Live data from Hacker News

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

popcar.bearblog.dev

171–180 of 549 posts

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

#171
post #113

I know this is a topic de jour for submitters lately, but it seems weird for hacker news, a website for and by founders who primarily offer software-as-a-service. I also think it seems weird for a website whose patrons are seemingly predominantly against private property / property ownership. At least the vocal ones seem to feel that way. I get that HN is made up of a variety of people with a variety of opinions, and…

> a website for and by founders who primarily offer software-as-a-service

Liking the Everything as a Subscription model when you get to be the rentier but not when you don't seems perfectly apropos.

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

#172

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 have no problem with Sony not offering DRM free versions of games that I can still download and play with the store. But if that goes away -> you must give me a path to local ownership. I worry about shenanigans where you "buy" the game from a shell company and that shell company "folds" and doesn't uphold it's promises. Same is true for a smaller, but not shell, company. If the non-DRM version isn't already crea…

This is absolutely what the SKG movement would have fast tracked - combined with all the Hollywood accounting that comes with it.

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

#173
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

An online server is a service. People don't lose access to offline games, generally speaking.

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

#174
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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

Because we have a free market not a command economy? Publishers can sell whatever they want

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

#176

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 would argue that we don't need new regulations, we need to enforce existing laws against fraud. It is fraudulent to sell something and then later disable ones access to the thing you sold them access to.

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

#177
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Access to an online server is clearly a service, hence the word "server"

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

#179
post #117

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…

Words like "buy" "own" and "purchase" have a specific connotation. These licenses upend that.

I am part of the Rock Band video game community. That scene is covered in the use of "buy" "own" "purchase" terminology. Now, granted, Harmonix went above and beyond when it came to ensure they had solid licenses, so even though today they've been delisting DLC because their original license to distribute the songs to new customers has begun lapsing, they also went way above and beyond to ensure that people who bought content in the Rock Band 1 days would still be able to play them across the whole same-console library, so much so that anyone who bought RB1/2/3 content on either Xbox 360 or PS3 were able to also play those songs on Rock Band 4 on Xbone and PS4. I think there might have been a small fee in some instances, like when exporting disc content to newer games, but outside of that they went far beyond what most companies do when handling licensing (and this is music licensing, one of the most notoriously hairy forms of licensing that one can do).

These licenses are also re-downloadable by anyone who "bought" them, at least until the platforms entirely shut down the legacy console access for re-download of content that was paid for. Fortunately, we as a community also have all of it preserved without the DRM in preparation for the day when you can no longer even re-download content you paid for. There are also tools that let you copy the content files directly from your console (where possible with or without mods) and convert or decrypt them yourself.

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

#180
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there any evidence of this?

They can delist a game from the PS store, but I doubt they would make a game unplayable if it's already installed or if you own it physically.

Post reply on HN