My Line in the Sand: Why I Stopped Buying New Games on Steam

[kibasnowpaw]

The photo shows only part of my physical game collection. Across my six CLZ collections I currently have 364 registered games and editions, including my main collection, sealed games, account-locked releases, incomplete copies, games that need replacing and duplicates kept for sale. Most are physical PC games, and I only started collecting them seriously a few months ago. During that time, the project has changed the way I think about digital ownership, game preservation and where I am willing to spend my money. If we call ourselves gamers and genuinely care about where gaming is heading, then I think there comes a point where we must stop accepting every new restriction simply because it is convenient. We need to draw a line in the sand. Mine is that I have stopped spending ordinary personal money on new Steam games.

I am not deleting Steam, abandoning the thousands of games I already own there or pretending that every game will suddenly disappear tomorrow. I will continue playing what is already in my library. I will also accept free keys when developers or publishers send me games for reviews, and I may occasionally buy something using Steam Wallet credit earned by selling CS2 drops and other Marketplace items. What I will no longer do is transfer fresh money from my bank account into a system where my entire collection ultimately remains connected to one account and one company. Valve’s own Subscriber Agreement states that Steam content is licensed rather than sold, that the licence does not give the user ownership of the content and that using it requires a Steam account, with the Steam client or an internet connection potentially also required. That is not a conspiracy theory or an attack on Valve; it is simply the contractual structure of the service. Steam is extremely convenient, but convenience and ownership are not the same thing.

My possible exception will be GOG. GOG purchases are still digital, but the technical difference matters to me. GOG describes its games as DRM-free, provides offline installers and makes the Galaxy client optional. Once the installers have been downloaded, they can be backed up and installed without constantly proving ownership through a launcher. GOG also explicitly describes the ability to play offline, back up the files and run games without a mandatory client as part of its DRM-free model. That gives me something Steam generally does not: a self-contained installer that I can personally preserve.

Because I use Linux, I have taken that idea further. I created a mostly automated setup that turns my legally purchased GOG offline installers into organised physical game archives. Each game can have its own presentation, files and launcher without me needing to rewrite the underlying code for every title. I can preserve the installers on hard drives, and I can burn personal archive copies onto the large number of blank CDs and DVDs I once received for free. I am not claiming that a burned disc magically becomes an original retail release. It is an archival copy of a DRM-free installer I legitimately acquired. The important part is that I can put the disc on a shelf, install the game later and launch it through my own Linux setup without relying on a storefront client still existing or recognising my account.

My physical collection also proves that collecting PC games does not have to be an expensive hobby. According to my CLZ records, I have registered a combined purchase cost of approximately 2,428 DKK for 362 games and editions, an average of only about 6.71 DKK each. CLZ currently estimates nearly 26,000 DKK in combined value for the roughly 299 entries it can match to pricing information, but I do not treat that as a guaranteed sale value. Price databases can confuse standard releases with Collector’s Editions, use thin sales data or assign inflated values to the wrong regional version. I have already seen ordinary copies of Diablo II and Risen 2 incorrectly connected to expensive Collector’s Editions. The purchase price is therefore the number that matters most to me: hundreds of physical releases acquired for less than many people spend on four or five modern games.

One of my largest single days produced 66 physical games and editions for 545 DKK, averaging approximately 8.26 DKK each. That included 46 games for 310 DKK, three games for 25 DKK, another 16 for 160 DKK and a large World of Warcraft Battle Chest for 50 DKK. The haul included Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, Diablo II with Lord of Destruction, Icewind Dale II, Might and Magic VII, Sacred Gold, Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion with its map and manual, Call of Duty, Command & Conquer: Generals – Zero Hour, an Age of Empires Collector’s Edition and several sealed releases. Some were German editions, one was Swedish, others were Danish or English, and several were different physical versions of games I already knew. They are not all rare treasures, but that is not the point. For the price of one new deluxe digital release, I recovered an entire section of PC gaming history.

Getting prices like that requires patience. I search charity shops, flea markets, second-hand stores and places such as Kirppu rather than immediately paying online collector prices. Most visits produce little or nothing. Sometimes I find three games for 20 or 25 DKK; sometimes I find 40 or 50 games priced between one and five kroner each. I generally refuse to pay more than 10 DKK unless it is a specific game or edition I have been actively looking for. I have made exceptions, such as 75 DKK for Black & White 2 and 50 DKK for the World of Warcraft Battle Chest, but those are deliberate purchases rather than impulse buying. Thinking before buying is what makes the collection affordable.

Physical collecting is not perfect. Discs can be scratched, suffer from disc rot, contain the wrong game or arrive without manuals. Cardboard boxes can be crushed, and old product keys or online services may no longer work. I have found circular drive scratches, coffee-damaged manuals, incorrect discs inside cases, missing installation CDs and boxes somebody had forced shut with the contents packed incorrectly. I inspect the discs, record the condition in CLZ, separate incomplete games, replace damaged copies when a better one appears and combine duplicate copies only when the discs and editions genuinely match. A physical collection requires work, but the problems are visible. I can inspect a scratch, test whether a disc reads completely and search for a missing manual. With an account-controlled licence, the problem can exist entirely outside my home and outside my control.

Preservation is not merely nostalgia. The Video Game History Foundation found that 87 percent of the classic games in its study were no longer commercially available. It identified rights disputes, technical problems, low expected commercial value and digital-store shutdowns among the reasons games disappear. Digital distribution has made games easier to buy today, but it has not guaranteed that they will remain obtainable tomorrow.

I am not saying every gamer must fill a room with plastic cases, and I am not attacking independent developers who depend on digital sales. I still support indie projects when I believe in the idea, and DRM-free digital distribution can be a legitimate part of preservation. My argument is about what we reward. When customers repeatedly accept mandatory launchers, account locks, non-transferable licences, disappearing releases and games that require remote permission to continue functioning, companies learn that there is no meaningful limit to what we will tolerate. Complaining while continuing to buy everything changes very little.

My response is to use the part of the market where I still have a choice. I will play the Steam games I already possess, use free review keys, spend Marketplace credit rather than new personal money, consider DRM-free GOG releases that provide independent offline installers and continue rescuing physical PC games from shops that often price them as if they are worthless. My shelves are not just decoration. They are a practical archive, a Linux project, a record of PC gaming history and my refusal to let access controlled by an account become the only accepted meaning of owning a game.

That collection is my line in the sand.

 

[NicWelds]

I pick up a lot of older games at thrift stores whenever I find them. I usually make an iso image of the disks to avoid unnecessary wear and tear. I still get discount games on Steam when I want.

The way I see it is physical game disks still come with a license. Like a lot of software you usually don't own the game, just a licence that allows you to install and use it. But unlike with services like Steam, it's almost impossible for anyone to police the license terms with physical game disks. That's why you can buy/sell used games.

 

[kibasnowpaw]

I pick up a lot of older games at thrift stores whenever I find them. I usually make an iso image of the disks to avoid unnecessary wear and tear. I still get discount games on Steam when I want.

The way I see it is physical game disks still come with a license. Like a lot of software you usually don't own the game, just a licence that allows you to install and use it. But unlike with services like Steam, it's almost impossible for anyone to police the license terms with physical game disks. That's why you can buy/sell used games.

I agree with the practical part of what you are saying. I also make ISO images of many of my older discs so I do not have to keep putting the originals into a drive and adding scratches or wear. But there is an important legal and practical difference between a physical copy and an account-bound digital licence. When I buy a lawful physical game, I do not become the owner of the copyright or the game’s source code, but I do own that particular disc, box, manual and other physical contents. Within the law of my country and any enforceable licence terms, I can keep that copy, display it, use it, give it away or sell it. In the EU, the copyright holder’s distribution right over a lawful copy is generally exhausted after its first authorised sale, which is why a legitimate second-hand software market can exist. The EU Court has also recognised exhaustion for certain perpetual downloaded software licences, although applying that ruling to modern account-bound games and online services is far more complicated in practice.

A disc can absolutely still contain licensed software and have an EULA. Physical does not mean “no rules.” I cannot legally upload the game, distribute copies or pretend that owning one disc gives me ownership of the intellectual property. But a contract also cannot simply erase mandatory consumer rights granted by the law where I live. The biggest practical difference is control: the publisher cannot remotely remove the disc, box and manual from my home. An old offline game can normally remain usable even if the publisher closes its store, changes its terms or stops supporting the product. A physical copy becomes much weaker when it depends on mandatory activation, an account or permanent online servers, but at least I still possess the original object and data.

Steam works differently. Valve’s own agreement says that its content is “licensed, not sold,” provides no ownership in the content, requires a Steam account and may require the Steam client and an internet connection. It also allows automatic updates, and Valve notes that system requirements can change over time. That means a game I paid for can later be altered in a way that changes whether it works on my operating system.

Battlefield V is a direct example from my own library. I played it on Linux through Proton. The game originally worked for me, and I could play its single-player content without being blocked at startup by the later anti-cheat system. EA then officially extended EA anticheat to Battlefield V on April 3, 2024. After that change, the anti-cheat began loading with the game itself, not merely when I attempted to join competitive multiplayer. As a Linux user, I was therefore locked out of the entire product, including content where cheating against another player is irrelevant. EA’s current software support is officially aimed at Windows and macOS rather than Linux, so an update imposed after purchase effectively removed a working game from my system.

That is one of the strongest arguments for independent offline copies. I did not lose access because my computer became too weak or because the disc was damaged. I lost access because the publisher changed the software after I bought it and added a technical requirement that rejects my operating system. I may still have the game listed in my account, but a picture in a library is not the same as having a usable copy.

Server shutdowns make the same problem even clearer. Ubisoft sold The Crew physically and digitally, but it was designed around mandatory servers. Ubisoft announced that the servers would close after March 31, 2024, meaning the original game would no longer be accessible. In that case, even the physical disc could not save it because the product had never been given a proper offline mode. The lesson is not that every physical release is automatically preserved; it is that a real offline mode and a self-contained copy matter.

EA’s own shutdown list is filled with further examples, including Darkspore, BattleForge, Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free and the online services for many older Battlefield, Command & Conquer, Crysis and other games. Some only lost multiplayer features, while online-only products such as Darkspore became effectively unusable because no official offline version was provided. People had paid for the software, but once the required service disappeared, their local files were no longer enough.

Sony provides another example of how little independent control a digital customer may have. PlayStation’s current terms explicitly state that users do not own digital products, that closing or suspending an account may remove access to paid products and that access to some digital products can be suspended. Sony has also officially announced that previously purchased StudioCanal films and television programmes will be removed from customers’ video libraries on September 1, 2026 because of licensing agreements. Those are not games, but the delivery and licence model is the same: the customer paid, the store called it a purchase, yet the customer never received an independent copy that Sony could not later withdraw.

So I agree that both physical and digital software involve licences. The disagreement is over what that fact means in practice. With a traditional offline disc, I own and control the individual physical copy even though I do not own the copyright. The licence defines permitted use, while national and EU law determine which terms are actually enforceable. With an account-bound digital game, the platform additionally controls authentication, downloads, updates, compatibility and often whether the software launches at all.

That is why buying and selling used physical games remains possible, while transferring a normal Steam or PlayStation purchase is usually blocked by the platform. It is also why I consider DRM-free installers from GOG much closer to physical ownership in practice: I can download the installer, archive it and reinstall it without asking a storefront to authenticate every launch.

Convenience is real, and I understand buying cheap Steam games. I have done it for years. But convenience should not be confused with permanent possession. Battlefield V showed me that a publisher can turn a working Linux game into an inaccessible one through a mandatory update. The Crew showed that a paid game can be killed completely when its servers close. Darkspore showed that without an offline mode, the files on your computer may become useless. Sony’s notices show that even content described as “purchased” can still be removed from a customer’s library.

That is the difference I am drawing attention to: a licence may exist in both cases, but only one model normally leaves the customer holding an independent copy that a company cannot remotely rewrite, revoke or switch off.

 

[f33dm3bits]

The Crew showed that a paid game can be killed completely when its servers close. Darkspore showed that without an offline mode, the files on your computer may become useless. Sony’s notices show that even content described as “purchased” can still be removed from a customer’s library.

This is why they started the Stop Killing Games campaign/movement to fight this.

Stop Killing Games — They Kill Games. We Fight Back.

Publishers are permanently destroying the video games you paid for. Stop Killing Games is a global coalition of gamers, advocates, and developers demanding legislation to end this practice.

www.stopkillinggames.com

I don't have any physical games anymore but I do have quite a GOG collection aside from my Steam library. I don't think I would go back to physical media since digital is more convenient as in how easy you get access but it does have its downsides.

 

[kibasnowpaw]

This is why they started the Stop Killing Games campaign/movement to fight this.

Stop Killing Games — They Kill Games. We Fight Back.

Publishers are permanently destroying the video games you paid for. Stop Killing Games is a global coalition of gamers, advocates, and developers demanding legislation to end this practice.

www.stopkillinggames.com

I don't have any physical games anymore but I do have quite a GOG collection aside from my Steam library. I don't think I would go back to physical media since digital is more convenient as in how easy you get access but it does have its downsides.

I know about Stop Killing Games, and I support what they are trying to achieve. I do not believe publishers should be allowed to sell a game and later deliberately make every customer’s copy unusable. My concern is that the problem is much harder to solve through one general law than the campaign sometimes makes it sound, because “leave the game playable” can mean very different things depending on how the game was designed.

The European part of the campaign was not small or unsuccessful. The “Stop Destroying Videogames” citizens’ initiative received 1,294,188 verified statements of support, was presented at a European Parliament hearing and was debated in Parliament. However, on 16 June 2026, the European Commission declined to propose a legal obligation requiring publishers to keep discontinued games playable. Instead, it plans to discuss an industry code of conduct, clearer end-of-life information and stronger enforcement of existing consumer rights. In other words, the campaign won enough public support to force an official response, but the Commission still rejected its central legal demand as disproportionate.

That is close to what I expected. There is a clear difference between a single-player game that only contacts a server for unnecessary authentication and a genuine MMO whose world, economy, characters, databases, matchmaking and game logic exist partly on company servers. Removing an authentication check from a single-player game might require a relatively small final patch. Keeping an MMO functional might require server software, databases, administration tools, security systems, licensed middleware and documentation that were never designed for public release.

The Commission’s examination identified exactly these problems. Modern games can depend on telemetry, cloud saves, social systems, anti-cheat services, third-party middleware and copyrighted assets licensed only for a limited period. Converting a discontinued game could require substantial re-engineering to remove server dependencies, monetisation systems and anti-cheat components. It could also create cybersecurity, moderation, intellectual-property and trade-secret problems after the publisher is no longer maintaining it.

This creates difficult legal boundaries. Should every game be required to contain an offline mode? Would that include an MMO designed entirely around thousands of connected players? What counts as “playable” when most of the game consists of social interaction, seasonal events or a player-controlled economy? Would an empty local map with computer-controlled enemies satisfy the law? Should publishers be required to release server binaries, or only remove authentication? Who would maintain security, and who would be responsible when an abandoned private server distributes malware or exposes players’ data?

The organisers have said that publishers should not be required to operate servers forever or surrender ownership and monetisation rights. Their request is that future games should be left in a reasonably functional state without continued publisher involvement, potentially through an offline version, player-hosted servers or peer-to-peer support. That is a reasonable goal, but the word “reasonable” is where years of legal arguments would begin. The campaign also told the Commission that its proposal concerned games developed in the future, so even a complete victory would not automatically resurrect products such as The Crew or Darkspore.

Existing consumer law is also less useful than it appears when the actual goal is preservation. EU rules can treat early discontinuation as a failure to provide the continuity and accessibility a consumer could reasonably expect. A customer may then have a right to terminate the contract and request a proportionate refund. But that still leaves the game dead. The consumer must complain, request the remedy and potentially involve a consumer authority or court. A legal right is important, but it does not immediately produce an offline patch or restore a closed server.

My preferred solution would therefore begin with digital ownership and clear product categories. When a company sells a game through a one-time payment and markets the transaction as a purchase, the customer should receive a permanent, client-independent copy of every part that can technically function without an ongoing service. It should not require Steam, EA, Ubisoft, PlayStation or another company to approve every installation or launch forever. Components that genuinely depend on a continuing service should be clearly labelled as services, with their expected lifespan and shutdown conditions shown before payment.

That would be much closer to the GOG model. GOG still sells digital licences, but its client is optional and it provides DRM-free offline installers that can be downloaded and archived. The customer can install and launch those games without repeatedly authenticating through GOG Galaxy. That does not preserve external multiplayer servers, but it gives the customer an independent copy of the software instead of leaving the entire product trapped inside an account and launcher.

I also do not think legislation can easily eliminate every live-service model, loot box or server-dependent game without producing loopholes and unintended consequences. Regulators would first have to define exactly what qualifies as a game, service, expansion, consumable item, subscription, virtual currency and persistent online world. Companies would then design their contracts and products around those definitions. Laws can improve transparency, prevent misleading marketing and provide refunds, but they cannot automatically make every type of game technically preservable.

That is why consumer behaviour still matters. Publishers continue using mandatory launchers, unnecessary online authentication and disposable live-service designs because enough people continue paying for them. A boycott is not a complete answer either, but it is immediate and does not require an individual customer to spend years fighting a corporation in court. I would rather support DRM-free stores, offline installers, physical releases and developers that publish a clear end-of-life plan.

So I support Stop Killing Games because it has forced governments and regulators to take the subject seriously. More than 1.29 million verified EU supporters are not meaningless, and an industry code of conduct may still improve shutdown notices, refunds and preservation partnerships. But I do not believe one broad rule saying “games must remain playable” will solve the fundamental problem. The stronger long-term answer is to stop treating a digital purchase as temporary access controlled by a mandatory client. Give customers an independent copy wherever technically possible, clearly identify the parts that are only services, and let the market see exactly what it is paying for.

 

[f33dm3bits]

The European part of the campaign was not small or unsuccessful. The “Stop Destroying Videogames” citizens’ initiative received 1,294,188 verified statements of support, was presented at a European Parliament hearing and was debated in Parliament. However, on 16 June 2026, the European Commission declined to propose a legal obligation requiring publishers to keep discontinued games playable. Instead, it plans to discuss an industry code of conduct, clearer end-of-life information and stronger enforcement of existing consumer rights. In other words, the campaign won enough public support to force an official response, but the Commission still rejected its central legal demand as disproportionate.

They haven't failed, there are still other paths to take so it's not a lost cause yet.

Then there's also this.

So even then even if discs survive, publishers may find a way to be able to make your game unplayable if they please with some form of technology involved.

P.S I know you but a lot of effort into your replies and topics, but can you stop writing books I'm not going to read an entire paper after a days work and not many other people will Or at least summarize a bit more as that it takes less than 5 minutes to read.

 

[f33dm3bits]

P.S I know you but a lot of effort into your replies and topics, but can you stop writing books I'm not going to read an entire paper after a days work and not many other people will Or at least summarize a bit more as that it takes less than 5 minutes to read.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate how much effort you put into your topics and replies, it's just a bit much having to read an entire page.

 

[f33dm3bits]

Also I wish I could give up Steam but I just don't want to give up the broad library of entertainment that I have and I have some games I play online with friends via Steam, so it's also a social thing that's connected to Steam.

 

[Rocketing-warp9]

A little off topic, but as a GT7 player, that’s gonna stink when the servers go offline. The game relies on the server revers even just for basic functionality and most of offline mode.