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

321–330 of 549 posts

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

#321

Post by meh2frdf »

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.

But the issue is those terms are laid out in the agreement, and you willingly agreed to those terms, so what are arguing for is to welch on the deal you accepted?

In terms in consumer protection, at least in UK and Europe (not saying not elsewhere, just don't know much), there is an amount of regulation that tries to help consumers not get screwed in the legalese of these agreements, and some basic protections that can't override.

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

#322

Post by sciencejerk »

criddell wrote: post #75
tayo42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm I see, that's interesting. Seems like the games industry it self is in a pretty bad state despite that

If you include mobile gaming, things look a lot better.

Mobile gaming is a mess. Android is still open, but Apple devices are locked down, and bigG keeps trying to close sideloading. Subsciption micropayments ads enshittification has hit mobile gaming HARD. Not sure mobile gaming is in good shape...?

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

#323

Post by scott_w »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #307
scott_w wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll take your word on the other points but this one: > Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer. Needs some debunking. In fact, I think you may have been fed lies because the UK government felt the need to specifically call this out: https://mhclgmedia.blog.gov.uk/2026/06/25/air-conditioning-r... In short: AC in the home is legal in the UK subject to foll…

Reading that sort of thing is kind of amusing, e.g.: > In most cases, planning permission is not required to install it for a small home if it would not materially affect the appearance of the building from outside . Substantially all air conditioning units affect the appearance of the building from the outside because they require a coil or vent somewhere on the exterior of the building to expel heat. > Building reg…

You're completely misreading regulations. "Materially affect" does not cover things like "puts a unit outside" because otherwise putting a satellite does would "materially affect the appearance of the building from outside," yet millions of people get Sky TV.

> If planning permission for aircon was denied

Again, this is not part of the article because it literally says you don't need planning permission! There are regulations you must follow about the size and location but, as long as those are followed, you don't need planning permission. At most, you alert Building Control who will tell you the process and, as long as you follow it, they will sign it off.

For the avoidance of doubt: getting work signed off by your council's Building Control department is not planning permission. As long as your work follows the regulations, they will sign it off. Planning permission is ONLY needed if you want to do work outside of what building regs normally allow for residential properties.

> They wouldn't need to spin it like this if there weren't actually buildings where people want to install air conditioning and are prohibited from it

They wouldn't need to spin it like this if the media and their useful idiots like you didn't outright lie about what was actually happening.

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

#324

Post by meh2frdf »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #223
nfw2 wrote: 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…

> 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. At the end of the day words have to mean something. It is not pedantry to simply discuss what a word or phrase means. There are false advertising laws for a reason. To that end, I would argue you've never bought a haircut, you've paid for a service. The i…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

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

#325

Post by rplnt »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #261
homer456 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a minimum of 600 hours of training to get licensed to cut hair in California. Pex plumbing is banned in Chicago as a union protectionist regulation. The "chicken tax" regulation scheme has screwed up the US truck market for decades. Electrical code requirements for the wiring of kitchen islands have changed drastically with very small justification within a short span of time. To this day it is illegal to tr…

> Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer. I keep seeing people say this but they don’t have any evidence, seen it tons online the last few weeks even on HN. What’s the deal? One person the other day went so far as to say that multiple EU nations have banned AC, which is completely false. You can absolutely have air-conditioning in Europe. Some places hav…

Just to add, the regulations you mention aren't even about AC, it's about modifying buildings' "looks". You can still install AC if you figure out where to put the outside unit - roof, balcony, inner yard, ...

Not everyone has the ability to install personal unit where they live, that's true, same way they can't install satellite dishes for example.

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

#326

Post by sciencejerk »

monegator wrote: post #290
beloch wrote: post #115

"But most people use Steam anyway, I hear you say. That's true, but you can still own your games on Steam. Very easily, in fact! Steam doesn't apply a hard DRM for games on their platform, you can bypass it and play your games offline without the launcher if you know what you're doing." -------------- When it comes to PC games, the real peace of mind comes from cracks and piracy. Sure, a single player game that requi…

And then you have repacks. It's basically impossible to find any game that isn't on GOG that is not shared as a repack. You don't get the installer, you don't get the original media, you have to trust that the repack is not filled with malware. (and also the repack process somewhat confuses wine/lutris. More than once i couldn't make the repack run on my linux box, but if i managed to find the genuine install medium.…

Are repacks just binaries?

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

#327

Post by meh2frdf »

TyrianPurple wrote: post #295

Once you buy something (physical or digital), ownership of it should rest solely with the purchaser and no one else.

Should according to you, as it serves you best that way. Not how the world works, and for sound economic reasons.

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

#328

Post by skotobaza »

deadbabe wrote: post #86

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…

I'm in the same boat with the sibling comment. I currently play games that have been released 20+ years ago. In 20 years I want to be able to play the games that are being released now. That's what preservation is, not hoarding. Should I just stop playing older games because I wouldn't be able to play newer ones in some years? This seems entirely unreasonable to me. I can read books that have been written hundreds of years ago, I can watch movies that have been made 100 years ago. The same should be with video games. And it used to be this way.

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

#329

Post by eloisant »

willdr wrote: post #195
hx8 wrote: post #10

Absolutely this. Fifteen years ago World of Warcraft was at its peak. You had 12 million people paying a monthly fee, plus buying the occasional expansion pack. No other gaming company had seen reoccurring revenue numbers like that before and it changed the industry. One aspect of this was that if you stopped paying you lost access to the game. The industry has been looking for the next way to level up this subscript…

Unfortunately the AI bubble means we are witnessing the death of PC gaming. Watch the GamersNexus video, The Collapse of Personal Computing: https://youtu.be/zyQwAhppWj8 Costs are driving manufacturers out of business. Essential components for PCs are becoming out of reach for the average consumer. You will own nothing and be happy.

This is true for consoles as well. Console prices are increasing, I think this is the first time I witness that. Console prices used to go down until the next generation comes out.

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

#330

Post by AnthonyMouse »

michaelt wrote: post #311
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about. That's not really it. The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by sta…

> The main case against regulation is that it shouldn't be used when competition would do it better, which is most of the time. The trouble in this case is that copyright is a government-granted monopoly, which means this isn't one of those times, because competition is being foreclosed by statute. Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and othe…

> Microsoft may have a monopoly on Minecraft, but they still have competition from other games (Roblox, Fortnite) and other forms of entertainment (social media, youtube, books, IRL friends).

Which is not at all the same thing, not least because software has a network effect. It's like saying that a company having a monopoly on cars is fine because you can walk or take the bus.

If your claim was actually true then copyright would have no purpose since "granting a monopoly" is its mechanism of operation.

> To me, the problem is more one of the terms of the deal changing; if a person brought minecraft with a 'mojang' account and loses their purchase when those accounts disappear in favour of 'microsoft' accounts, for example.

How does that help you when the next game comes out, requiring a "Microsoft" account from the first day? The problem is inherently that you can't get the game from anyone -- even a used copy from an existing customer -- without subjecting yourself to the requirement you reject, or de facto being stripped of your rights under First Sale.

Post reply on HN