Live data from Hacker News

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

popcar.bearblog.dev

201–210 of 549 posts

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

#201
I made a hard switch from all digital to all physical (when available) after I tried to introduce old games to my kids. I found many of them were no longer downloadable.

What are the odds that PlayStation, Nintendo, Xbox servers will be around in 2040? 2050? It’s certainly not 100%. Those companies may not even exist. If there’s any dependency, there is a chance that one day you won’t have access any more.

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

#202
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

The discussion is not just about online multiplayer games though, it’s about games in general. There is no good reason why buying a singleplayer offline game need be a “service”.

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

#203
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they can stop pretending and actually sell it as a service. What they're doing now is doing one thing (selling it as a product), while getting the benefits of the other (selling it as a service).

That is what I suggested. The other poster said what you are suggesting shouldn't be allowed, not me.

That's not how I read your suggestions. Your suggestion to just rename the action, which isn't helpful. You're still buying a licence, one that is nominally permanent, meaning it's a product, on the same level as a CD or whatever.

Games are overwhelmingly not sold as services these days (MMOs being the exception, + a few others). The sale of a game as a product is built into the model of 'give money, get permanent access to game'. If that access is not permanent, then you need to set a time limit there. Subscriptions usually do it per month, but you can do whatever you want, except leave the field blank.

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

#204
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Publishers can sell whatever they want. Indeed. They just can't commit fraud or false advertising.

Using the word "Buy" to mean buy a license, then having an agreement where the details of the license are explained isn't fraud lol

That agreement can be filled with unfair terms, and often is. I'd call that fraud.

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

#205

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"

You're implying that's the same but it's obviously better. Nothing wrong with renting when you're told you're renting.

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

#206
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As yes, the poor, ignorant average joe, who doesn't realize the game they buy on the PLAYSTATION store needs PLAYSTATION to work in order to play it. If only enough bloggers wrote enough articles to enlighten them, then they would join the mob and demand forever access to the games they play for 3 weeks then never play again.

Why carry water for billion dollar companies? I can still play my brother's old PlayStation games on his OG PlayStation. They cannot be revoked arbitrarily, nor their music dropped or swapped out. This a feature, and we'd feel quite cheated if that happened. In fact we still go back to old games from time to time.

I can still play the games I bought on the nintendo switch 8 years ago.

> Why carry water for billion companies?

All companies at a certain scale are billion dollar companies. Also, how much money a company has is unrelated to whether they violated consumer rights or not. But, tangentially, I do generally respect entities that fund creative endeavors moreso than I respect gamers who go online to bemoan how persecuted they are

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

#207
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As yes, the poor, ignorant average joe, who doesn't realize the game they buy on the PLAYSTATION store needs PLAYSTATION to work in order to play it. If only enough bloggers wrote enough articles to enlighten them, then they would join the mob and demand forever access to the games they play for 3 weeks then never play again.

Even if I only read a book once after buying it, it shouldn't turn into a rock just because I never intend to read it again.

Have any of the books bought on Kindle turned into rocks or can their buyers read them again if they want to?

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

#208
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They said “can”, not “has”. Given that it’s a closed platform that Sony has complete control over, they certainly can do it. You can doubt that they will, but that’s just hope rather than a legal or technical guarantee.

> You can doubt that they will, but that’s just hope rather than a legal or technical guarantee.

It's not based on a legal or technical guarantee. But it's based on what Sony did in the past:

P.T. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.T._(video_game) ) was pulled from the PS store. But Sony didn't make it unplayable if it was already installed. In fact, the wikipedia article says:

> After the cancellation, PlayStation 4 consoles with P.T. installed were listed on eBay for over $1,000

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

#209
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's definitely a bad argument worthy of some sort of label. It seems to go "you believe this thing, which I won't engage with at all, but I'll assume that because of the way you said it, you also believe all this other stuff that I disagree with".

The term you are looking for is straw man

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

#210

I’ve come to realize there are definitely people out there who have no interest in playing games, they just want to own them. A child doesn’t think about ownership, he picks up a controller and plays a game. And when the child has grown bored of the game, one day they just never touch it again like a discarded toy, moving on to something else. It is adults, reminded of their own feeble mortality and impermanence in t…

> Focus on enjoying games now, in the time when they are relevant. No matter how hard you try, all those games will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.

I've enjoyed games that came out 20 years before I actually played them. Many games I enjoy are years old by the time I play them. I wanted to play The Crew. Doing that officially is literally impossible now. Maybe I'll get to play it if the pirates can do their magic.

Somebody needs to preserve these games so that people like me can play and enjoy them in their own time. I'd like other people to share in that same joy.

Would you write this comment, if you were speaking of books instead of games? It comes of as incredibly thoughtless to think of games as nothing more than discarded toys, when they are complete creative experiences filled with artistic value. Games are worthy of preservation for the same reasons books are. It's a shame people like you haven't realised that.

Post reply on HN