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

161–170 of 549 posts

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

#161

Post by ralferoo »

ForHackernews wrote: post #142
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…

>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...

"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here...

While the majority of flats are leasehold, by far the vast majority of property in England is freehold. Only a fifth is leasehold.

While technically a leasehold has a fixed term and at the end of the lease (usually starts at 99 years) the land owner technically owns the property, in reality this scares most people so usually when someone sells the property (usually while there's still at least 80 years left on the lease) you try to extend the lease again back to 90 years. So while it is possible for the lease to run out and people lose their property, it's usually something you'd be expecting when you took over the lease (and so you'd pay a correspondingly lower price for the property). While the lease is active, there's usually an annual fee from between 100 and 10000 pounds. Obviously, the higher this is, the lower the sale price of the property is likely to be.

Personally, I wouldn't touch leasehold with a bargepole, and unless you want to live in the centre of a city there's usually plenty of freehold property available so you don't need to go down the leasehold route.

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

#162

Post by afroboy »

wxw wrote: post #12
jdw64 wrote: 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.

I mean making something and selling the same thing millions times is good business model too, this is how Microsoft become rich. The problem is the model that chase infinite growth which is impossible to achieve and can't coexist with normal business models.

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

#163

Post by tikkabhuna »

nfw2 wrote: post #152
Groxx wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is just pedantry, and incorrect pedantry at that. BUY does not always mean you gain ownership. You can BUY a license or a haircut and you don't own anything. Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store? Does anyone really thing Buy here means they will be able to download the game onto their computer and play it there? Fine, pass a regulation that makes onlin…

You can pay for services and you may use the term “buy”, but it is clear you’re receiving a service, and a service in its nature is temporary.

Buy a night in a hotel, dinner in a restaurant, haircut, shoe shine. These are all services.

Buying of digital services like games, films, and music is an evolution of buying dvds, cds or records. There is an expectation that you now own something. I can dig out my dad’s old records and play them and pass them onto my children.

If media companies want to sell a license that has an expiry date, that’s fine, but it has to be explicitly communicated. Consumers have to be well informed about what they’re purchasing.

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

#164

Post by amelius »

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…

Most importantly you should be able to use it even if you break all ties with the vendor.

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

#165

Post by tikkabhuna »

ralferoo wrote: post #161
ForHackernews wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here... While the majority of flats are leasehold, by far the vast majority of property in England is freehold. Only a fifth is leasehold. While technically a leasehold has a fixed term and at the end of the lease (usually starts at 99 years) the land owner technically owns the property, in reality this scares most people so usually when someone sells the property (usually whi…

Lots of leaseholds now start at 999 years.

It’s a weird system. The previous and current governments have been looking to modernise it.

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

#166

Post by PaulRobinson »

nfw2 wrote: post #152
Groxx wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is just pedantry, and incorrect pedantry at that. BUY does not always mean you gain ownership. You can BUY a license or a haircut and you don't own anything. Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store? Does anyone really thing Buy here means they will be able to download the game onto their computer and play it there? Fine, pass a regulation that makes onlin…

Most of the World understands the difference between buying a product and buying a service.

Games (and other digital media), are sold as products, not services, mostly.

TFA is arguing this should persist and not be replaced as games as (subscription/licensed rental), services. It argues the move to digital is being used by businesses to switch to a services model under the hood, and that this should be resisted and it should remain a product model.

> Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store?

Demonstrably, provably: yes.

> Fine, pass a regulation that makes online stores change the word to license or whatever.

Why not make the store change what they sell from being a license and making it a product as the consumer expected?

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

#167

Post by ralferoo »

tikkabhuna wrote: post #165
ralferoo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"almost" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here... While the majority of flats are leasehold, by far the vast majority of property in England is freehold. Only a fifth is leasehold. While technically a leasehold has a fixed term and at the end of the lease (usually starts at 99 years) the land owner technically owns the property, in reality this scares most people so usually when someone sells the property (usually whi…

Lots of leaseholds now start at 999 years. It’s a weird system. The previous and current governments have been looking to modernise it.

Interesting. Do the longer ones have some provision for increasing in line with inflation? AFAIK the 99 year leases are usually for a fixed amount every year, which obviously shrinks in real terms over time, but given that you'd want to renew it every 10 years or so anyway, would probably be renegotiated to a fair market rate at that time.

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

#168

Post by acchow »

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.

> and nothing would stop you playing it

Not true for PS5 games. Sony can push a firmware update to disable games, even if you own the disc.

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

#169

Post by CommanderData »

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…

Has self regulation ever worked in the tech world when it comes to consumer/user rights.

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

#170

Post by sbayg »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #153
alecsm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dumb regulation being subjective

Subjective being subjective
Post reply on HN