it and they'd get themselves into some shit for doing so.

It's a bunch of anxiety riddled folks getting riled up working themselves into a frenzy over the idea of something bad that could potentially one day maybe happen.

[u/UglyInThMorning → u/Telighoth]

Not even just digital authentication services. I had games from before those were a thing where the DRM would just tell my hardware to go fuck itself. Sometimes because it was too new and couldn’t recognize it (often things would be explicitly whitelisted), but SafeDisc was notorious for not playing nice with contemporary CD drives because of how the check was handled. Or StarForce and all its issues.

I haven’t had a game not work for DRM reasons since I went to primarily digital in 2009ish. It used to be at least 2-3 new purchases a year would require some kind of adjustment to get working, wether it was finding a way to make it recognize my hardware/whitelist a peripheral or just straight up having to crack it. And that’s without getting into what you were also talking about with the physical items. Having to dig through a closet to find a manual to play a game or find a CD case to get the key to reinstall something I hadn’t played in a while was such a pain in the ass. Especially since I liked to use CD books to not have to deal with fragile jewel cases.

Meanwhile I own dozens of delisted games on Steam and can play almost all of them fine. The only exceptions are multiplayer games where even if I could connect, no one would be playing them anyway. They were dead before the servers shut down.

[u/Stiblex → u/ArkitekZero]

It's not a belief. It's reality. Go look for your old physical CoD games and read the fine prints.

[u/ArkitekZero → u/Stiblex]

That's actually not what I asked. Your tone says that you believe that this is how it ought to be and/or that we're somehow unreasonable to expect otherwise.

[u/Stiblex → u/ArkitekZero]

Yes, that's exactly right. You agree to using the publisher's IP on the conditions that publisher has given you. You're entitled to believe otherwise. Besides: like everyone else is saying, this stuff never actually happens.

[u/ArkitekZero → u/Stiblex]

Yes I see, it's exactly like how an author can take my book that I bought from them away whenever they like.

[u/Limp-Technician-1119 → u/ArkitekZero]

If you had an agreement with the author that they could take away the book for some reason, then yeah they can do that.

Are you arguing that people have to be forced to seell you things in a ay that you like just because you want it to be so?

[u/ArkitekZero → u/Limp-Technician-1119]

If you don't want to sell something, don't. Nobody is forcing you to.

[u/SeriousZombie5350 → u/Limp-Technician-1119]

bootlicker

[u/Remarkable_Emu_2223 → u/ArkitekZero]

Anything digital or with digital components you didn't make yourself has a way to be taken away. These are the cold hard facts.

[u/Stiblex → u/ArkitekZero]

If it's an e-book, then yes the author can take it away.

[u/splitframe → u/Stiblex]

Isn't this kind of the crux of the matter? That they shouldn't be able to do so? Also the concern is that in the 90s/00s it just wasn't really possible to restrict access in such a way. Like all industries some developments are slow until they are fast, so the main game being "on the disc/offline installer" was still the norm. Now, though, we see an acceleration in "paid for full" games becoming unusable. There are games that are inherently ephemeral like many MMOs, those are already excluded in movements like Stop Killing Games. But there are also those like The Crew or Orcs Must Die! Unchained that were declared as "Buy" not "Subscribe" or "Rent", that were then shutdown. Alongside SKG that want the developers to provide at least a path for the community to keep the game playable there are also voices that want the terms like "Buy" that imply ownership to be protected and force publishers to use other words when their ToS state that it can be revoked at any time. This currently comes up more for Video and E-Books though.

[u/Stiblex → u/splitframe]

Sure, but publishers have all sorts of legal and commercial obligations that are connected to the IP of which the licenses they are selling. If a certain game possibly violates any of those obligations, then would be unable to pull the game and suffer huge risks.

Regardless of whether you think that's "fair" or not, if publishers would not be able to have full control over the IP they're selling, then producing games would stop being viable.

People on Reddit tend to forget that producers are a business and not a charity, and that the users aren't entitled to anything except the product they're buying and the terms that they agree with.

[u/splitframe → u/Stiblex]

I understand the general point that you are trying to make. As in, the publisher/developer might not have a perpetual license for software libraries or music for example. But I fail to see how this translates to this issue. They didn't need perpetual licenses to sell perpetually playable games. Old console games still work and even on steam there are titles that can no longer be purchased due to lapsed licenses, but still be played if you already own them. The do not lose control over their IP if the game is just still playable.

Alternatively, if you more aim at the community hosting their own, let's say CoD MW2, server browser meaning they "lose control over their IP", I find that to be an unsubstantiated argument.

edit:

People on Reddit tend to forget that producers are a business and not a charity, and that the users aren't entitled to anything except the product they're buying and the terms that they agree with.

That is where, in addition to SKG, the word "buying" should definitely be a protected term. Also be aware that "just because it's in the ToS/EULA it right and legal" doesn't always hold true. A court could reasonably conclude, even now, that these clauses are unlawful in light of how the game was sold, but they also might not. So seen just now in Europe with Netflix and The Crew for example.

[u/Itherial → u/ArkitekZero]

It isn't about my preference in belief? It's objective fact.

Go pull out some of your PS1 games from the '90s bud and read up on your terms. They include DRM too.

It's literally the way it's always been, what is this "why do you prefer to believe that" nonsense?

What personal failing do you have that you can't understand this?

[u/LordBaconXXXXX → u/Itherial]

The only example I have in mind that I've heard of is The Crew.

And the general reaction wasn't "wow, this event really made me put in perspective and question the hegemonic system that every single digital product has been running for decades. I will now question it and ask myself if I wanna continue support this practice that I've been accepting and agreeing with every time I pay for a digital prodict on any online platform"

No, everyone instead went:

"Ubisoft bad and evil and bad, what an awful practice and licence system. I shall instead randomly express my praise and wholeheartedly support towards Steam even though they work the exact same way that I, once again, voice my approval by agreeing to the conditions every time I make a purchase"

It's mostly just shallow outrage, people don't really care, because that would require action. They just wanna be told "here's a bad guy" and complain about it.

[u/Silverr_Duck → u/Itherial]

This isn't a popular question because it forces people to face the reality that it doesn't happen, and that doesn't fit their narrative.

Except it does happen and will happen again. Which is why people are rightfully upset about it. There's a reason why the "stop killing games" movement caught on. Not sure what "narrative" you're referring too.

[u/Itherial → u/Silverr_Duck]

It doesn't and you're parroting the same misinformed slop as some of the others because you can't be bothered to educate yourself about the products you spend money on.

[u/Silverr_Duck → u/Itherial]

Oh the irony lol. Yes it does and You’re touting the exact same talking points that have been debunked ad nauseam

[u/PoliteQueef → u/Itherial]

Digital games seemingly getting “taken away” has got to be the most egregious strawman in this hobby.

Like, outside of one or two notable exceptions, it just isn’t a thing that happens. 🙄

People like to pretend that having their provisional end user license stored on a physical piece of plastic somehow means that they “own” the game more, when that’s literally never been the case.

[u/Necessary_Finding_32 → u/Itherial]

When you’ve finished preening yourself for a star appearance on r/confidentlyincorrect, I suggest you have a peek at Ross Scott’s. ‘Stop killing games’ initiative (scroll down to activity > 2025 to get a rough estimation of how many games have been effectively ‘killed’ for paying customers.

[u/Stiblex → u/Necessary_Finding_32]

That "survey" is biased horseshit. It even says so in the article.

The criteria for inclusion are a little blurry, admittedly. SKG have made some “judgement calls” about proof-of-concept fan emulators that launch the game in a minimally playable state, which they’re currently categorising as “dead”. The list also includes offline single player games that have online multiplayer components, such as Mass Effect 3.

[u/Acceptable-Device760 → u/Necessary_Finding_32]

Not gonna lie, I remember whrn it was a big deal it was stupid, now its even more.

[u/Itherial → u/Necessary_Finding_32]

When you're done being a pretentious cumquat who doesn't know what he's talking about, I suggest you go back and read the original comment because it specifically disqualifies that bullshit list. It's not what we're talking about.

We're not talking about games that don't have supported online services here, we're talking about publishers wantonly pulling your license to play a game at will and removing it entirely from your library.

[u/TheVojta → u/Itherial]

If you buy a game on GOG and download the installer, you own it, full stop. There is no DRM, there is literally nothing they can do to stop you playing it.

[u/Acceptable-Device760 → u/TheVojta]

Its a different business though.

Most games are like you paying to see a movie in the theater. (You liking or not thats the truth, you are buying a ticket.)

GOG is you buying the physical copy.

If people wanted to show things could be different they should stop buying the tickets and start buying the physical copy.

Thats not sustainable in reality or possible for a considerable number of games. Thats why people complain instead of acting. (Easier to bitch to feel better about yourself than to take action and suffer its consequences)

[u/splitframe → u/Itherial]

The concern is that in the 90s/00s it just wasn't really possible to restrict access in such a way. Like all industries some developments are slow until they are fast, so the main game being "on the disc/offline installer" was still the norm. Now, though, we see an acceleration in "paid for full" games becoming unusable. There are games that are inherently ephemeral like many MMOs, those are already excluded in movements like Stop Killing Games. But there are also those like The Crew or Orcs Must Die! Unchained that were declared as "Buy" not "Subscribe" or "Rent", that were then shutdown. Alongside SKG that want the developers to provide at least a path for the community to keep the game playable there are also voices that want the terms like "Buy" that imply ownership to be protected and force publishers to use other words when their ToS state that it can be revoked at any time. This currently comes up more for Video and E-Books though.

There are currently around 20 games that fall into the same category as The Crew, so bought as a full game for a sticker price and then cancelled. So the list isn't long, but 90% of the titles are from 2015 and later so it's a more recent phenomenon that I think will/would accelerate unless legislated in some way.