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

411–420 of 549 posts

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

#411

Post by 360MustangScope »

pjmlp wrote: post #281

> Because PC is an open platform, people have figured this out and will continue to figure out bypasses in case things go south (which they haven't so far, thankfully Actually not quite, as security measures keep increasing across macOS and Windows. Before someone brings Linux into the picture, most folks don't know Tuxedo, System 76 and co exist, what matters is what is on display at Media Markt, Saturn, FNAC, Publi…

Who cares what people know about? PC is still an open platform for you to boot alternative software.

Most people don’t know how to even “acquire” software without the DRM. It’s not really anyone’s job to spread news and tell people to go learn.

If they get interested and care that much to preserve what they have, they can google and learn. Many have learnt about Linux due to the recent PS5 jailbreak for instance.

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

#412

Post by Schlagbohrer »

yason wrote: post #371
kiddico wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Cue the scientific reports saying "Gamers have the longest life expectancy. Look at how many 100 year olds there are on Steam!" Same people who thought Okinawans were the longest lived people on earth, just because of the poor record keeping and social security fraud there.

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

#413

Post by abustamam »

norome wrote: post #405
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…

I bought a bunch of games on google stadia when that was a thing, and when they closed the service down i was fully refunded on all games. pretty cool

While I agree it is pretty cool, I think they probably did that to avoid a class action lawsuit.

But that does also beg the question, if we do eventually regulate this better, do you own streamed products? IE with Google stadia (and I think Amazon Luna) you buy a game but the game data is streamed to your device. If they shut the service down (like Stadia did) then what happens to your game collection?

It's a hypothetical, but interesting to think about nonetheless

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

#414

Post by Schlagbohrer »

360MustangScope wrote: post #411
pjmlp wrote: post #281

> Because PC is an open platform, people have figured this out and will continue to figure out bypasses in case things go south (which they haven't so far, thankfully Actually not quite, as security measures keep increasing across macOS and Windows. Before someone brings Linux into the picture, most folks don't know Tuxedo, System 76 and co exist, what matters is what is on display at Media Markt, Saturn, FNAC, Publi…

Who cares what people know about? PC is still an open platform for you to boot alternative software. Most people don’t know how to even “acquire” software without the DRM. It’s not really anyone’s job to spread news and tell people to go learn. If they get interested and care that much to preserve what they have, they can google and learn. Many have learnt about Linux due to the recent PS5 jailbreak for instance.

I agree with you because this incentive to learn has motivated so many young people in the past to learn how their computers work. The incentive of jailbreaking games or being able to get software for free should push people to learn these things and free themselves from walled gardens.

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

#415

Post by dominicrose »

trescenzi wrote: post #4

This is a large part of why I went with a Retroid Pocket over buying a Switch 2. It’s not nearly as powerful but it’ll run Linux and most indie games I buy on GOG. It’s more work of course but knowing that the games I buy I’ll be able to play into the future on any number of devices is worth it.

I reckon the Switch 2 still has cartridges although not all of them actually contain the game.

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

#416

Post by dominicrose »

sciencejerk wrote: post #340
avaer wrote: post #157

Maybe you think gaming/media companies are greedy and should make less money. But if you want the industry to continue in the current state, keep in mind the price of games needs to be adjusted: price *= (total game sales / avg player count) If there's a million sales but only 10 thousand people playing at a time, the price of the game needs to be multiplied by ~100x, because these copies can be shared, and the sales…

The kinds of buyers who purchase pre-owned "used" games often CANNOT or WILL NOT shell out $70-100 for a new game. Social peer pressures might impact this (hey poor kid, do you really wanna lose your friends?)

The equivalent of a "used" game now is a game that was release more than a year ago and is on sale or at least has a price tag cheaper than it used to be.

The playstore is a bit more dynamic than real stores with physical disks which means it's easier to get lower prices for some games.

On complaint I have is that storage is extremely expensive, but I can't blame that on Sony.

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

#417

Post by account42 »

m000 wrote: post #367
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…

> I have no problem with Sony not offering DRM free versions of games that I can still download and play with the store. But if that goes away -> you must give me a path to local ownership. I'm pretty sure that Sony and others would work their way around such legislation. E.g. spin-off shell "studios" that would be the legal game sellers, and when the time comes to sunset a batch of games, these "studios" would magic…

Government-mandated source code escrow is certainly a reasonable requirement for copyright protection but you could also just legislate that "licensing" a work for resale also means being ultimately liable to make third party buyers whole if they have not received a local copy before - at the threat of loosing copyright protection for the work entirely.

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

#418

Post by m000 »

Schlagbohrer wrote: post #389
m000 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no problem with Sony not offering DRM free versions of games that I can still download and play with the store. But if that goes away -> you must give me a path to local ownership. I'm pretty sure that Sony and others would work their way around such legislation. E.g. spin-off shell "studios" that would be the legal game sellers, and when the time comes to sunset a batch of games, these "studios" would magic…

Loopholes like this can be closed with government regulation.

Governments have failed to patch much more important loopholes that directly affect them. E.g. loopholes for corporate tax avoidance. I doubt they will put any effort at all for fixing loopholes related to dodging game preservation obligations.

The best way to not have loopholes is to put some effort in not creating them in the first place, not patching them later.

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

#419

Post by account42 »

Grombobulous wrote: post #148
pocksuppet wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what they wrote in the document, the fact was always that you had the game on a disc and nothing would stop you playing it in violation of the words in the document.

The only reason for that is because the physical disc has the right of first sale attached by being physical item, and there’s no practical/acceptable mechanism to prevent transfer of the license to someone else. Traditionally the whole industry has been fine with it as long as direct media copying was too hard for the layperson, especially since lending games around was like word of mouth advertising. Digital platfo…

Well those changes shouldn't favor corporations over consumers at every turn, that's the point.

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

#420

Post by [deleted] »

feoren wrote: post #103
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…

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN