51–60 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to participate in the cultural works of today's digital world.
These are games we're talking about. They're recreation. For people to be demanding legislation because a recreational activity isn't set up just the way they like it, when they knew the terms perfectly well before they paid their money, is not "participating in cultural works".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or just let Web3 and onchain NFT's happen, accepting one of the reasons why the incremental improvement is being seen as valuable. Even if a company offered a convenience service, the ideal implementation allows people to restore their account from the current function state onchain, which is what most web3 services do in an increasingly standardized and predictable way right now. regarding the NFT's and where they s…
I don't understand how NFTs would solve the problem I described. Even if all of my Oculus games are NFTs - if I'm banned and can't access my account to download the games then I'm out of luck.
the games you possess and the digital items you possess would have an independent record of your possession and continued access
if you did use a company's platform because of its convenient UI, even if you lost access to that company's platform you should still be able to access all of your games and items
in the Web3 paradigm and idea, the closed systems build themselves around open systems just to make them convenient, and aren't strictly necessary. the open system allows the records of assets to be tapped into and re-rendered in other games, or marketplaces. Think about it like Web 1.0 with updated technology and requisite pieces that were missing back then.
I paid extra for a disc version of the PS5 for exactly this reason. If I buy a game today I want to be able to play it 20 years from now. I can bet money that none of the mainstream digital stores of today will be operational by then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the right not to pay money to companies that won't give you the guarantee of ownership and access that you want. But if the lack of that guarantee is right there in the company's terms of service, and you pay them money anyway, you don't have the right to insist that they change the terms you signed up to when you paid them just because you don't like the consequences.
> You have the right not to pay money to companies that won't give you the guarantee of ownership and access that you want. I have way more rights than that. Or if not I will fight to get them. I do not want to depend on the good will of corporations. I want fair laws that control their behavior like we have with physical goods.
So let me get this straight: companies are offering a recreational product, games, on terms you don't like. But instead of not paying them money, so they will be forced to either change their business model or go out of business, you want to get the government involved? For games?
> I do not want to depend on the good will of corporations.
Good luck with that. Your ability to post on this website depends on the good will of a corporation. Your ability to buy groceries and other necessities depends on the good will of corporations. I could go on and on.
For example Ubisoft could register with Google for a program where they fetch a token from Google's servers, insert that token into the email header, and when Google notices this token in the header, then the email won't get flagged as spam.
Only for the most important mails.
In any case, I absolutely believe that Ubisoft has no right to delete the account. It's not like the user could download his account and use it without Ubisoft.
I paid extra for a disc version of the PS5 for exactly this reason. If I buy a game today I want to be able to play it 20 years from now. I can bet money that none of the mainstream digital stores of today will be operational by then.
It's the worst of both worlds. After the Xbox store shuts down, none of your discs will work because they don't _do_ anything. And you can't even launch the game without messing with discs because you can't rip the license from the disc- it MUST be in the machine to launch.
At least you can still sell the disc. For now...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's not an alternative way to buy them that does give you that confidence That doesn't sound to me like a reason for legislation. It sounds to me like a reason for competition. But for there to be competition, customers have to be willing to put their money where their mouth is. If there were a competitor that charged, say, 20% more for a product that included the confidence you want, would you pay it?
Don't copyrights preclude meaningful competition here? If a game is sold through Publisher X, Publisher Y can't just unilaterally decide that they want to sell it too.
No. The game developer, who owns the copyright, decides what channels it gets sold through. If game developers knew that people wouldn't buy their games through channels that didn't give good guarantees of ownership and access, they wouldn't sell through those channels.
I paid extra for a disc version of the PS5 for exactly this reason. If I buy a game today I want to be able to play it 20 years from now. I can bet money that none of the mainstream digital stores of today will be operational by then.
Is that even a guarantee though? In particular, I know that you could buy the Orange Box (HL2, TF2, and Portal) on DVD in retail stores, but you needed a Steam account to play anyway.
There's a Twitter account that documents if games work without having access to the console's network/stores: https://twitter.com/DoesItPlay1/status/1474819155173908484
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your idea does nothing to force the service provider to retain your account, or even to provide you with access to the game media. Proof of ownership isn't the issue here. Ubisoft isn't denying that the user purchased those games. They almost certainly know exactly which games were purchased. I more or less trust the game services I use to keep a record of what I own in their central ledger. They could still deny me…
> Proof of ownership isn't the issue here. Wouldn't having legal proof of owning a license to an IP, entitle you to then use a copy of the files covered by those IP rights, regardless of how or where you acquire them? (E.g. if you buy a license to Windows, you don't need to download the installation media for Windows from Microsoft in order for your licensed installation of Windows to be legitimate. You can get the W…