That's what I was thinking. No big deal really. In so far as the thread title is concerned it's pretty much always been that way. Even in the days of buying games in retail stores on disks. If one reads the EULA (which nobody does), most software you purchase regardless of delivery or media only grants you the right to use it within the stated terms. There is no ownership of any kind on the part of the buyer.
It's still not the same as on physical disks, the developer didn't try (because they can't) to retroactively "uncreate" the game and wipe everyone's copy years later after they couldn't be bothered to patch it. Historically, on most disks, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent you from installing / playing the game from an original disc regardless of what theoretical legal "privileges" the EULA "permits" surrounding the ability to replicate the discs. Likewise, arguing over "ownership" also matters far less when you have a physical disc as it doesn't affect usability in the same way as a centralized distribution & control system requiring online authentication. Only in recent years has "limited installs" existed complete with consumer backlash after realising authentication servers aren't going to be be around for every game 10-20 years down the line and that many people in 2013 still happily play many 1990's games.
Prior to this most disc copy protection was only literal CD / DVD copy protection, not "legal install & run" prevention. Before that in the age of 1.44MB 3.5" floppy discs which many pre-Windows 95 DOS games came on, the copy protection often came in the form of "
what's the first word on line 5 of paragraph 3 on page 6 of the included manual"
or some kind of code-wheel, which still didn't prevent you from running a legal game, just made it hard to casually copy a floppy disc without having to photocopy the whole manual or replicate a physical code-wheel.
Even many older games with mild "offline copy protection" (ie, you only needed a CD inserted to play) ended up patching that mild DRM out after the main run of sales / in GOTY editions (The Witcher, Operation Flashpoint, Neverwinter Nights, etc). This is exactly where the problem lies - some people have become so incredibly docile like sheep that a "necessary evil" (DRM) plus increasing laziness of developers has morphed into something people are actively defending even when they're getting openly screwed over by it...
Remote Steam deletions are different in that there is a technological limitation actively trying to not just prevent you using the original of something you've legally purchased for reasons that have nothing to do with copy protection or piracy, but attempt to wipe it out of existence (almost like a virus). There simply is no equivalent with physical media as it would be like remotely erasing the laser pits on an original CD / DVD / Blu-Ray via telekinesis without warning or causing the ink on the pages of a book to disappear purely because the original publisher didn't want to sell new copies anymore, or continue to run authentication mechanisms which they themselves insisted on in the first place.
And many EULA's that "demand" this & that are legally invalid in actual practise regardless of the intimidating sounding threats. What EULA's threaten and what courts actually decide are often two completely different things, (especially outside the USA):-
"European Courts Rule In Favor Of Consumers Reselling Downloaded Games"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregvoa...avor-of-consumers-reselling-downloaded-games/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
"The first sale in the EU of a copy of a computer program by the copyright holder or with his consent exhausts the right of distribution of that copy in the EU. A rightholder who has marketed a copy in the territory of a Member State of the EU thus loses the right to rely on his monopoly of exploitation in order to oppose the resale of that copy… The principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by means of downloads from his website." - European Court of Justice, July 3rd, 2012
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
It was not Steams fault, don't blame them at all. It is not Steam job to provide 3rd party patches for games to work if a publisher shuts down a server.
They are partly to blame for having Terms of Service include the ability to arbitrarily delete games for reasons that have nothing to do with abuse. It's not Steam's fault the developer didn't issue a patch, but they are no innocent bystander in this by actively wiping games and not just leaving them installed and potentially community patchable or turned into "abandonware" a year later.
You know all the Alpha games on steam right now? Lots during the flash sells? None of those games guarantee a finished game, lots come right out and say it "This game may be abandoned and no refunds give".
That's not the same as you buy an alpha / beta build game knowing in advance it's unfinished.