Live data from Hacker News

It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

popcar.bearblog.dev

11–20 of 549 posts

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#11

Ownership as in resale-able. Eventually someone important enough will force digital resales to become reality, changing everything to require KYC.

Resale-able maybe, unable to be revoked I think is more important.

As in you can't wake up one morning and your game is gone overnight because copyright around in-game music changed.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#12
post #3

>Everyone wants to be Netflix This is the most perfect sentence about this situation

Yep, agreed. Recurring, consistent revenue is the ultimately a common-sense business best interest. It can be extremely unfortunate for consumers as there's an unaligned incentive here.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#13
post #6
post #2

Video game companies still remember when they owned the arcade machines and players were required to constantly insert money into the machines to keep playing. They've been chasing that high ever since. The key to owning modern multiplayer online games is to have private servers run by human persons on their own owned computers. But except for TF2 no one has been able to (or cared enough) allow private servers alongs…

> Video game companies still remember when they owned the arcade machines and players were required to constantly insert money into the machines to keep playing. I know Sega and Namco operated some arcades, but mostly companies sold arcade machines and operators ran them. Coin boxes didn't connect to the developer except that games with good earnings sold well.

A per-play revenue share is not uncommon in some markets, especially for games with frequent updates or more complicated network features.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#14
post #10

Absolutely this. Fifteen years ago World of Warcraft was at its peak. You had 12 million people paying a monthly fee, plus buying the occasional expansion pack. No other gaming company had seen reoccurring revenue numbers like that before and it changed the industry. One aspect of this was that if you stopped paying you lost access to the game. The industry has been looking for the next way to level up this subscript…

I’m not nearly so optimistic. I think we have a generation of kids now who mostly never owned any physical media, having grown up with Netflix instead of vhs/dvd, Spotify instead of CDs, steam instead of retail games, etc.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#15
post #13
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Video game companies still remember when they owned the arcade machines and players were required to constantly insert money into the machines to keep playing. I know Sega and Namco operated some arcades, but mostly companies sold arcade machines and operators ran them. Coin boxes didn't connect to the developer except that games with good earnings sold well.

A per-play revenue share is not uncommon in some markets, especially for games with frequent updates or more complicated network features.

This is why so many machines now have accounts and global saved progress. It provides actual value for the player, to be able to pick up their saved progress (e.g. on a rhythm game with thousands of songs on it), but it also means the arcade is beholden to the game manufacturer for an expected feature, and pays for that on an ongoing basis.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#16
post #10

Absolutely this. Fifteen years ago World of Warcraft was at its peak. You had 12 million people paying a monthly fee, plus buying the occasional expansion pack. No other gaming company had seen reoccurring revenue numbers like that before and it changed the industry. One aspect of this was that if you stopped paying you lost access to the game. The industry has been looking for the next way to level up this subscript…

Is there really a rise in PC gaming going on? Isn't that dependent on people having PCs and hardware?

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#17
post #2

Video game companies still remember when they owned the arcade machines and players were required to constantly insert money into the machines to keep playing. They've been chasing that high ever since. The key to owning modern multiplayer online games is to have private servers run by human persons on their own owned computers. But except for TF2 no one has been able to (or cared enough) allow private servers alongs…

[dead]

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#18

Ownership as in resale-able. Eventually someone important enough will force digital resales to become reality, changing everything to require KYC.

Resale-able maybe, unable to be revoked I think is more important. As in you can't wake up one morning and your game is gone overnight because copyright around in-game music changed.

Thats easy to do (on paper). Dont let copyright owners revoke/expire their licenses (or if its revokable mark and price it clearly). Once a product containing it is purchased, its owned till product ceases to exist (or similar).

All these music behemoths are way too powerful and they twist entire society globally to dance as they want. Not a fraction of a worry for pirates of course, just for decent paying fools.

Abhorable business.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#19
post #10

Absolutely this. Fifteen years ago World of Warcraft was at its peak. You had 12 million people paying a monthly fee, plus buying the occasional expansion pack. No other gaming company had seen reoccurring revenue numbers like that before and it changed the industry. One aspect of this was that if you stopped paying you lost access to the game. The industry has been looking for the next way to level up this subscript…

People still don't own their games with Steam, the main PC platform. I don't think its going under anytime soon and currently its reasonably customer friendly but as we have seen these big tech companies can turn on their customer base at any moment. GOG is about the only way to actually own the games since no DRM is applied and you can download the entire package and keep it and don't require their launcher.

PC already went digital no ownership for most people unfortunately. His argument that it isn't the same doesn't wash, you still can't sell them or lend them to someone else and you have to hack around Steam's DRM, which is a loophole that can be closed at any point.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#20
post #12
post #3

>Everyone wants to be Netflix This is the most perfect sentence about this situation

Yep, agreed. Recurring, consistent revenue is the ultimately a common-sense business best interest. It can be extremely unfortunate for consumers as there's an unaligned incentive here.

This can still be acceptable if they give HW for free. but paying up to 1k for console and then full price for games which often have their own paid loot boxes/whatever... yeah good luck no thank you,

I can afford it trivially, but its like paying say 20 bucks for a standard bread or bottle of milk. Insulting

Post reply on HN