Modern Software “Purchases”

Software as a Service (SaaS) has become a standard for all applications from word processors to computer games. With SaaS, you don’t actually buy a copy of the software, you only buy a license to use it. For some SaaS, like business software, you buy the use of the software for a specific period of time, which can be renewed on an agreed schedule. For other types of SaaS you pay for the license once, and can use the software for as long as it is supported. Some common forms of this latter SaaS agreement is the software included in things like appliances and cars. I addressed issues with these examples in my recent article, Modern forms of Usury. Another example of SaaS where you typically pay for the license once is computer games.

While the previous article addressed situations where I believe SaaS results in usury, it should be understood that the software itself doesn’t represent usury. It is the combination of having to pay a software subscription to use a product you purchased that makes it usury. Outside of that, SaaS represents the end to a certain type of ownership of software itself, and computer games is a good example of how this is being done, and how significant portions of the public don’t seem to understand the situation.

Computer games are now sold under SaaS agreements where the typical terms are that the one time license purchase allows gamers to play for as long as the game is supported. In times past, when you bought a game, you were actually purchasing a copy of the game that was yours to keep and use as long as you owned a computer that could run it. Even when games could be played over the internet, you could always choose to play them by yourself without connecting, or even with friends on your home network. The point is that you purchased an actual copy of the game; you owned it. However, that is rarely the case in 2025 because most modern games don’t run “on their own.” They require an internet connection and access to a central server to play them.

People who have paid money for games are now getting surprised that, when the company that runs the internet servers necessary to play a specific game determine that the game is no longer profitable, they can shut the servers down, making the game completely and permanently unplayable. Ultimately, games can be rendered unplayable for any reason the game producer or gaming service provider wants. This leaves the players feeling like they were essentially robbed because they can’t play a game for which they paid, and it has led to an increasing use of the mantra, “If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing” among gamers, indicating that they feel completely justified in resorting to stealing copies of the games instead of paying for them.

The biggest lie on the internet!

The real problem here is that these gamers think they purchased a copy of a game, when they actually purchased a SaaS license to play the game for as long as the company will support it. This is usually clearly spelled out in the terms of service to which the buyers must agree when they make the purchase. I believe the confusion arises from the fact that the current method of buying a license to play a game looks and feels a lot like how it did to purchase an actual copy of a game. However, the days of actually purchasing software are long gone for gamers, at least in most cases. Legally speaking, the real problem modern gamers are facing is the biggest lie on the internet: “I have read and agree to these terms.” For example, the typical terms of service on a gaming platform like Steam are very clear in explaining what you are buying. Note that the games are the “content,” and the Steam gaming systems are the “services.”

Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.¹

This is the basic foundation of all SaaS agreements which the gaming community doesn’t seem to understand. They are arguing that they bought the game, when they actually didn’t. This is why, although I agree with aspects of the movement called Stop Killing Games, which seeks greater consumer protections with these kinds of transactions, what these gamers are really complaining about is that the terms to which they agreed actually mean what they say. They are asking for lawmakers to force companies sell copies rather than just licenses of games, and even potentially to change the terms of transactions that have already been completed. The Stop Killing Games movement seems to go beyond that, and even wants to require companies to provide the server software of games when they will no longer run the gaming servers. I personally feel that Stop Killing Games will fall far short of its goals. A better solution would be if companies responded to customer dissatisfaction, and the financial losses that follow it, to start providing what their customers actually want. This doesn’t just apply to computer games. It applies to nearly all computer software, including the operating systems that run computers. That will only happen when customers refuse to accept SaaS agreements and insist on actually purchasing a copy of the software that will work independently of the vendor.

In other words, when people have to pay for things, like computer software, but that payment doesn’t result in ownership, they won’t be happy.

Printable version