The condition is that the original copy you own must match the pirated copy.

Say you own Stardew Valley on Steam. For some weird reason Steam is evil and doesn't let you play the game you legitimately purchased. So then you need to torrent GOG's Stardew Valley which doesn't have DRM and it works.

In that case it's pirating, and it's the least strict definition.

Now for the case at hand, where Topic Creator cannot play his copy of Batman, he needs to go to Warner Bros and sends them the proof of purchase for Steam copy of the game. That's all there is to it.

I've finished all Steam versions of Batman including Arkham Knight and have had no issue. There were crashes but nothing major.

You can say that all you want and it's still nothing but bullshit. Corporate, DRM defending bullshit.

If one owns a game, they are not pirating if they download a crack, a fix, a patch, a whatthefuckever, to get it to run.

With your bullshit definitions, one is breaking the EULA every time they mod it ("The condition is that the original copy you own must match the pirated copy")

What utter nonsense. Nice try though.

Also, not for nothing, Universal Human Right 17, the right to own things, states: When a company arbitrarily changes or ends some sort of "client" and the result is one can no longer play what they own then I'd say that violates one's right to ownership. You have any links to back up that bullshit you posted or did you just make it up?

Ownership law is full of examples where owners have a right to make whatever mods, adjustments, etc. are necessary to be able to use their property the way they want and/or it was intended.

As long as every PC, console, etc. retailer insists on using the term BUY instead of rent (which is THEIR CHOICE) for games/software/etc. then they are implying OWNERSHIP, and therefore with ownership comes rights. If, on the other hand, one is RENTING something, obviously such ownership rights don't exist.

But, as I said, Steam, GOG, Amazon, EVERYONE, CHOOSES (they can at any time change it) to call what we're doing as BUYING IT instead of renting it so they imply ownership rights to all of us that do buy.

One of the positive things about GFWL was that it allowed publishers to publish a disc version without the compelling need for an internet connection - GFWL had a functioning offline mode from the very start. It kept offline profiles completely separate from online profiles (both a boon and a curse).

It wasn't until later that Microsoft added the online activation feature, and by the time pretty much all AAA publishers had jumped on the online DRM bandwagon in mid-2010, those publishers using GFWL (Capcom, WBIE, 2K) were also making active use of this feature.

Therefore, almost all games released mid-2010 or after using GFWL require the game to be authenticated with a LIVE account.

As for the OP's question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJYzeJUyj20 You know, it's funny really: UWP is actually as bad as people were making GFWL out to be back in the day, but because the gaming community decided to cry wolf back in the day and exaggerate the problems, nobody's taking the genuine issues with UWP seriously now.

Whilst I understand the sentiment, you don't actually own a digital product only a license to use it. And yes, modding can be considered against the agreement. In fact any patch or mod you put against a product which is not officially endorsed by the company, invalidates its warranty and the company is not liable.

So you are both right, you OWN a license to use the software as provided, but this does not mean you OWN the software itself. Take an example, I brought GTA4 when it came out, never been able to play it other than half hour or so before it blew up completely (and that was after hours on the phone with support!). Now I could pop online and download a cracked version, not checking but I am sure there are patched ones, one's with expansions, gold editions etc. any of which are not the same product I licensed back on release, so it would not be right of me to equate one for the other.

Now I agree this licensing versus ownership is wrong especially being a collector myself, but its consistent across all digital material (films for instance, just because you own the base StarWars films doesn't entitle you to watch the HD versions).

It even spreads to non-digital world such as the case with tractors, you own the tractor but not the software, the selling company owns the software and licenses it to you.

As for GFWL, well M$ have their new store, so expect everyone to just buy it all again on there. It seems to be a small minority of us who care what happens to digital products after the initial oh its shiny and new phase to actually make any impact on the business world.

No, when you go to Steam, (or any other retailer) it doesn't say (BUY A LICENSE) it makes clear you are buying a game. Again, that's THEIR CHOICE to word and market the way they do. Therefore, they do imply ownership OF THE GAME. And with that ownership, comes rights.

You can look at any retailer. After you buy something you don't get a message "You just purchased a license to play Fallout 4." You get a message saying "You just purchased Fallout 4.

Again, THEIR CHOICE. They choose to sell and market that way, and by doing so, imply ownership. And then they try and put a totally unenforceable (because none of them meets the reasonableness standard of contract law) EULA's to make us all believe we don't own what we own.

I'll say again to be clear. If one owns a game, and then can't play it because steam goes out of business or GFWL stops working, they have an ownership RIGHT to take steps to be able to play THEIR GAME, including downloading a "pirate" crack to get it to run. I look forward to the day when such test cases appear in court, but I'm sure companies won't dare press it because they're well aware of what the result would be.

I am afraid it is in the EULA. GOG has one as well, I point you towards section 2.1, and 9.1. It is clear that you are purchasing a license. As for whether or not a company would take you to court, or anything like that, well I don't have the information there, however I am not going to be the first one to try this out, and the law concerning the digital world is a bit grey at the moment. Do I think its likely that Bill will show up at your door and kick you inna fork for cracking Halo, highly unlikely, do I think you will get letters if you start spreading cracks/patches and such like, quite likely. I am sure certain sites get these regularly and their argument is exactly as you give, they merely provide the means to play legally obtained games which do not work. So which side the fence it comes down on, well in most cases the side with the most cash.

Good job showing your ignorance. Anything else?

Thanks for the link, but that only helps if you can actually get the game to start anymore, which is no longer the case for my Batman AA and AC.

If it doesn't start at all, that's almost certainly down to something other than GFWL.

I don't know what though, the error message I kept getting was "The network connection this link refers to is unavailable" even though I've always played these offline.