If Buying Isn’t Owning Games, Then Piracy Isn’t Stealing Introduction Digital games today are often not “owned” by players—they’re licensed. This has prompted a provocative chain of logic: if “buying” a game only grants you a license, not true ownership, then stealing it via piracy is not taking someone’s property. In this post, I explore that argument, bring in recent commentary from game developers and—even somewhat unusually—a perspective tied to farmers via farming‑simulation games, and assess whether piracy can reasonably be described as “not stealing." 1. The License vs. Ownership Debate 1.1 What do you actually “buy”? Recent legal and consumer‑rights activity has confirmed the truth: in most cases—even products described as “bought”—you’re only purchasing a license to access a game. In California, a law (effective January 1, 2025) now requires digital storefronts (Steam, PlayStation Store, Xbox Store, eShop etc.) to clearly state that consumers are buying a license, not o...
I recently came across the indie game Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from Sandfall Interactive—and it completely blew my mind. I’ll admit, I was a hypocrite at first. I’ve never been a big fan of turn-based combat, so I dismissed it early on. But this game changed my entire perspective. It introduced a clever mechanic that blended traditional turn-based gameplay with real-time action—requiring precise timing for parries and dodges. It felt more like an action game than a passive strategy one, making the experience intense, fresh, and incredibly fun. It’s been a long time since I felt such passion for a game. The last time I remember being this immersed was with Ghost of Tsushima or Red Dead Redemption 2 . But in recent years, most AAA titles have been major letdowns. Look at the mess that is Skull and Bones from Ubisoft, Redfall , Forspoken , Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League , or any of the recent Call of Duty entries. They’re soulless, bloated, and uninspired. Meanwhile, indie ...