Valve changes Steam user agreement, finally creates some backlash against Steam

[A Black Falcon]

And neither does Steam. Offline mode and all that.

Provided that you've already downloaded the game, sure. But don't expect to ever access anything not already on your hard drive again, or to install it to any other computer in the future, or to re-download something if you have a hard drive problem or something, or to play it online, etc... those are huge, huge restrictions to say the least.

Those "you don't actually own it" agreements are a problem though GR. Systemic adaptation of such clauses only establishes that it's a systemic issue, not that it's justified. I really only think that online components of games (all the services the company has to provide continually with their own servers) should be the only things requiring some basic understanding that the company is free to ban you from the server and that you don't "own" their servers. That's it. I honestly wonder about those precedent cases in the 1980's establishing that opening a box does not constitute "agreement" to a company's terms. Well, what is the difference between someone opening a box and finding a slip saying "by installing this you agree to blah blah blah" and putting a disc in the computer and installing only to be presented with an identical notice, only digitally. Either way, the whole "I thought I BOUGHT this" deception is complete. If someone buys a game, they should be able to alter it, back it up (PERSONAL backups), install it on any and all machines they themselves own, and OPERATE all those installs simultaneously if they so feel like it. A company has no obligation to provide their SUPPORT of that, and may block all but one instance of it from connecting to their servers, but they've got no business saying you are only allowed one "install" of the game you own. Yes, I'm debating issues that most people forgot they were mad about decades ago. Let's bring it all back to brass tacks.

Yeah, the contents of those user agreements are not always legal, but companies are rarely called on it, unfortunately... it's hard for users to fight back against such things. And I think you're right, the legality of those agreements is in general a bit hazy, for just the reason you point out there.