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

211–220 of 549 posts

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

#211

Post by garciansmith »

MYEUHD wrote: post #180
acchow wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I am not aware of a case where they disabled an already-playable game via a firmware update.

But they do require certain firmware updates to play games, at least they did in the PS3 days. If you hadn't updated to that firmware (say, because you didn't want certain features you used like the OtherOS installation to be deleted) your new physical media would not play. I bought Dark Souls on a disc and could not play it on my console.

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

#212

Post by nfw2 »

fizwidget wrote: post #202
nfw2 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

There IS a reason they don't make it possible to download the game copies directly, which is it becomes trivially easy to perfectly replicate and distribute new copies online, which is not true of any physical good.

People who aren't overly-online forum denizens only care about this issue insofar as it affects them, and the only way it affects people in the real world is when they lose access to online games when the server shuts down. Offline games don't get access revoked in practice.

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

#213

Post by Telaneo »

nfw2 wrote: post #207
Telaneo wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Pretty sure the answer to that is no, they haven't turned to rocks. I believe Amazon keeps a record of your book purchases, and Amazon isn't going away tomorrow, so you should be able to redownload your books (and probably even back them up). If so, all is good there (relatively speaking).

Sony also keeps records, but good luck redownloading your PSP game. Or your PS3 game for that matter. But at least in that case, if you already have it downloaded, you can still play your game. Sony couldn't come down from above and turn your game into a rock.

The Crew for PS4 on the other hand. You can (probably?) still redownload that, but that doesn't actually do you any good. Ubisoft did come down from above and turn that into a rock (there is no good reason to make a single-player gamemode online-only).

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

#214

Post by nfw2 »

Telaneo wrote: post #203
nfw2 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

Evergreen licenses are incredibly common when selling software, not just games.

Your suggestions are either:

- make publishers distribute goods without anti-piracy protection

- make buyers pay for games on an ongoing basis rather than just once

Publishers and buyers are generally happy with the current exchange as is even if you aren't. Digital games sales are increasing rapidly ever year while physical sales are declining. Why do you get to be the gaming czar?

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

#215

Post by Telaneo »

nfw2 wrote: post #214
Telaneo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

Evergreen licenses are incredibly common when selling software, not just games. Your suggestions are either: - make publishers distribute goods without anti-piracy protection - make buyers pay for games on an ongoing basis rather than just once Publishers and buyers are generally happy with the current exchange as is even if you aren't. Digital games sales are increasing rapidly ever year while physical sales are dec…

With renewal comes repayment, and there's still a set date when you renew. WoW is a service that works like that. The vast majority of games don't use evergreen licences, nor should they, since they usually aren't a service.

They don't have to provide a DRM-free version on day 1 if they don't want to. But they do have to provide for a way to use the game after end of support. Doing anything else is unreasonable.

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

#216

Post by BatFastard »

Does anyone here remember owning games on disk?

It was a royal pain in the ass!

You had to inset the disk every time you wanted to play game. The disks got scratched, destroyed, or rearranged by the wife.

Steam has saved me from all of that. Plus I can share my whole library with my family members.

Sure I might lose access to them all when I die, but 20 years from now who is going to care?

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

#217

Post by nfw2 »

Telaneo wrote: post #204
nfw2 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Organize a class action then if you believe so. Fraud is illegal

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

#219

Post by NorwegianDude »

I've been running a small game dev studio for ~20 years, and the one change I think must be made, is to ban the usage of "buy" when it comes to games. Games are licensed, not bought, and that should be crystal clear to those who are paying.

Most of the games people play runs using proprietary software and/or licenses, and often on very specific hardware, with game features that makes sense for the amount of players the game has. Requiring that people should be able to play such games if the company stops running it would completely change and limit how games are developed, and in many cases require a completely different version of the game to be co-developed in case people stop playing it. It would with 100 % certainty result in slower development, fewer games, and worse games.

I do of course think that developers should try to make games playable without the company being involved, within reason. Some games that do not have licensing issues or complicated server backends as a requirement could be made available without too much work. But for things like e.g. MMORPGs it's nearly impossible. If your ever developed bigger software systems you know how many moving parts are involved, so just imagine the difficulty of making it work on consumer machines...

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

#220

Post by oldsecondhand »

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.

However in the EU end users have the right to resell that license.
Post reply on HN