It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by hofrogs » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

PaulKeeble wrote: post #23

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…

Even private servers doesn't quite solve the issue. Minecraft is an example where you can run the server but it requires clients to login to the microsoft account. I think you can still bypass the check on the server but clients have to be cracked or previously authorised for offline play which only lasts for a certain timeframe. So Microsoft can take away the ability to play minecraft despite the game server binary…

With Minecraft, there isn't even a need for Microsoft to do anything. The authentication servers experience regular periods of downtime/inaccessibility, making you unable to join any server, even if you have already launched the game and have joined a server in that session before. It's extremely frustrating.

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

#92

Post by krzyk » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:36 PM UTC

eldaisfish wrote: post #79

krzyk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

right, but back in the 90s, the onus of maintaining a working copy of any software was on you. Now, Sony simply reaches into you home and can deny you access to software/movies you "bought". These are not the same situation.

Well, yes. Always online is a problem, but it doesn't change what one buys. A thing that is easy to copy without destroying the original. So they invented licenses to contain the copying part.

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

#93

Post by franga2000 » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:38 PM UTC

krzyk wrote: post #58

sph wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a completely different license. A normal software license gives you the right to use version X of the software on Y computers/seats/users/... You have the original installer on the disc, you can download installers for patch releases online and save them for later, you have the activation key. At any point, you can uninstall the software and give or sell the installer and key to someone else.

What games and some software do these days is much worrse. You have a license to use their "software installation service" and their "let me run the game" service until they decide to turn them off. At any point, at their discretion, they can remove your ability to install a new copy or even run it all together.

Very different and quite recent.

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

#94

Post by kennyadam » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

seff wrote: post #76

matthewfcarlson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was actually a funny question at work over lunch. A few of us have kids and like most tech guys over 30, our steam accounts have turned into collections. So I asked, who gets your steam account when you kick it. It’s difficult to think about and seems baffling to spend thousands of dollars and hours assembling a collection only for it to poof away into nothing.

When we were in college, one of my friends joked that their stream library was their largest financial asset. When stream trading was more of a thing, and we had a ramen diet, it was probably true

It’s steam, not stream. Normally, I’d assume it’s a simple typo, but I got worried when you wrote it twice. Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me… you can't get fooled again.

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

#95

Post by Fargren » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

hx8 wrote: post #44

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…

I don't see this as "regulation". I see this as extending the same consumer protections that existed in the era of analog physical media to the digital age.

Customer protection absolutely is regulation. Saying otherwise is a No True Scotsman.

Good regulation is good. Bad regulation is bad. Being anti-regulation is dogmatic.

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

#96

Post by demaga » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

jvuygbbkuurx wrote: post #56

sph wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but UI needs to reflect that too. I just opened Steam to verify - it definitely says 'Buy {game_name} - Add to Cart'

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

#97

Post by NDlurker » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

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…

This looks like a job for NFTs

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

#98

Post by lstodd » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

matthewfcarlson wrote: post #73

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,…

This was actually a funny question at work over lunch. A few of us have kids and like most tech guys over 30, our steam accounts have turned into collections. So I asked, who gets your steam account when you kick it. It’s difficult to think about and seems baffling to spend thousands of dollars and hours assembling a collection only for it to poof away into nothing.

Haha. I actually back up my steam collection via torrents of GoG releases.

Now, I can to some extent automate the rip-out of steam integration, there are solutions. And thus not rely on torrents. But why would I if it's the same thing in the end, and torrents are that much simpler.

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

#99

Post by atoav » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

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…

Then it shouldn't be allowed to call it "buy" they should be forced to call it "rent".

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

#100

Post by numpad0 » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 7:48 PM UTC

I think an oft-forgotten possible major driver for the moves away from discs[1] must be scary legal warnings universally seen in paid contents during 2010s. None of currently popular platforms have those stern unrelatable messages that customers looking for relaxing contents were forced to observe. It didn't took hard data for anyone to see disc sales disappearing in sync with DRMs and tones progressively more obnoxious and harsh in the period.

Sony is likely not shutting down physical discs to tighten control over consumers, but it's more likely that they just don't see disc manufacturing as a viable business as a hardware factory that it always was. That goes beyond games or movies, and it should be discussed more often as to why they didn't take actions but to quietly watch the golden goose slaughtered.

1: https://support.apple.com/en-us/100749