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

131–140 of 549 posts

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

#131

Post by pocksuppet »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #109
al_borland wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw something earlier today that showed the Sony agreement specifies you’re only licensing the games, even if you buy it on a disc. So the fine print means no one ever “buys” a game for the PS5. They are buying a license to use the game for some indefinite period of time that Sony, or some other rights holder, will determine at a later date. This is why things really need to be DRM free from the start, and portable…

This has been the case for software since the very beginning. And people have been complaining about it since the beginning. See the Free Software Foundation.

No matter what they wrote in the document, the fact was always that you had the game on a disc and nothing would stop you playing it in violation of the words in the document.

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

#132

Post by sodafountan »

As hard as it is to admit, the used market hurts developers the most. If I buy a game and then resell it to a friend for more money than what the game store would offer, but less than what they'd pay at retail. The actual developer of the game sees no profit. It's a win-win for the gamers, not so much for the developers.

Digital assets don't degrade like an appliance or a used car might, so the used market really cuts into the profits of game companies.

I don't believe the solution to this is to go all digital and cut off access to physical media entirely. What we need are stronger digital economies that can grow organically with a community.

Digital media needs the backing of cryptocurrency to remain viable. We need digital assets and economies that either grow or shrink in value based on demand. Rather than fake digital currencies that have no value outside of the world they're used in, we need real cryptocurrencies that are traded on open markets like stocks to bolster the digital economy and make the economics of building fun, lasting games a reality.

I'm tired of spending money on digital points for games that have no real value. Everything should be a cryptocurrency at this point.

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

#133

Post by shevy-java »

He has a point; it makes sense for greedy corporations to try to eliminate second sale markets. But to me this is a much more fundamental attack that is going here. I also can't help but notice the age sniffing attack vector right now, but probably these two issues are not directly related.

Companies try to make it illegal to have physical copies. This is very similar to those who oppose the right-to-repair movement. They don't want you to control anything - they want to control everything. By not producing physical copies, they force you into their control. Now I am not the target audience, because these companies do not get any money from me anyway, but after the digital-only dictatorship I would be even less inclined to give them any MORE money now. Because I would support this new mafia scheme and that goes against my ethics - even though this is hypothetical as they already don't get me money anyway. I think it is time to forbid certain practices by companies. They should be REQUIRED to yield physical copies too. What the format is, how, and so forth is secondary, though they also may not abuse this for driving up outrageous prices either.

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

#134

Post by nfw2 »

traverseda wrote: post #24
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…

With a video game it's not clear that you're purchasing a revocable license. That's why it's called "buying" a video game. If online stores were clear that you were actually leasing a game, I don't think this would be a problem. Publishers and storefronts need to be clear that what you're doing isn't buying, or start selling tickets (season passes) that have a clear end date, or use some other mechanism that isn't "b…

If someone goes to the playstation store to buy a playstation game, you don't think it's clear that they can only play the game on playstation? I think consumers understand what they are buying even if they don't think in terms like revocable licenses and drm. They aren't ignorant just because they don't care about these abstract issues that don't affect their lives at all, practically speaking.

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

#135

Post by stevefan1999 »

I would argue further: it's not just about ownership only, but about control on a different level, that the industry can dictate what you can play by mass revoking the license, in order to force a next "hype" by getting rid of your independence.

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

#136

Post by tikhonj »

pocksuppet wrote: post #130
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…

They did this in California, now online stores in California only let you rent games for an indefinite term. Exactly the same as before but the button says "rent"

Which online stores? I don't see that in Steam.

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

#137

Post by mkozlows »

Groxx wrote: post #119
nfw2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything that you BUY needs to be your property. This is obviously absurd as a universal rule. If I "buy" a night in a hotel room, I should own the hotel room? If I order a taxi, I should own the taxi? If I ride a bikeshare e-bike across town, I should own the bike? Whether rent is appropriate or exploitative for a certain product or industry is a fair question, but to say renting should not exist as a concept at a…

Digital sales overwhelmingly use "buy" as the term in their UI, not "rent". Rental is a separate thing, and I don't think roughly anyone is saying rentals should not exist in any form.

These days, they mostly don't. California passed a law that required clarity (good), and now most things accurately say "license" instead of "buy."

(Not universally, but in many cases.)

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

#138

Post by ForHackernews »

pocksuppet wrote: post #130
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…

They did this in California, now online stores in California only let you rent games for an indefinite term. Exactly the same as before but the button says "rent"

Good. At least they're honest about what you're paying for.

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

#139

Post by nfw2 »

xp84 wrote: post #33
traverseda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a video game it's not clear that you're purchasing a revocable license. That's why it's called "buying" a video game. If online stores were clear that you were actually leasing a game, I don't think this would be a problem. Publishers and storefronts need to be clear that what you're doing isn't buying, or start selling tickets (season passes) that have a clear end date, or use some other mechanism that isn't "b…

Agree. The only way "buying" is understood in English to mean a temporary entitlement is when combined with those terms like "ticket" or "pass." The choice of language is deliberately made to deceive. If an auto manufacturer tried that, offering to "sell you" a car but the 3-page "Sales contract" had a clause buried in there that said "We can come to your house with 30 days' notice and just take the car back and you…

There is no perfect word. Ticket and pass imply a fixed duration lease, not an indefinite one. Membership implies continual payments.

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

#140

Post by 999900000999 »

At the core of this customers have a right to choose what they spin money on.

Access to an online based experience which will be discontinued in the future, that's what Roblox or Fortnite is.

When I spend money in a F2P game, I understand I don't have any rights outside of using it after the publisher ends support.

I don't want the government to tell me how to spend my money.

I do want all these gamers making noise to spend a fraction of the effort making community driven open source games.

I dream often of high quality open source games. The community would raise funds for development with an understanding of everything being released under MIT or GPL later.

FOSS is ownership.

Everything else is a temporary license to use which can be terminated without cause at any time. I just brought Marathon and it's fun.

But because Sony only sold me a license , they have a right to switch off the servers and make it useless tomorrow.

The only regulation I'd support here is a minimum service commitment at purchase. Something like " Your access to this product will terminate in June of 2029. Extensions to this service may be granted at publisher discretion."

This needs to be BIG RED PRINT when I hand over my money. Not hidden on page 15 of a service agreement.

Post reply on HN