I think the answer was to introduce a law which would force digital market places to clearly describe what users are paying for, for folks who weren't around during the controversial time when Steam and Xbox Live Arcade came out and can't grasp the concept; folks who didn't observe the reality before and after this shift.

Even though it was abundantly clear already, this is what the California law is all about.

If, with this clear explanation, you still want to merely get a license to use games via a service, you should be able to do it.

Valve isn't doing anything wrong: far from it. Steam is awesome and I understand that one day, it could all go away and with it, all the games I have access to.

I also understand that, at any time, Valve may decide that they don't want me to use Steam anymore, or that someone may hack into my account and I won't have access anymore.

Finally, I get that even now, things that I could do with physical games; I can't do with my Steam library (eg. Easily play a game on my Steam Deck while someone also plays another game on my desktop, or sell a game disc that sits on my desk).

I understood this when I reluctantly signed up to Steam to play Half Life 2 back in the day when it was a complete dumpster fire of a buggy mess of a service. But it has improved so much since then.

Hey, do you, but I don't see what the big deal is. We've already protested that Steam was a bad idea, and Valve was literally the devil, but it's actually turned out to be objectively more convenient than any alternative to play games, and it's no longer Valve forcing us to install Steam to play their games. Practically the entire industry has shifted, plus there are now alternatives (besides piracy) like GoG. Hopefully this law causes more competition in that DRM free space.

What exactly would that entail? I “own” Hades, thus I can depict Zagreus in my own works, as his likeness is my property? I’m allowed to copy the game to a dozen thumb drives and sell them on the street?