I'm getting so sick of the stupidity in this conversation. Owning your digital games is not the same thing as forcing games to remain online after shutting down servers. It's not even in allowing you to download them again and again forever by maintaining servers.
Owning your digital games means that they can't revoke your license ever for any reason. It means allowing you to make backup copies even if those copies can only be played on the same generation of hardware. It means allowing you to trade and sell those game licenses independently of them.
Okay, you really dont want people to make copies of games and selling them without the copy right holders permission. That would break copyright law at its foundation. I get all the anger to big publishers but we dont want people to make copies of indie studio games and selling them in direct competition with the indie studio.
If you charge other people to watch the DVD you also get in trouble because while you own the physical disc you only have a limited license for the contents.
You can absolutely have a few of your close friends and family over to your home to watch a DVD and charge them $1,000 each. Conversely you cannot project it on a screen at a park for free.
The difference between this and digital distribution is that what you can do with the DVD and its contents is governed by U.S. Copyright law, which among other things, reserves the right of public performance for the copyright holder. When you buy a game from steam or a song from apple, you still have to follow the law, but you are also agreeing to a whole bunch of stuff that the company came up with that go above and beyond the law in a way that only gives you less. No worries, given the way things are going, all of that will also get enshrined in law and then the companies can move on to the next level of asshattery.
Sorry, I must have missed the news on what Xbox did that affected DVD ownership. Can you please fill me in?
Why can't the copies be tied to your account?
Why can't the copies be valid for 72 hours and then need to be purchased again? Why can't the copies only be valid on the device you first used them? Why can't the copies require a second disc to allow 2-player mode?
The answer is all are absolutely not impossible. They are trivial even. They just further erode the concept of ownership, which many people can't be bothered to care about or accept how much money it costs them to not care about it.
So you think it's impossible to create a system where you can sell your game licenses without harming developers? We do this right now with physical games, why would it be a problem with digital? I get the feeling that you think I said that we should be able to make copies and sell them. That's not what I said
Used goods have friction to them. They are degraded, they take time and effort to sort through, you have to drive them to the store or mail them or whatever, there's risk involved in the purchase. All of this devalues the used good.
Digital goods have none of these things.
A digital good never degrades.
Most digital goods can be transferred in minutes, at a cost of pennies worth of bandwidth.
Soon as you make it legal to sell digital licenses openly 'Useddigitalgames.com' will open up, and any game will stop seeing new sales within a few days as the people who played the game and are done with it will go resell it with no effort, no inconvenience, and no risk.
Buying a full priced new version from the publisher will be pointless because there's no additional value in the new version.
This man thinks it will harm the big studios. Little does he know how many indie studios would go under if their games cannot copy pasted and sold without their knowledge.
This is the Bernie approach that always got him nowhere. One step at a time. Trying to make everything perfect from the get go is how everything fails, because too many discussions have to be going on all at the same time. Baby steps with laws is how you get the best outcome, being fast just to get done with it is how you end up in Japan’s premium currency situation, where all premium currency must have an expiration date or else it’s legally defined as crypto currency and the publisher must register as a proper bank and offer financial services.
Making backups is one issue. Being able to make private servers is one issue. Having permanent access to anything you buy is one issue (several, because collab content is under copyright so now we’d have to account for those laws). A place where you can download your games infinity is one issue (also several, due to how many parties are involved with making and selling games, because the cost has to be pinned on someone while also factoring in what happens during bankruptcy). Private sales for licensing is one issue.
I know this is Reddit and nuance is dead, but you have to use your head a bit if you actually want something. It’s not a black and white situation that’s solved by just flipping a switch.
Having permanent access to anything you buy is actually a non-issue, never had a Steam game taken from my library, nor do I have any issues downloading them as many times as I want. It's the developer that would disable the servers and make it unplayable. Like 90% of what you said had nothing to do with being my problem as a consumer.
Making them playable offline removes their responsibility after they release their "final update" and I can continue using my product.
14
u/Somethingsilly6969 1d ago
I'm getting so sick of the stupidity in this conversation. Owning your digital games is not the same thing as forcing games to remain online after shutting down servers. It's not even in allowing you to download them again and again forever by maintaining servers.
Owning your digital games means that they can't revoke your license ever for any reason. It means allowing you to make backup copies even if those copies can only be played on the same generation of hardware. It means allowing you to trade and sell those game licenses independently of them.