Live data from Hacker News

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

popcar.bearblog.dev

481–490 of 549 posts

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

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not all of them, as 15 of the 56 signers of the Declaration did not own slaves. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_the_United_States_...

Of those 15, it might be illuminating to know how many did not on grounds of principle versus merely that the cost/benefit didn't favour it for them at that time?

Slavery was a controversy from the beginning that finally bubbled over into the Civil War. It was not, as this question seems to imply, a near universally approved of practice where a few just didn't happen to need slaves.

That doesn't justify allowing it for almost a century. The US was comparable to the rest of the West, in this regard. The final abolition of slavery in Britain wasn't until 1833.

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

#482
post #455
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 don't think people not understanding licenses are the problem. Licenses are. It's just that for the longest time people didn't have to think about them, because if you had a license to consume a game/movie/album and also had a copy of it on physical media it was basically impossible for the media owner to take it away from you. But when everything is digital only, doing exactly that is easy as pie. This feels like…

I'll emphasize that using something without a legal base isn't a crime.

It isn't even about legality (because laws usually don't regulate how one can interact with entity they have no legal ties to) but only about litigation risk.

There are no legal or moral obligations requiring valid license. Only interested organizations are brainwashing people into thinking otherwise.

But I don't think licenses are the problem. It's quite obvious. You have 100 works of art (music, graphics, code and text). You want to make money. If you sell it - you lose all the rights. You can give it out but then there's no profit.

The only way to not transfer ownership and give away for free is exact middle ground called the license.

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

#483
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're implying that's the same but it's obviously better. Nothing wrong with renting when you're told you're renting.

The problem of false advertising is resolved but the problem of consumer freedom remains. If all digital marketplaces for a particular art only offer rents, without any option to buy or any physical media to serve as an alternative, that would still be a problem even if the rents were presented honestly.

> consumer freedom remains

Not really. As long as it's clear that everything is a rental, consumers are free to go along or not.

Physical media offering near-permanent storage is also relatively new. 8-tracks, cassettes, and even CDs would wear out over time. Yes, I could hold a cassette in my hand, but I also knew it would wear out over time and I'd have to buy another one - and I did.

We need to change our language around buying something so it's clear that it's not permanent ownership, unless it really is. I suspect we would see services/media start to come to market that offer true ownership if the demand was there.

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

#484
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…

You can pay for services and you may use the term “buy”, but it is clear you’re receiving a service, and a service in its nature is temporary. Buy a night in a hotel, dinner in a restaurant, haircut, shoe shine. These are all services. Buying of digital services like games, films, and music is an evolution of buying dvds, cds or records. There is an expectation that you now own something. I can dig out my dad’s old r…

> I can dig out my dad’s old records and play them and pass them onto my children.

What if you lost or otherwise destroyed/damaged the record, should you still have access through some other means or be forced to buy it again?

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

#485
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GamersNexus is an entertainment channel rather than informative. He likes to talk about conspiracies with no real foundation. AI demand price hikes are affecting everything including consoles, and the hardware for game streaming. It's an everything price increase rather than just PC. nVidia isn't secretly hoarding GPUs to make you rent them from streaming platforms, they simply make more money selling them to AI comp…

It does not rally matter if there is a conspiracy behind or not. You can't buy a phone that has a new powerful processor, dual-sim, sd-card and 3.5mm jack. It is just does not exist.

As user I don't care if it is a cartel or just "more profitable", but if this situation destroys companies that makes business from consoles or pc-gaming. Then it will be the colapse of the industry. First will be the hardware, once the hardware is gone, will be the software...

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

#486

What's scary is how quickly the lack of ownership of things we used to own can become a "new normal". Forget about explainin to the youngins. My girlfriend is 7 years younger than me and barely grasps the concept of why I'd have 20,000 mp3s on my phone that I ripped off CDs I owned. Why not just pay for a subscription? She doesn't understand the utility of anything being hers . So I say, send me a song. And she sends…

What do we "regular folk" really own in our lives? Our houses are rented or loaned (via mortgage), the car is paid off in installments, everything is a subscription or license. Many people I know purchase their clothes and electronics through buy-now-pay-later services and stream all media they watch. We lend our time and effort to our employer if we are salaried, as we don't get paid at the end of the day but at the…

That is just such a defeatist attitude. It reminds me of the classic Gen X complaint when I was growing up (we're the first generation to have a lower living standard and worse job prospects than our parents) but we didn't just give up. I'm regular folk. I waited tables and drove taxis for years and coded in my spare time. I started somewhere between 5 to 10 failed companies depending on what counts as a "company".

The one thing I learned when I was young was never buy anything on credit. I was up to about $20k of debt when I dropped out of college. I cut up my credit card and I paid it off and did not buy anything on credit again until my late 30s when I bought a house and the first car I ever owned that I didn't pay cash for (which I quickly paid off).

There were long periods in my life where I lived on staple foods like rice, worked 12-16 hours a day, and spent half my income on rent. I also spent 12 years backpacking when I got myself into a situation where I could write software remotely, and I realized that This is completely normal in the world. Living within your means is normal. Living hand to mouth and saving a little is normal. No one had it as good as the boomers in America, ever. No one will again. Being able to buy anything on credit is a wild abberation that cannot last. But I live like my grandparents. Frugally.

I've only ever owned 2 pairs of shoes, 4 pairs of jeans, 8 shirts and 8 pairs of underwear. I replace them when they wear out. I also own a house now, mostly paid off, and have about half a million dollars in the bank. Does that make me rich? I don't feel like it. Every day I go out of my way to earn and save instead of spending.

Make money and save it. Don't buy shit you don't need. Don't rent anything you don't have to, and don't fall for the credit trap. When you buy things, fix them instead of replacing them. Don't sell anything.

And don't look at what other people have and wish it was yours. I'm not religious, but there's a reason that covetousness and sloth are cousins in the list of ways you can ruin your own soul.

If you refuse to use credit, and you live well under whatever your income is, you will be able to afford things of value once you pay off the mistake of taking on debt in the first place.

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

#487
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?

Yes; and to make it extremely politically explosive, I do enjoy observing American politics and seeing each side (there are, brilliantly, two, because there ARE only two sides to every story and they neatly correlate with each other 100%:) massively enlarge the government, apply massive new restrictive regulations, but one side claims they don't do that because of somewhat specific types of massive government regulat…

> a tiny minority of people care about [...] You know, unlike the minor issues of war and peace and hunger and poverty and economics and minority rights et cetera :)

The complexity and realism of some particular regulation aside, I honestly don't understand dismissing other people's opinions on the grounds that not a lot of people care about them. Should people not have an opinion because lots of other people don't share it? Or should those opinions just not be expressed?

Everybody's got their own personal interests and values. It's natural to express and even vouch for them. If they aren't shared by enough other people, they probably won't make it to the top in a democracy. That's how it works and it's fine. But I don't get the idea that someone shouldn't express an opinion about X because lots of other people don't care about X.

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

#488
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not nearly so optimistic. I think we have a generation of kids now who mostly never owned any physical media, having grown up with Netflix instead of vhs/dvd, Spotify instead of CDs, steam instead of retail games, etc.

I see nothing wrong with abandoning physical media - as storage got larger and internet faster, being limited by clunky disks has become kinda pointless unless you're specifically into collecting. I see nothing wrong with moving on from them as long as it's towards local DRMless files.

Sure, but we didn’t go from physical media to online delivery of outright purchased digital goods. We overwhelmingly transitioned to subscription streaming or “purchasing” revocably licensed copies with no guarantee of future delivery and drm on any downloaded copy.

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

#489
post #292
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…

I think you mean 50 years ago. 60 years ago you were largely limited to SPACEWAR! and Tennis for 2.

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

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://www.build.aau.dk/report-from-aau-warns-danish-homes-... The Danish Building code has requirements for retaining heat in the house, which is great in the cold winters, but devastating in the heart of modern summers. Combined with rules that practically require large south-facing windows to satisfy the total energy requirement limits, it gets very, very hot. And air conditioning subtracts significantly from y…

Practices that retain heat usually also retain cold, or?

Yes. I don't get that hang up. I bought new apartment in 2024. It has triple pane windows, and 20cm of styrofoam on the external walls.

I can cool down entire 70 square meters apartment with single 3.5kw split; that has worked well in the recent 40 degree heatwave. It does not even use "higher gears" to maintain the 24-25 degrees inside.

Not to mention it's usage overwhelmingly correlates with sunshine availability.

Post reply on HN