Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

popcar.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 549 posts

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

#51

Post by eszed »

sph wrote: post #47
jbombadil wrote: post #39

I am generally not in favor of adding regulation, but this is a place where I would support it. Anything that you BUY needs to be your property. This means you must have the ability to: 1. Transfer ownership of it (either temporarily as a loan or permanently as a sale). Digital-only doesn't preclude this: the store can have a "transfer" functionality. 2. (Within reason) use it at your discretion at any point after th…

All they have to do then is say that they license you a game, and you're not buying anything, despite paying for it. They already do that with online games.

At least that would be honest....

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

#52

Post by chacham15 »

pitched wrote: post #21

We rent time at a football field. We buy tickets to watch a single match. There are parallels here to not owning video games. I don’t really understand why one is so heinous. Let’s say there’s a new rule implemented by the NBA that no one likes (similar to a fear of live service games changing). How is that resolved there and why can’t that solution work for video games? I think a big thing we’re currently missing he…

There is a difference between a service and a good.

It doesnt make sense to "own" a massage just the same way it doesnt make sense to "own" spectating a game in person. The video recording of people playing a sport is a good that you can own however. This is why an online/multiplayer game is harder to separate because it straddles the line of both a service and a good, but other cases are much more clear cut. (also, a quick google does reveal multipke open source diablo projects fyi)

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

#53

Post by pitched »

garciansmith wrote: post #22
pitched wrote: post #21

We rent time at a football field. We buy tickets to watch a single match. There are parallels here to not owning video games. I don’t really understand why one is so heinous. Let’s say there’s a new rule implemented by the NBA that no one likes (similar to a fear of live service games changing). How is that resolved there and why can’t that solution work for video games? I think a big thing we’re currently missing he…

Video games are far more alike to other media like books, not live sports.

For single-player games, those are definitely media. For multiplayer games, that feels a lot closer to a sport.

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

#54

Post by benoau »

RHSeeger wrote: post #46
benoau wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm optimistic that the raise in PC gaming will act as a balance for the obvious greed of the consoles. Why? Steam has never done anything to support ownership of games, their policy completely bans transferring licenses or accounts to other people or leaving them to someone when you die. Their next CEO is someone who has only known extreme wealth their whole life and gets the job because daddy started the company,…

Can't you download your game off steam and play it forever; and if it can't connect to the service, it will just let you play offline? Sure, that loses out on the ability to transfer it to a friend, but it's better.

Some of them do, the Total War games I play the most require weekly online activation.

But that's just using what you payed for, it only very slightly overlaps with what actually owning something entails.

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

#55

Post by mattgreenrocks »

The question I'm left with: in the past, the uproar over these types of changes seemed to make companies change their mind when considering very anti-consumer decisions. Now, they just go ahead anyway.

What's different? How do we get back to how it was before? I know the current political climate is one that enables this sort of thing. There are parallels with the current movement also WRT to the employer/employee relationship.

Beyond that, there's still more at play. In tech, and specifically on this site, I see a lot more complicity and fatigue when discussing these issues. I can't help but think that also contributes. I'm not saying everyone should always be mad at everything. But it does seem like there's a generational component to this where we haven't passed down an essential feature of a hacker, namely the anti-establishment bent.

I suppose that's collateral damage of a culture tolerating lots of people rushing in to grab their bag of cash and then get out.

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

#56

Post by jvuygbbkuurx »

sph wrote: post #47
jbombadil wrote: post #39

I am generally not in favor of adding regulation, but this is a place where I would support it. Anything that you BUY needs to be your property. This means you must have the ability to: 1. Transfer ownership of it (either temporarily as a loan or permanently as a sale). Digital-only doesn't preclude this: the store can have a "transfer" functionality. 2. (Within reason) use it at your discretion at any point after th…

All they have to do then is say that they license you a game, and you're not buying anything, despite paying for it. They already do that with online games.

That is literally what most online digital goods already do, like steam.

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

#57

Post by mjevans »

superkuh wrote: 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…

The model for DLC that's present, carried as patch updates, but unlocked for an additional fee annoys me.

However, allow me to ignore my opinion for a moment and play the Devils Advocate for a thought experiment.

What if, cosmetics and other unlockables (which should be part of the base gameplay) were instead evaluated on other people's computers. That is, rendering client side, authentication for use also server side.

Hats / Skins / Other -- Render some 'humiliating' cosmetic if authentication fails. Circumvention would require compromise on all client devices.

Core game assets -- Levels / 'mods' that require auth a similar path, except client/server verification mismatch. Do note the license server as a possible cause.

At end of life all of those checks should be patched in a final release to fail enabled. No more auth server, archive mode releases all use.

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

#58

Post by krzyk »

sph wrote: post #47
jbombadil wrote: post #39

I am generally not in favor of adding regulation, but this is a place where I would support it. Anything that you BUY needs to be your property. This means you must have the ability to: 1. Transfer ownership of it (either temporarily as a loan or permanently as a sale). Digital-only doesn't preclude this: the store can have a "transfer" functionality. 2. (Within reason) use it at your discretion at any point after th…

All they have to do then is say that they license you a game, and you're not buying anything, despite paying for it. They already do that with online games.

That is literally in any software since like 90s. You buy license.

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

#60

Post by pitched »

Giefo6ah wrote: post #28
pitched wrote: post #21

We rent time at a football field. We buy tickets to watch a single match. There are parallels here to not owning video games. I don’t really understand why one is so heinous. Let’s say there’s a new rule implemented by the NBA that no one likes (similar to a fear of live service games changing). How is that resolved there and why can’t that solution work for video games? I think a big thing we’re currently missing he…

You don't rent your football field from FIFA. You can, if you wish, own the field you play at. You may have heard of football clubs: If it's too expensive you can pool resources with your friends.

Back in the old days, we would be pooling resources like that to host a server for the clan. And I wonder if the reason those games are less popular has more to do with marketers being good at their job than a change in the base gameplay.

There are local clubs available but everyone wants to play on the nice FIFA field, which is the one that has to be rented.

Post reply on HN