This is a very interesting article.  It's always been a concern with MSFS being so server dependant and if Ubisoft and Asobo/MS are of the same mindset then no, we don't own MSFS.

This is more concerning with MSFS due to add-ons though.  The sunk investment you can potentially lose can be $thousands for some of us if the servers go away one day...

https://www.polygon.com/gaming/555469/ubisoft-holds-firm-in-the-crew-lawsuit-you-dont-own-your-video-games

Quote

It’s long been the case with digital media that companies are licensing the game rather than selling it outright, but it’s not something that’s been totally obvious to all. And it’s becoming a bigger issue as technology ages and games like The Crew get shut down. To mitigate the issue, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a California bill into law in 2024 to force companies to more prominently display a note that consumers are buying a license and don’t technically own the game itself.

 

Edited April 11, 20251 yr by psolk

This has been the case with most game storefronts. Whether it's Steam, Xbox, EA or Epic Games. They're all more or less licensing the product to you. The only exception to this is G.O.G games which provides the game DRM free and thus not tied to an account.

It's not really an issue with MSFS, it's just a result of moving away from physical media. Though if we're being realistic MSFS is an online game, there will come a point where Microsoft is no longer interested in keeping the lights on, that's just the reality of it. I'd hope a lot of people had realise this as one of the double-edged situations of an online title.

No one ever owned a PC Game. All you purchase is a copy and the right to use it.

This is not news. Not at all. Also the same with all movies or music that you stream instead of buying on physical copy.

And even the movies or music you buy on disc is only licensed to you, for home use. You may not play it in public or in school. Only in your own home to as many people as do fit in your home.

Edited April 11, 20251 yr by Farlis

39 minutes ago, psolk said:

but it’s not something that’s been totally obvious to all.

Ignorance is not an excuse. It's in the EULA and you have to accept the EULA to install/use the program.

2 minutes ago, Twenty6 said:

Ignorance is not an excuse. It's in the EULA and you have to accept the EULA to install/use the program.

I did not say that, the article did...  Please do not misquote and put words in my mouth as a result.  

Nothing I didn't already know and it doesn't bother me anyway. 

1 hour ago, psolk said:

This is a very interesting article.  It's always been a concern with MSFS being so server dependant and if Ubisoft and Asobo/MS are of the same mindset then no, we don't own MSFS.

This is more concerning with MSFS due to add-ons though.  The sunk investment you can potentially lose can be $thousands for some of us if the servers go away one day...

https://www.polygon.com/gaming/555469/ubisoft-holds-firm-in-the-crew-lawsuit-you-dont-own-your-video-games

 

Seriously what is the purpose of telling us what you are pointing out?

We all should be "buying" products and only consider "renting" something that is a true service.

If you ask yourself this question often when obtaining software you will see you are buying nothing!

This is why so much software is buggy in my opinion. Push it out to start generating rental income.

We all excepted the renting model with little pushback and so this is what we all have in the computer software industry.

I view the upgrade from MSFS2020 to MSFS2024 nothing more than paying about a 4 year rental fee until we were all sold on the need to upgrade to 2024.

It's a business model that generates boatloads of cash as opposed to selling a product.

Adobe is a prime example of one of the early ones to go rental only.

 

It is all in the legal agreeement everyone clicks past.  You haven't "owned" software in a very long time, this is nothing new.  

Even if you buy a single player console game on physical media, you still don't own it.  

What they should be forced to do is simplify the EULA.  Nobody reads it because after a few paragraphs of legal language, most of us are mashing the accept button (and they know this). 

39 minutes ago, Farlis said:

No one ever owned a PC Game. All you purchase is a copy and the right to use it.

That is totally false.

I used to own many previous version of software that I bought in a store including many versions of X-Plane and MS Flight Simulator. Heck, I still have packaging for many of them that were sold in beautifully packed boxes with printed manuals.

3 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

That is totally false.

I used to own many previous version of software that I bought in a store including many versions of X-Plane and MS Flight Simulator. Heck, I still have packaging for many of them that were sold in beautifully packed boxes with printed manuals.

And you owned the beautifully packed box and manuals, not the software. 

4 minutes ago, St Mawgan said:

And you owned the beautifully packed box and manuals, not the software. 

You are splitting hairs!

I purchased a perpetual license!

 

9 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

It is all in the legal agreeement everyone clicks past.  You haven't "owned" software in a very long time, this is nothing new.  

Even if you buy a single player console game on physical media, you still don't own it.  

What they should be forced to do is simplify the EULA.  Nobody reads it because after a few paragraphs of legal language, most of us are mashing the accept button (and they know this). 

Does anyone seriously even glance at the EULA? I certainly do not.

Just now, tpete61 said:

You are splitting hairs!

I purchased a perpetual license!

 

Yes, a licence to use it. 

14 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

Seriously what is the purpose of telling us what you are pointing out?

What is the point of coming to threads asking people why they post?  If it doesn't interest you then simply walk on by.

I posted it because it's not something we think about all the time but a very real possible ramification of being cloud dependent.  At least when I bought FS2004 in it's gorgeous steel box (which I still have BTW) I always possessed the physical means to use the software.  That is no longer the case.  I still have lots of SW on CD's that is no longer supported but I can still use.  Once MSFS is "not supported" the entire investment in all your add-ons etc is also gone.  It's an interesting conversation and with the "rental" model coming in 2024 makes renting something quite attractive.

It also interests me at a personal level as this is very germaine to my day job where even infrastructure and I am not talking cloud but physical Hardware is now also "tied" to a subscription with different enforcement levels from wiping the box entirely if the license expires to shutting down the management plane whereas everything used to be a perpetual license. 

So it's relevant to me, does that suffice?   

12 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Does anyone seriously even glance at the EULA? I certainly do not.

I've tried and honestly never gotten to the end of one.  They are so awfully written.  

I read one "herein" or "hencefoth" and I'm running for the hills.