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

441–450 of 549 posts

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

#441

Post by Cthulhu_ »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #372
tonyhart7 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

But that's not what's happening here - Sony can't take physical disks you own away from you.

As for resale, interesting you bring up tickets as scalping / reselling them is a major issue, which is also hostile to consumers as they can pay multiples of the original selling price for high profile concerts and events, which has led to legislation and / or industry rules that prevent resale or at least prevent it through 3rd party services so that they can manage the resale price (and take their share a second time).

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

#442

Post by Cthulhu_ »

CommanderData wrote: post #169
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…

Has self regulation ever worked in the tech world when it comes to consumer/user rights.

Yes, up until it didn't.

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

#443

Post by Cthulhu_ »

NDlurker wrote: post #97
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…

This looks like a job for NFTs

Nah, licenses are already a thing - just because you have a license (or an NFT) does not guarantee you can do the thing that the license applies to.

It's a job for piracy.

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

#444

Post by shapefrog »

recursivegirth wrote: post #250
scubadude wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

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

#445

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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.

Yeah but you need to put that in a package that unlocks in case of your demise, timely or not. Password database and two factor authentication (back-up codes at the very least). Possibly a secondary password database if your primary one contains stuff you don't want those that stay behind to know about.

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

#446

Post by shapefrog »

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 am generally not in favor of adding regulation

Then let the market decide.

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

#447

Post by shapefrog »

NDlurker wrote: post #97
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…

This looks like a job for NFTs

Need to smear some A1 on those NFTs to get the job done properly.

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

#448

Post by Forgeties79 »

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…

You’re just making up definitions and interpretations while this person is telling you exactly how it works. Playing steelman does not foster dialogue and understanding.

You can install AC in the UK. It’s not as big of a deal as you’re making it out to be.

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

#449

Post by Telaneo »

Ygg2 wrote: post #292
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…

> Fifteen years ago World of Warcraft was at its peak. Sixty years ago the model was you go to an arcade cabinet, and you get charged every time you died (Credit: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2026/07/03/returnal-3 ). Ideally, they want cabinet in every home, you pay electricity for it, you buy overpriced Bluey skins, you buy your lives, you buy ads, and pay them every second for the pleasure, while not owning e…

Heck, even 60 years ago, you could still buy that arcade cabinet! Sure, it costs a fortune, but it was at least possible.

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

#450

Post by aexer0e »

jscd wrote: post #427
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.…

I mean yes, you never “owned” the IP, but this doesn’t change anything. You also never owned any movie on a DVD, song on a vinyl, or text in a book. Software is a strange beast in the world of copyright law, but, at least in my lay understanding, video game discs still have had protection under the first-sale doctrine, which means you were always allowed to resell, rent, give away, or destroy your copy. Ownership of…

> video game discs still have had protection under the first-sale doctrine

Not true unfortunately. See: Vernor v. Autodesk; which was first ruled in favor of first-sale doctrine but later reversed by a federal court. There haven't been cases for video game discs specifically but I don't see a reason who it wouldn't be the same as this software, since they also explicitly mention you're being sold a license, not ownership.

Post reply on HN