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

141–150 of 549 posts

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

#141

Post by stevefan1999 »

shevy-java wrote: post #133

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.…

That's corpo-technofeudalism, it is unfortunately on the rise. They want to get rid of your control and opinion and strip your freedom away, forever enslaved to their system and pay rents In some sense it is comparable to religions but under different corpo-warbanner

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

#142

Post by ForHackernews »

MyMemoryfails wrote: post #122
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…

I think you misunderstood, the major issue is that companies are actually "renting", it's just at 100k words long terms of services where they redefine "purchase" as rental. California has actually done something about this, you can longer claim that customers are "buying" when they're actually just renting. If i claimed i sell a house for 500K but the in terms of sale redefine sale as rent the house for 500K and i c…

>i claimed i sell a house for 500K but the in terms of sale redefine sale as rent the house for 500K

Ironically this is almost how it works in England: https://homemove.com/content/what-is-leasehold-property-comp...

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

#143

Post by MyMemoryfails »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #126
MyMemoryfails wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstood, the major issue is that companies are actually "renting", it's just at 100k words long terms of services where they redefine "purchase" as rental. California has actually done something about this, you can longer claim that customers are "buying" when they're actually just renting. If i claimed i sell a house for 500K but the in terms of sale redefine sale as rent the house for 500K and i c…

players have options. they are welcome to wait for releases on GOG.

Personally i only purchase DRM free games, but it doesn't still change that fact that major digital storefronts use misleading terms. Maybe physical disks would maintain popularity if customers knew they'd be renting the product for unknown period time instead of owning it.

It's easy to forget that average joe doesn't understand the consequences when we're on our own bubbles.

Edit: The media outrage when Sony removed 550 movies, indicates the customers don't still understand the terms of the sale. It wouldnt make any noises if customers knew they were renting it.

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

#144

Post by fragmede »

nfw2 wrote: post #134
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…

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.

Yes, but first sale doctrine on physical goods means that I can take my Playstation game, which only works on Playstations, and sell it to.a friend after I'm done playing it, or pick up a copy 5-10 years after the game was originally published for cheap from a second hand store like Goodwill. People do understand that, and are understandably pissed off that those same rights don't transfer to the digital realm. If I paid $60 for a copy of GTA IV when it was new but now I can buy a copy for $5 from the used bin, why shouldn't that be true for GTA VI in 15 years after it comes out?

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

#145

Post by vanviegen »

nfw2 wrote: post #114
vanviegen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though your point may have some value, your comment comes across as meanspirited and ad hominem. Also, regulation is not universally supported by knowledgeable consumers. Often quite the opposite, in fact.

Mean spirited sure, ad hominem, no. It's satirizing the argument, not personal traits unrelated to the argument

I stand corrected.

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

#146

Post by swat535 »

eszed wrote: post #51
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.

At least that would be honest....

It should just say "Rent" instead of "Buy"

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

#147

Post by wsve »

nfw2 wrote: post #117
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…

> 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…

All your examples make clear to the customer that their access is temporary and conditional on their continued and ongoing payment, and that ownership of the good/service is retained by the seller.

On the other hand, "buying a game" is given the guise of ownership, despite true ownership still being retained by the seller, obscured by the fact you're making a one-time payment. It'd be reasonable if the terminology used was "rent" or "subscribe" to a game with a periodic payment, but that's not what's advertised.

It is deceiving, unnecessary, and anti-consumer.

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

#148

Post by Grombobulous »

pocksuppet wrote: post #131
Negitivefrags wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only reason for that is because the physical disc has the right of first sale attached by being physical item, and there’s no practical/acceptable mechanism to prevent transfer of the license to someone else.

Traditionally the whole industry has been fine with it as long as direct media copying was too hard for the layperson, especially since lending games around was like word of mouth advertising.

Digital platforms change a whole bunch of these things.

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

#149

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

alecsm wrote: post #118
feoren wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about. All the oversight and regulation about everything you don't care and/or know about is big bad government overreach. Every government agency is a useless waste of your tax dollars, except the ones you rely on and the ones where you have friends that work there. Do I have that right?

I understand his comment as being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress. But he would support a regulation for this because it's a violation against the property of the buyer.

> being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress

Does such strawman regulation even exist? Some regulation is intentionally designed to limit “progress”, where “progress” happens to have negative externalities.

It’s kind of a self-legitimizing opinion. Of course anyone would be against unnecessary regulations. I think the real world is not arguing about whether a regulation is necessary, but rather if the economic burden it creates is worth the positive impact it has on society, which is highly contentious, highly subjective debate.

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

#150

Post by wsve »

hx8 wrote: post #116
Fargren wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consumer protection is a type of regulation, but if you can brand a rule as "Consumer protection" it will poll better than "regulation" because that's how marketing works.

Maybe, but regularly reframing regulations that people like (consumer protections, OSHA, lemon laws, etc.) as regulations will hopefully remind/reinforce that the whole "pro/anti regulations" framing is a childish mindset.
Post reply on HN