Submitted 1 day ago by popcar2@piefed.ca to games@lemmy.world
https://popcar.bearblog.dev/its-about-ownership/
I made a new blog post giving my thoughts on PlayStation not making disks anymore, and the arguments around it.
I personally don’t think most people care about physically owning media (and some people even suggested PC should start going back to physical). It’s more about digital ownership rights.
Then buy from GOG. The gaming industry is not a monopoly. Vote with your wallet.
What is GOG
Good old games They sell them DRM free.
Sure, when they get the distribution rights to the game I want that’s at the library
My personal rule : GOG over Steam, Steam over piracy, piracy over everything else.
The ability to trade is lost on pretty much every platform including PC. In some ways it’s been lost on PC for the longest time, because PC has had CD key nonsense since at least the 90s while consoles operated on physical media for much longer.
The lack of this ability is, of course, compensated for by piracy.
It’s really not lost with steam. You can have up to 5 accounts sharing constantly now as long as you’re not playing the same game.
Not the same thing in the slightest. You can’t sell games to strangers using Family Sharing.
It’s about who controls it.
Because if one side controls it and does something with it they’re not legally entitled to do do, they still get away with it if it’s not worth it for the other side, even being in the right, to take it to Court.
So if you have in your hands the files for the installer for a game which doesn’t do phone-home validations and you’ve actually explicity rented it for a limited time yet carried on using it past that point, the other side would have to take you to Court to stop it, and in the absence of a streamlined and very cheap Judicial process to do so for that kind of thing (like there is for things like loans) it’s generally not worth it for them because it costs more than they gain.
Similarly, if they control if and when you can install and run a game (which is possible even if you have the physical media - all it takes is for the game to have phone-home DRM that checks if you’re authorized) and they stop you from using it, even if you’re in the right with zero doubts (so, there was no clear upfront information that you were paying for a unilaterally revokable license and you live in a jurisdiction where Justice isn’t a joke, like Germany, so the unilaterally imposition of further contractual conditions after the sale - i.e. EULAs - aren’t at all valid), it’s generally not worth it to take it to Court to force the other side to restore you access to the game or compensate you (a few euros) for it because it costs more than you get back from it.
Holding physical media is highly correlated with controlling it, but (as per my example above) in a World of always on Internet access were phone-home DRM is easy to have, it’s no guarantee at all of actually controlling it - you might have the bytes in the stablest imaginable storage medium in your hands and you still don’t control it because you can’t actually access the game without external authorization - and that in practice means that you can get shafted even though you’re entirely in the right as long as the monetary amount you being shafted out of isn’t too large.
Converselly, whilst digital distribution is highly correlated with not controlling it, as stores like GOG show it’s perfectly possibly to sell games digitally in such a way that you get control of it (if you want - you have to actually download GOGs offline installers)
Definitely a good breakdown of the major points that most are overlooking with this situation. It would be a much easier pill to swallow if these platforms were taking an approach similar to GOG or allowed for multiple storefronts on their platforms (extremely unlikely to happen).
For game consoles (focusing primarily on PlayStation and Xbox here), the following (IMHO) protections should be in place for an all digital platform that respects the customer:
• A digital purchase is tied to your account. If a game can no longer be sold on the platform, you can still download it later on if needed because you already purchased it.
• In the event that the servers are to be shut down: the downloads for active game listings and previous delisted titles that an account has access to; there will be a grace period of “X” days to allow users to buy whatever game/DLC they wish and will have the option to back up the installer for said software. This can then be moved to a compatible storage device for archiving purposes. (The cherry on top would be the ability to migrate the data to a computer so it can be archived however desired).
• A digital purchase can be lent to friends and family for “X” amount of days. During this time, the game will not be accessible to play on the host account, but can be recalled if desired. Otherwise, once the time period has passed, it will return automatically. The “lent” game will then disappear from the other players library, but if interested would have the option to visit the store page for purchase.
• Finally a digital “resale shop” where players could list their digital games/DLC. This would allow players to sell off their unwanted games and could potentially give other players the opportunity to purchase a game that may be delisted. Currency paid would likely be equivalent to store credit, but could be used for future purchases.
Sure, a lot of it is very unlikely to happen and is definitely wishful thinking, but that’s the only way I would move forward with a digital only console market. Otherwise, I would go 100% PC. Time will tell how this goes.
”I personally don’t think people care about owning physical media.”
I know I’m in what feels like a growing minority, but I will always pick up a physical copy if given a chance. I have a solid games library and I intend on playing every title I own. That said, I know eventually things will be digital only. Until that happens, I’ll stick with my Switch/2 for physical releases and multi platform releases I’ll grab on PC if it makes more sense to do so.
One last thought on this that I’ve had as someone who prefers to collect games physically. For Nintendo, I have genuinely despised their game key card approach. From a preservationists perspective, it’s a waste of money. However, getting a code in a box is a massive joke. Sony actually succeeded in making the concept of a GCK looking like a solid alternative. I really don’t know how to feel about that lol.
TL;DR - good article that brings up a lot of points others are overlooking. I personally will still get physical releases until they aren’t available anymore, then go fully digital on PC.
There will definitely be a niche market for physical games, but yeah I was thinking about the average person and their experience. Especially since PC has shifted very early, I think most people would prefer to download a game in half an hour than having to go to a store and buy a physical disk and have to constantly put it in/take it out every time you want to play something else.
For Nintendo, I have genuinely despised their game key card approach. From a preservationists perspective, it’s a waste of money. However, getting a code in a box is a massive joke. Sony actually succeeded in making the concept of a GCK looking like a solid alternative. I really don’t know how to feel about that lol.
That’s funny, I had the same exact thought when writing this. The game key card thing sounds so stupid that my first thought was “damn, I hope they don’t get away with this”. My second thought was “wait, this might be the most consumer friendly option on consoles soon. Damn.”
Agreed on both points. I have a brother that’s on the opposite end of the debate that went full digital a while ago. Travel and a lack of space are definitely his top reasons for the shift. Which I absolutely get. That and he has a dog who thinks it’s play time the second he gets off the couch lol.
For GKC I still will not support buying them new, however, with this change I may start waiting to buy them second hand while available for those games I really want to play but won’t get a true physical copy. It will have to be console exclusive though. As for keeping them long term, probably not. I’ll go with GOG or Steam otherwise.
I know I’m in what feels like a growing minority, but I will always pick up a physical copy if given a chance.
I bought a few physical games for my PS4 back in the day and I still regret it. I can still play all the digital games I bought back then but lost all physical games. No idea where they are. Digital games are linked to my account and impossible to misplace.
Losing physical copies of games is the worst. Having everything tethered to an account can be a big plus.
I know for me that my Steam and GOG libraries will keep growing so long as I keep my accounts secure and know my credentials.
It baffles me how ingrained this allready is. The people I play games with just accept that it’s happening. Saying “It’s all digital anyway.” and “I never owned anything.” And in the same breath they still remember “the good old days.” It’s like they have allready given up. I’m hellbend on owning my own software and owning my own data. And if I tell people I have my own cloud server to store my photo’s instead of some corporate cloud they express the wish to have that option as well. Yet, they all just go on with their dossile behavior of not owning anything…
It’s kind of both for me honestly. Call me old fashion… Or just old… but I really enjoy seeing a shelf full of game cases and looking through them to physically pick out what I wanna play. And it’s honestly just nice-looking to me, just like a bookshelf that’s actually full of books looks good.
How to think of games has changed over the years.
Arguably the first real computer game game “Spacewar!” followed the “the “hacker ethic”, whereby all programs were freely shared and modified by other programmers in a collaborative environment without concern for ownership or copyright”.
After a while, copyright came into play, and people were expected to “buy” a copy of the game, but “piracy” was common.
Meanwhile, the consoles pretended the game was a physical object, and that you needed that physical object to play, and that you could give that physical object to someone else, or sell it back to the store.
And then there was the shareware model, used for games like Doom. It kept the idea that games were copyrightable stuff, but it didn’t try to stop people from copying, and allowed them to share the games around. People were just asked to pay for extra levels, or sometimes just to send in some money if they liked the game.
On PC, Steam became the dominant platform because it’s less of a headache than piracy. Steam doesn’t pretend you own a physical object, you’re buying a license.
Fundamentally, gamers want the games to be free. If possible, they want to avoid paying for them at all. They want to be able to give them to friends, and have no restrictions on how or where they can run them: online, offline, on a phone, on a toaster, whatever. Once they have access to the game, they don’t ever want to have to give up access for any reason. They want the companies that make the games to release patches for any bugs that are discovered, and ideally, they’d like free additional content post-release.
Game companies want gamers to pay as much as possible for games. They want people to buy their games, they want an additional purpose for every additional machine the game is installed on. In addition, if they can manage it, they want people to pay continuously for playing the game, so it’s not just a one-time payment. They also want to be able to revoke access to the game at any time, and not have to pay the players when they do that. They don’t want to have to keep maintaining the game after it has been released, though they might be willing to do that if it’s profitable because it means more people will buy the game.
Neither extreme position makes much sense. If people aren’t going to give money to the developers, there will still be people making games as a hobby, but there won’t be high-budget AAA games made as a business. On the other extreme, if a game is too expensive, can’t be refunded, might be revoked at any time, and requires that you continuously pay while playing it, most people won’t bother.
So, what’s left is a negotiation, what will people put up with? Gamers typically hate paying for live service games, but if they do that there’s a reasonable business case for the game company to keep releasing content for the game. Gamers would like to be able to re-sell their game (really their licenses to those games), but that means a significant loss of revenue for the game companies, so they’re unlikely to accept that. The additional revenue means they can either keep the price lower, or can make a better, more polished game. Gamers would love to be able to play games forever without additional payment, even online games requiring servers. Game companies don’t want to have to support that based on a single sale that might have happened a decade ago. Game companies would love it if old games stopped working, so people have to buy new ones. That’s unlikely to be a fight they win in the long term though, because unless there is a required online component, it seems absurd to cut off access to the game just because it’s old.
In the end, there will probably be compromises. For a lot of people, the compromises will be unfair. Maybe they’ll play more indie games or even free software games. For other people, they’ll grudgingly accept, but in exchange will get games that have 100,000x the budget of something like “Spacewar!”
They want the companies that make the games to release patches for any bugs that are discovered
Technically someone who buys a game just wants it to work. Many generations of games were released without the ability to patch them after release. Games had a higher quality to them before being released.
While I won’t disagree that there is a benefit of this feature for consumers, the larger benefit it to the company creating the game.
Games had a higher quality to them before being released.
The quality was definitely higher, but there were also definitely still bugs in the released version.
Why do you say that the ability (and requirement) to patch the game after release is a benefit to the company that released the game?
That’s a bingo
Katana314@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
I got to the block about Netflix, and got furious - because you’re exactly right.
During Netflix’s rise, I heard a common quote: “So in order to watch all the shows, I now have to subscribe to 8 different streaming services?? Screw that. Put it on Netflix, or I’m going to pirate it.”
There was a key detail of that generic quote that always infuriated me from how much people glossed over it: “…to watch all the shows…” There are some very cool games out that I haven’t even bought because there’s so many options. What kind of media junkie is watching every popular show right now? And obsessing over centralization so much they want a monoculture service that can raise its prices as easily as flushing a toilet?
Much as I like Steam, I like that it’s only one PC option. That’s important. Inconvenient, sometimes, but key to competition. Even Valve needs to be kept in check to promote consumer-friendly practices. I’m just upset no one believed in that when it came to TV, or some of the lesser services might not have needed to sell out to AMC or Disney.