Live data from Hacker News

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

popcar.bearblog.dev

501–510 of 549 posts

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

#501
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can still play the games I bought on the nintendo switch 8 years ago. > Why carry water for billion companies? All companies at a certain scale are billion dollar companies. Also, how much money a company has is unrelated to whether they violated consumer rights or not. But, tangentially, I do generally respect entities that fund creative endeavors moreso than I respect gamers who go online to bemoan how persecuted…

> I can still play the games I bought on the nintendo switch 8 years ago. Good luck! I cannot play any of the digital Wii games I bought. And that's kind of my point. You pay the same price as a physical copy, using the same verb, and yet are actually renting for an undisclosed amount of time that may at any point be cut off. Blockbuster never said I was 'buying' a game which they could take away at any moment. So wh…

> As a consumer I might take a worse deal if it meant supporting a small creator whom I knew was sacrificing a lot for art.

do you see how you and people who buy skins have something in common? you are writing about this, you will PAY for people to NOTICE that you support indie game developers. okay, and 13 year olds will pay for people to notice their cool skins. there are many ways to monetize, you are telling us that you would be monetize in the same category of monetization as freemium games, so are they really so bad? is ownership really important, or does it really belong to the same "noticing" category of monetization?

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

#502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not really an example of evil government as much as it is an example of evil corporations It's the corporation's job to advocate for favorable regulations and the government's job to enact regulations that benefit the general public rather than special interests. Only one of them is bad at their job. > although it does illustrate how much work is needed to limit the influence of money in politics. It's actua…

Corporations aren't wild animals that just happen to have an anti-social nature. They are fictional entities / groups and people and are allowed to do whatever we want to allow them. It's perfectly valid to say that corporations that keep pushing for anti-society legislation get shut down entirely instead of having the government and voters have to continually resist them. We don't allow individuals to do whatever th…

Corporations are like wild animals.

Individual people are diverse and creative. The behavior of large organizations differs because that individual behavior is getting merged into an aggregate. The choices of any given individual are diluted to such an extent that the organizations then behave stochastically in response to incentives, and therefore the same as one another when they're operating under the same set of incentives.

Which corporation would you propose to shut down? It would have to be all of them, and then the ones that replace them again. And the government itself, since it too is a bureaucratic organization that will engage in regulatory capture to expropriate more funding/power.

You cannot prevent the incentive to seize power, which comes from human nature. What you need is a system which is structurally resilient against its concentration/centralization.

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

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's generational. I got the impression it's a share of about every age group.

Also, ownership can be a side effect for even those who don't care, just because they're used to not paying for things. For example, when I got Minecraft for free as a little kid, it was because nobody would buy it for me, while in hindsight this also meant no account that could potentially be lost when transition to Microsoft accounts began.

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

#504
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many European countries have draconian laws about air conditioning that are killing people this summer Cite your sources. There are specific issues in specific places (eg heritage restrictions in Paris), a higher prevalence of shared infrastructure rather than single family homes, and a higher level of renting rather than home ownership. And there are people on the green-left end of the political spectrum in parts…

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)

So then in Europe you are just as banned from installing an AC unit as I was here in the states in a rented apartment.

Hint: that's not "It's banned in Europe", that's "Landlords generally suck in any possible way"

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

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not really an example of evil government as much as it is an example of evil corporations It's the corporation's job to advocate for favorable regulations and the government's job to enact regulations that benefit the general public rather than special interests. Only one of them is bad at their job. > although it does illustrate how much work is needed to limit the influence of money in politics. It's actua…

> It's the corporation's job to advocate for favorable regulations Bribery is not advocacy. > the government's job to enact regulations that benefit the general public rather than special interests. No argument there, but so far companies and corrupt politicians have conned a large percentage of the public into accepting that it's okay and that any constraints on what a company wants to do is a terrible thing. We're…

> Bribery is not advocacy.

The revolving door is bribery, but now propose a solution to it that doesn't preclude every member of a politician's extended family from having a job in private industry regardless of whether that person had any say in their relative running for office.

Running issue ads pretty much the definition of advocacy.

> That argument also only works for the media industry and not the other countless industries which bribe government. The oil and gas industry have been getting their money's worth

The industries that it does work for are some of the biggest problem ones. Media consolidation is a major long-term problem that the government seems entirely incapable of redressing, and the same issue presents with tech companies. Twitter/Facebook/Google at this point have more influence over what people believe than CNN/MSNBC/Fox News.

Moreover, influence over the media is only one way that corporations influence politicians. Let's take your example. From soup to nuts, the US oil and gas industry employs more than 10 million people, and those people are concentrated in specific places. (This is also why coal in the US is dying and never coming back; employs less than 1% as many people.) The auto industry employs another 10 million Americans and has a strong preference for cheap gas.

The major alternatives to oil and gas are electric vehicles (majority of worldwide EV batteries made in China) and solar panels (made in China again). The US could make those things, but it would require significant taxpayer subsidies, since China subsidizes them too. Moreover, it will never be the same number of jobs because EVs and solar panels are simply less labor intensive. EVs are mechanically simpler and require less maintenance/repair than ICE powertrains and solar panels are essentially semiconductor manufacturing, which is not a major source of blue collar jobs.

Meanwhile the main argument against oil and gas is CO2, which is a huge international problem that countries have a poor incentive to tackle individually. So the political incentives to address it in the US are screwed regardless of whether the industry pays the politicians a cent, because the politicians don't want to lose millions of jobs and billions in tax revenue (which, despite the subsidies, the oil industry still pays on net).

More to the point, it's the media that keeps telling people that it could be fixed with campaign finance reform, even though it can't, because that's the one that privileges them as the ones who can run advocacy pieces without paying a third party to air them.

Whereas to actually make a dent in the part of the problem related to money being used to pay for attention, you need something more like antitrust so that you don't have megacorps like Comcast NBCUniversal, Google and Facebook in control of what such a large proportion of the public believes. Which is exactly what the media corporations don't want, so they redirect blame onto something else.

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

#506
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: Those ownership/privacy obligations to customers should come first in bankruptcy proceedings, ahead of other debts. IANABankrupcyLawyer, but I believe the status-quo is that various promises like "we'll open-source the server in the end" or "we'll never sell your data" can become voided in the name of making a buck to repay the landlord or business-partner.

I think the obligation should be transfer to the copyright holder in the case of bankruptcy. They can then choose to either make individual buyers whole or give up copyright protection.

That might work for static videos and music where the thing isn't interactive, but I don't think it maps cleanly to things like games with an online component, or "we won't sell your private data" SaaS promises.

For example, imagine an MMO, where the buyer says: "I want the trademark and the copyright to all textures and 3D models, but I am not buying the copyright to the source code because I'm going to make a sequel."

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

#507
post #175
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subjective being subjective

The word subjective is not itself subjective. People understand the definition of the word subjective.

What people deem to be subjective is very often subjective. You disagreeing simply proves the point.

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

#509
post #367

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…

Surely judges would not be fooled by these completely transparent shenanigans?

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

#510
post #103

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?

He's right though. There's no reason to add even more annoying laws. Just get rid of the existing ones that are causing the problem. Getting rid of just the DMCA's anti-circumvention nonsense would probably be sufficient to take care of this problem. Game stops working? You can make it work.
Post reply on HN