It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by yason » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:20 AM UTC

kiddico wrote: post #277

matthewfcarlson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was actually a funny question at work over lunch. A few of us have kids and like most tech guys over 30, our steam accounts have turned into collections. So I asked, who gets your steam account when you kick it. It’s difficult to think about and seems baffling to spend thousands of dollars and hours assembling a collection only for it to poof away into nothing.

Who says anyone needs to inform Valve of your passing? Make sure your children have access to the email backing the account and they're good to go.

If this continues long enough there will be plenty of 140-year-olds rocket-jumping through levels in TF...

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

#372

Post by hsbauauvhabzb » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:21 AM UTC

tonyhart7 wrote: post #299

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…

"Anything that you BUY needs to be your property." do you own the film when you buy ticket to cinema ????

No but you don’t expect the cinema to stop the movie half way through without giving you a refund, and would expect that you could legally resell a purchased ticket to your friend if you can’t attend the screening.

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

#373

Post by j1elo » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:26 AM UTC

tonyhart7 wrote: post #299

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…

"Anything that you BUY needs to be your property." do you own the film when you buy ticket to cinema ????

The film is going to be projected anyways. You are buying the right to be present in the room when that happens. You can transfer that right (give the ticket to someone else), even sell it. Before the projection happens, the company might want to close and cancel that projection, in which case you are left without the chance to attend and exercise your purchased service; in that case, the company would (should) refund your full money.

Now change "attend the cinema" with "play a videogame" in those phrases. We should be able to freely exchange games between us. I should be able to sell them to you. The medium (digital, physical) is irrelevant.

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

#374

Post by scott_w » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:27 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #363

scott_w wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the condenser is "ugly". "Ugly" is not part of planning regs. Local council planning regs cannot override statute and they don't deviate that much. You'd know this if you lived in the UK (which you don't). > Which strongly implies both that there are cases when it's required anyway I explained why you might need planning permission: because your planned work sits outside of building regs. > there are cases when it…

> "Ugly" is not part of planning regs. The phrase "materially affect the appearance of the building" has a pretty strong implication that the aesthetic effect is regarded as undesirable. > Yes, those are things like "it's too big" or "it's a listed building." And what then happens in the cases where "it's too big" or "it's a listed building"? It also includes things like "it's going on a pitched roof" or "it's too cl…

I’ll be honest, I’m not reading your comments any more until you can provide sources that there’s actually an issue in the UK. I’ve done you the good grace of showing you my receipts so until I see some text that starts with https:// I’m ignoring you. I didn’t even bother to read your reply here because it’s a waste of my time.

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

#375

Post by rawbot » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:30 AM UTC

garciansmith wrote: post #211

MYEUHD wrote: 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.

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…

AFAIK, every game that required a Firmware update included it in the PS3_UPDATE directory in the bluray, and it being there was part of the certification process. Maybe Dark Souls was just a rare error?

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

#376

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:33 AM UTC

reichstein wrote: post #356

pseudocomposer wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think “when you buy a product, be it a game, a house, a car, a computer, a tractor, washer, TV, it should continue to operate without rent-seeking behavior” is the best type of straightforward, uniformly-applicable pattern of regulation one could hope for. Opposing rent-seeking is literally why we have American democracy, which paved the way for French, Brazilian, Canadian, Indian, Mexican and so many other democra…

It's not that I don't agree, but lawyers will then ask you to define "buy" in such a way that it is distinguishable from a perpetual lease with a cancellation clause _to buyers_, without also disallowing a lot of actually useful leasing agreements. The thing is, you never did _buy_ that Steam game. And you never bought the software on the TV, which you did buy the hardware of, you bought a software lease along with t…

“distinguishable from a perpetual lease with a cancellation clause”

Perpetual lease is not a valid concept. I mean it is, just like perpetual employment is - we call it serfdom or slavery.

Iy serves no legitimate purpose. It’s just a workaround.

If you cannot define meaning of “Buy” then you cannot govern at all.

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

#377

Post by rickdeckard » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:36 AM UTC

Gravityloss wrote: post #355

Frieren wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did a summary of conservative ideology. All laws should be abolished so I can do whatever I want, but laws should regulate everything I do not like and the punishment should be harsh. It is an ideology based in short-term self interest. It is the way toddlers think about the world before growing up. Laws should help to create a well functioning society where everybody can participate and benefit from it in a fair…

I think it's an accurate description of a common way of thinking, though I wouldn't call it conservative in the global sense. Another is some of the domestic manufacturing or hard tech movement people who present lofty ideals about jobs and sovereignty and so on. But there's a claim that when the surface is scratched a bit, it devolves into a want to keep their imported cheap input materials tax / toll free while int…

> I think it's an accurate description of a common way of thinking, though I wouldn't call it conservative in the global sense.

It's not a common way of thinking, not in my observation.

Conservative / neo-liberal narratives push strongly against any form of "bigger picture view", more explicitly against solidarity, fueling this mindset of "I only support what profits me personally", i.e. "everyone's taxes should be used for roads (because I have a car), public transport is a waste of money (everyone should buy a car)".

-> It's a vertical word-view, where others are seen either above you (appease them) or below you (disregard them, they should appease you)

--

Liberal citizens still (try to) build on a sense of solidarity, of common investments for the "greater good" of a just (future) society, i.e. "I do have a car, but a stronger public transport system is a benefit to me and my peers"

-> It's a horizontal world-view, where others are seen equal to you and people are much more willing to stand up for each other and unite their voice for a cause.

--

I'm aware that this is not that visible in US, because there are only two major parties here, which both try to please the maximum of the middle spectrum. So both follow a rather conservative narrative and tend to pay lip-service only.

In countries with more than two major political parties it's more visible because the "center-left" democratic party is also threatened by competition from the "left", not just from the "center-right"/"right" party, so they need to acknowledge that citizens raise DEMANDS to them and are willing to walk away if they are not met.

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

#378

Post by j1elo » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:37 AM UTC

nfw2 wrote: post #117

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…

> 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…

What is becoming absurd is the inability of so many people to extrapolate the most obvious conclusions instead of reaching the most obtuse and unhelpful ones, which arguably takes more effort to do.

In all your examples you are buying a service, isn't it obvious? the counterpart of "products" in the phrase "products and services". And yes, you are buying the right of being entitled to receive it. Ideally, you should be able to sell and transfer that right, or gift it to someone else. And if the service is eventually cancelled before being delivered, a full refund for the price should be issued.

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

#379

Post by nalekberov » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:43 AM UTC

> We don't want physical media, we want digital ownership rights! Don't confuse the argument!

I don't know who's "we" for the author, but I DO want physical media. I want to have the feeling when I reach to my video game disc, take it out and put it into my console. Besides DRM-free digital purchase doesn't guarantee that the thing you bought won't disappear - digital game store can you bankrupt, video game publisher might legally force its title to be removed, etc., the list goes on and on.

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

#380

Post by inigyou » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:45 AM UTC

j1elo wrote: post #378

nfw2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What is becoming absurd is the inability of so many people to extrapolate the most obvious conclusions instead of reaching the most obtuse and unhelpful ones, which arguably takes more effort to do. In all your examples you are buying a service , isn't it obvious? the counterpart of "products" in the phrase "products and services". And yes, you are buying the right of being entitled to receive it. Ideally, you should…

It's a Reddit effect. Short, quippy dismissals using a technicality attract upvotes, which reinforces the behavior, and the trained behavior carries over to other websites.