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

461–470 of 549 posts

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

#461

Post by lucideer »

pc86 wrote: post #452
feoren wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not in favor of adding regulation, except when it comes to issues you understand and care about. All the oversight and regulation about everything you don't care and/or know about is big bad government overreach. Every government agency is a useless waste of your tax dollars, except the ones you rely on and the ones where you have friends that work there. Do I have that right?

You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad. I bet if you actually engage with the argument in good faith instead of dismissing your imaginary strawman there could be a good conversation! But no the GP disagrees with you, so is therefore a complete moron, so no discussion will be had I suppose. > In Comments > Be kind. Don't b…

> You seem to be arguing that government regulation, on its face, is default-good while the GP seems to be arguing that it is default-bad

The GP did indeed seem to be arguing it's default-bad (though I note you didn't go off at them for this). The reply has said nothing about it being default-good: only that it's not necessarily default-bad. You're assuming a black-and-white binary & by extension you're seeing arguments that weren't made.

There's nothing bad faith about the commenters post & assuming the role of a moderator in a discussion you're inventing phantom arguments in isn't doing you any favours.

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

#462

Post by mastermage »

inigyou wrote: post #434
mastermage wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German here: you are not allowed to install anything thats visible from the outside without the owners aproval (70% of people Rent in Germany) or even the aproval of the Apartment Owner Association (Imagine HOA but for Apartments and every bit as dumb)

Person living in Germany here: everyone does it anyway, if it's a temporary installation.

I have seen enough people complaining about someone putting up an AC even the Midea Portasplit.

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

#464

Post by nullocator »

shapefrog wrote: post #444
recursivegirth wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If buying isn't ownership, than piracy isn't stealing. Government can do what they want, but if they ain't for the people, I ain't for the Government.

It is still, as far as I am aware, possible to steal a rental car.

No one renting a car is being told they are buying it and walking (driving) away under the assumption that they have.

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

#465

Post by benoau »

HDBaseT wrote: post #260
benoau wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm optimistic that the raise in PC gaming will act as a balance for the obvious greed of the consoles. Why? Steam has never done anything to support ownership of games, their policy completely bans transferring licenses or accounts to other people or leaving them to someone when you die. Their next CEO is someone who has only known extreme wealth their whole life and gets the job because daddy started the company,…

To play devils advocate, Steam has one of the most generous sharing functionality on all digital media. Steam Families. The whole "we prohibit transferring accounts from dead people" is likely just a catchall to prevent liability and responsibility when people say "oh my brother cheated on my account" or "my brother said XYZ on Steam forums".

Why would Steam be unable to tell an event like cheating or saying something on a forum took place before you received ownership of the game? This is a trivial problem to solve, it doesn't necessitate everyone forfeiting all their digital possessions.

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

#466

Post by 1970-01-01 »

Tale as old as time. See also: Richard Stallman. Yes, we're back to arguing the fundamentals. What exactly does "owning" the hardware mean? What exactly does "owning" software that runs on that hardware mean? Only when we hit the limits of those terms will we know what we can and cannot do to it.

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

#467

Post by vinyl7 »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #55

The question I'm left with: in the past, the uproar over these types of changes seemed to make companies change their mind when considering very anti-consumer decisions. Now, they just go ahead anyway. What's different? How do we get back to how it was before? I know the current political climate is one that enables this sort of thing. There are parallels with the current movement also WRT to the employer/employee re…

This is the result of all the "culture wars" we've had in recent years. At the beginning of it, companies hedged and pulled back if there were any sort of mass PR event due to them taking a stance in the Culture War Topic of the Day. As time went on and there was Culture War after Culture War after Culture War, either consumers got tired of tracking who was "bad" or companies realized they could get away with anything and it didn't seemingly affect their bottom line.

It's either that or companies don't really have to worry because there is essentially zero competition in the current economy with all the pro-monopoly administrations we've had for the past 16+ years.

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

#468

Post by pocksuppet »

gosub100 wrote: post #459
lurkerforawhile wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firmware anti-downgrade functionality with eFuses is common across all kinds of consumer devices. The physical evidence is there, if you can find it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFuse > https://free60.org/Hardware/Fusesets/#fusesets-07-11 > https://switchbrew.org/wiki/Fuses#Anti-downgrade > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/google-gives-develop... >

People play games, not firmware. The claim is not to revoke sonys ability to update the hardware.

New firmware can easily come with new security checks though, and I think other consoles have done this in the past.

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

#469

Post by ggirelli »

xlii wrote: post #403

Geez, people have no idea how licenses work... License is not an ownership - It's limited right to use something. Any action anyone does that isn't covered by license (in software) is called "piracy". Games were never sold. Mediums were sold with attached licenses. And most of the licenses as early as 2000 contained something like: "This license is personal to you and may not be assigned, sublicensed, or transferred.…

For most games sold on physical media I was under the strong impression that selling/trading the physical media would automatically transfer the license, as the licensee was the owner of the physical media.

Basically one would by a CD-ROM containing a licensed copy of a game, and would then be the owner of the CD-ROM but only a licensee for the game. Selling/trading the CD-ROM would transfer the licensee status to the new CD-ROM owner.

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

#470

Post by flumes_whims_ »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #383
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…

> Opposing rent-seeking is literally why we have American democracy, which paved the way for French, Brazilian, Canadian, Indian, Mexican and so many other democracies. Kings were the ultimate rent-seekers: every citizen was the product. It's really not. Opposing rent-seeking in a general sense isn't what motivated the American revolution; and the King of England in the 18th century wasn't primarily a rent-seeker. Th…

Members of parliament who owned stock in the East India company bailing it out by allowing it to sell tea directly to the American colonies?
Post reply on HN