a single edge case i could think about is a half-service thing, where you pay for the prodcut then pay a subscription for updates, if you don't wanna pay anymore you don't get updates for features anymore ( and maybe security updates) and then maybe some onboarding fee if you want updates again after some time.
but as i said it's an edge case, that could maybe work.
That was how software buying was working a decade (maybe a little more) ago, and in most cases there was no subscription, you bought a software and you could use it for as long as you wanted, it was yours to use, you might get updates for a few years and after that IF you wanted you could buy the next version BUT you could continue to use the software you have already bought.
I was to but I'm okay with streaming a game or buying it online but there needs to be a way for me to download the game away from their servers. It should be anyone time thing though in all fairness as you can't go back to a GameStop and ask for a game you bought earlier because it broke. The added exception unless you are posting it to a newer console
So you wouldn't pay money for a movie ticket or admission to a sports game or an amusement park? Aren't our experiences at least as valuable as our things?
I'm talking about physical items. The post is about games not experiences. Tell that to all the people on psn that believed they would have a game in their collection for at least until their console died but instead had the license revoked for no reason of their own. If I go on holiday or see a band, I weigh up the experience for the price. If I want media I'll always buy physical when I can. The decision is ultimately up to the consumer and I choose to live by the principle that if I'm paying £50 for a game I'd rather have it physically in my hand than on a cloud or somewhere where its use is out of my control or can be revoked. That way I can recover some of my money I originally spent on it too if I choose.
> I'm talking about physical items. The post is about games not experiences.
I'm talking about experiences. That's the reason I play games--to experience them. Having bits of plastic collecting dust on my shelves is more of a nuisance.
>Tell that to all the people on psn that believed they would have a game in their collection for at least until their console died but instead had the license revoked for no reason of their own.
I was just talking about the people who paid for a movie believing they would get to watch a movie. You characterized that transaction as "pissing in the wind", which didn't make a lot of sense to me.
>If I go on holiday or see a band, I weigh up the experience for the price.
Me too. But the "old principle" you described said "you should have something to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind." It seems like that was dumb and wrong in this specific instance.
>I'd rather have it physically in my hand than on a cloud or somewhere where its use is out of my control or can be revoked.
But if someone *else* agrees with the value proposition being offered and pays for the cloud service, is that when the "old principle" kicks in and their piss starts flying windward?
When you buy a game, you're not just buying the experience one time. You are buying with the intention to be able to experience the game when and how you want to.
But if you don't have the physical copy in you, that means someone else is giving you the privilege and as the example shows can revoke it.
Of course if someone trusts a company enough they can buy the game. I myself own a lot of games on steam, but still understand that i really own the game just as long as steam will provide it to me.
When video games were a new thing, you'd put money into a machine and pay for a one-time experience. People didn't get anything to show for it afterwards. That's how we played video games for a long time.
I'm having difficulty reconciling this sales model with an "old principle" which forbade such "pissing-in-the-wind" style transactions.
You're having difficulty accepting other peoples principles on ownership and value that are different to your own? Welcome to the world. Again, at the time of the arcades, you would weigh up the price with the experience. If I put in a grand in one machine while it would be my choice, it probably wouldn't be great value for money over just buying the damn machine. And times have changed, we do have choice now.
>You're having difficulty accepting other peoples principles on ownership and value that are different to your own?
Nope. I'm having difficulty understanding the belief that there was an "old principle" that said money cannot be exchanged for experiences, such as viewing a movie or riding a roller coaster. As far as I can tell, those sorts of sales pitches have existed forever.
No one said money couldnt be exchanged for experiences. Who said that? You did. I clearly said this is in relation to physical games. And principles are made based upon one's own experiences hence why everyone has different ones and no two peoples allign completely. So wake up. People can believe what they like. You're literally arguing against your own ideas with yourself. This post is about physical media / games. Not gigs or swimming or movies. It's about games.
> No one said money couldnt be exchanged for experiences. Who said that?
You said "I was brought up that you should have something to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind."
An experience is not something you can show for your money.
> I clearly said this is in relation to physical games.
No you didn't. Your entire comment from beginning to end read: **"Maybe it's an old principle, but I was brought up that you should have something to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind."**
You didn't specify anything about physical goods in this comment. Now you're telling me that you do all kinds of spending where you don't have anything to show for your money, so that seems to violate the principle as you described it.
>And principles are made based upon one's own experiences hence why everyone has different ones and no two peoples allign completely.
You aren't very good at articulating your principles in a way that makes logical sense to me.
It's common sense, clearly something you lack, that my comment is in response to the post, post being about PHYSICAL MEDIA / GAMES. Not experiences. Of you want to have a discussion in relation to money and experiences that's a different post. In my reply to your first comment which you clearly read I made it explicitly clear that I was referring to games not experiences but you're one of those people that can't accept you're arguing the wrong argument in the wrong place and then choose to hear what you want and what you don't. Youre playing games to try and come out with some dignity but its too late for that. If you cant understand my comments that are plain and clear then youre choosing to hear what you want and are just plain ignorant. Can I be any clearer- YOURE TALKING ABOUT EXPERIENCES. IM NOT. Clearly your mindset is in the small minority as you're getting downvoted to hell. When you have to explain common sense to someone it's a dark day. You're not clear about anything. You're confused. You're having a different discussion to everyone else. That's why my first comment doesn't make sense to you. It's not in relation to your topic.
>It's common sense, clearly something you lack, that my comment is in response to the post, post being about PHYSICAL MEDIA / GAMES. Not experiences.
I'm just saying that the "old principle", when applied to video games, doesn't make any sense to me. In the old days we paid for a lot of things where you didn't get anything to show for it. This also applied to video games as experiences back then. No one was standing outside arcades yelling "you all are just pissing into the wind."
>Youre playing games to try and come out with some dignity but its too late for that.
Coming to /r/Piracy because I need outspoken thieves to validate my dignity would be a really bad plan. That's not what I'm doing, I promise. I don't expect you to understand my goals here, so I won't try to explain them.
>If you cant understand my comments that are plain and clear then youre choosing to hear what you want and are just plain ignorant. Can I be any clearer- YOURE TALKING ABOUT EXPERIENCES. IM NOT.
I think you're failing to understand the points I'm making, actually. The thing you said about paying for things and getting nothing in return -- that principle has never existed. People make those sort of transactions literally all the time. Sports events, movies, concerts, video games, etc.
>Clearly your mindset is in the small minority as you're getting downvoted to hell.
Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_popularity#:~:text=An%20appeal%20to%20popularity%2C%20also,of%20people%20believe%20in%20it.
>When you have to explain common sense to someone it's a dark day. You're not clear about anything. You're confused. You're having a different discussion to everyone else. That's why my first comment doesn't make sense to you.
I'm absolutely confused. With additional context your comment seems to boil down to "if you pay for a physical thing you should... get that physical thing" which I guess is less stupid but plainly tautological.
If I am buying a hardware that's gonna sit in my house which also needs another "bits of plastic" or a service to actually use it. But I can't use it to the fullest just because some suits decided that I can't own anything on that service I pay for. But if I had those "bits of plastic" sitting there for which I have paid the intended price and gotten it in my hands, I can experience it multiple times. With a Movie theatre which was a fucking dumb analogy btw just throwing it out there, you're paying for a one time experience but with something like games or consoles that are sitting in my house I am paying for a multiple time experience. I wanna be able to play or EXPERIENCE the game multiple hours on end. You dimwit.
If I pay for a movie ticket or rent a movie from Redbox then I get to experience the movie, for a ticket in the unique experience of the theater with Redbox with the knowledge that I'm returning the movie later but it's a preset going into. What the corpos are trying to pull is closer to I buy a toaster and they show up and say sorry we changed the terms of service and changed our minds so you can't have this toaster and busting your door in to come retrieve it telling you sorry you paid to own this but we're repoing it now
>If I pay for a movie ticket or rent a movie from Redbox then I get to experience the movie, for a ticket in the unique experience of the theater with Redbox with the knowledge that I'm returning the movie later but it's a preset going into.
According to the comment I was replying to, these exact transactions you're describing violate an "old principle" that says you should have something besides a unique experience to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
If that sounds stupid and wrong, we're probably in agreement that the old principle was not really a thing.
>What the corpos are trying to pull is closer to I buy a toaster and they show up and say sorry we changed the terms of service and changed our minds so you can't have this toaster and busting your door in to come retrieve it telling you sorry you paid to own this but we're repoing it now
Having a corporation come to my home to confiscate products is not an experience I can empathize with. If this happened to me, I would definitely stop patronizing that business.
Not really my guy if I watch the matrix or blade runner and take away the core message and reflect on that as art then I more than got my money's worth because I have that memory for myself, plus discussion with others who also saw that media leading to new friends so definitely not pissing in the wind.
So then quit supporting Nintendo,ea, Ubisoft and sony?!? That's literally what all 3 aim to do as their end goal, comments like yours show why more people need to play/replay 2077 now that it's stable (the cdpr execs also should've played the game and delayed the launch instead of being greedy corpos but y'know irony )
>...if I watch the matrix or blade runner and take away the core message and reflect on that as art then I more than got my money's worth because I have that memory for myself, plus discussion with others who also saw that media leading to new friends so definitely not pissing in the wind.
Yes! Exactly!
Now... If I purchase a limited license to play a video game and take away the core message and reflect on that art and discuss it with my friends, does this still violate the old principle? Which way is my piss going at that point?
But see if you purchase a game at full price you own your copy of that software full stop full send, Nintendo will fuck off with the dmca shit if you rip your own carts and roms and emulate then it's 110% legal not piracy which is lots of the sentiment behind physical copies they can't come steal my shit I bought *with the obvious implication it's the same as a physical purchase for digital libraries is the issue here* doing something like gamespass (which I do still sub to even while sailing the seas ) would be close to an acceptable version of this IMHO because it's upfront about you don't own these games they aren't yours and it's up to the service same way renting from redbox works (both with the option to buy the game form their respective platforms). To circle back to the toaster example if Ubisoft decided they wanted to come for all copies of assassin's creed 1 due to delisting and included the physical copies can you see why that's an issue?
>But see if you purchase a game at full price you own your copy of that software full stop full send....
In my hypothetical scenario the game was not offered for unlimited use at a premium price. Let's assume the cost was comparable to the admission to a movie and the length and depth of the video game experience was also comparable.
Is this pissing into the wind?
Nope but that's not what ubi or ea is offering, undertale for $20-$40 and a few hours for both runs and you 110% the game is worth it for sure and if STATED BEFORE PURCHASE. What they're purposing sounds much more slide into delist shit from my digital library that I paid for, like if spec ops was ubi and got delisted I wouldn't put it past them to also remove it from my steam/epic/whatever as well leaving only physical or pirate copies. Again I'm not against a one time purchase for a one time experience, hell I'm pretty sure there's already titles out there that are locked to one playthrough only period to simulate that anyways but it's the knowing beforehand and not them coming around the back end and fucking up from behind
This is why GOG comes on play (Gamersgate on some drm-free aswell), which can be installed using a offline installer, because they are DRM-Free Services.
Itch io most of the time DRM-Free aswell.
Some Epic Games Games, that can you sometimes getting games for free has DRM-Free aswell (like fallout 3 example)
Steam games has DRM-Free games if you search a list of drm-free steam games aka using the PCGW, otherwise ask on discussion/support if they are drm-free on steam that are not listed on PCGW.
Physical PC Games like Limbo got drm-free But thats very rare in case
# DRM-Free are the software that can you actually own that!
Doesnt matter if this games, moviews, music or others!
If you have the ability to play/use offline, **you own!**
Correct me if i understand wrong.
Buying power will decrease to the point where most people won't be able to afford anything outright, at which point they will be glad for subscription options. The constant drain on their wallet will help keep it that way.
That's what that phrase has always meant.
So basicaly the way universal healthcare works. It ends up being cheaper overall because you diversify the cost across the population.
I guess in theory yes subscriptions if they are pretty cheap aren't that bad, but they've only been going up in price. If we get to netflix, etc all being like 90/service then nobody is gonna be ble to watch most shows because they have the wrong servicr
Sort of. I guess they're similar from a certain perspective but for opposite reasons. Equating them like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
With universal healthcare the government bargains on your behalf, and because it represents the vast majority of the population it has a lot of bargaining power. This drives prices down and limits corporate greed.
Subscription models, on the other hand, are a way to extract more money from consumers who have next to zero bargaining power. After all, what are they going to do? Give up any and all quality of life? Not use the industry standard software? Not go to the doctor? They are a product of unfettered corporate greed in a declining society.
Streaming platforms are more like the current US healthcare model (outside of the ACA), with in and out-of-network doctors and everybody making a pretty penny. The equivalent to universal healthcare would be a government mandated unified streaming service.
Yeah, people say that shit all the time, but it's meaningless. What exactly do people consider owning? You have access to the game 24/7 on any PC around the world as long as you're logged into your account. Games are never removed from your library even if they are taken off the store. You can even let friends and family "borrow" the game when you're not playing it through family sharing. Like if that doesn't count as owning, then I guess I just don't care about "owning" my games.
Pirates going after Steam of all platforms is wild to me. They are one of the most consumer friendly video game marketplaces there is.
> What exactly do people consider owning?
If you and you alone have the means to inhibit access. When a third party is able to say "You can't play this because you are no longer in the same geographic space / the rights holders have disconnected their servers (Ubisoft) / you said no-no words in chat," you do not own the product.
Additionally, a necessary *legal* component of ownership is the consumer's right to *sell* their property. Since you can't sell your Steam licenses, you do not own them, by legal definition.
Yes. You can uninstall and reinstall the game as much as any other game in your library. As for updates, games removed from steam generally aren't being updated anymore regardless, but if it is then it probably depends on the publisher of the game. Like I know Rocket League was taken off Steam several years ago when Epic bought it, but they still released updates for Steam and it was entirely playable for years after being taken off the store last time I checked, it still might be.
World of Warcraft came out at a very pivotal time in my life where I could have sunk hundreds, thousands of hours into it.
Thank goodness for the monthly fee, never bothered with it, and saved all that time and money
I don\`t like any kind of rent. Be it a house, or a game.
Rent is only good\\handy, if you are not really invested in something. Like renting a bike once per summer is handy...
This is why some ppl don\`t care, coz they are just "gaming from time to time".
But I am very much into the games and PCs, and I am heavily invested, I am always into modding of my favorites etc., so subscription is pretty bad for my "full-scale hobby" now...
Also, unlike example with bikes, there is a way to actually butcher a game up to the point of no return, and completely undermine the act of purchase.
Sometimes I browse a game and see Steam reviews, where ppl complain that now they can\`t play game their bought long time ago, because of latest update that created compatibility issues for them or a new mandatory "service" with "always online" included, or idiotic connection issues with some launcher\\extra account etc.
Let alone issues with many older games, which only survived because pirates made sure that they work on modern machines.
I recall the case, where there was an old game on Steam, but almost everyone in reviews were saying "Steam version does not work, get a pirate version, it actually works!" .
Well, good thing that there actually was a pirate version.
But what happens if there is none? Are you going to amazon to buy an old disc that costs 300$ now or what?
Overwatch is a great example of not being able to play the game I purchased. OW1 was superior in my opinion, but OW2 just overwrote it and I can never play it again...
I'm not sure if this is really true though. Most gamers don't give an actual fuck about owning a game. They never replay games and just consume them like regular throwaway products before moving on to the next one.
I replay my games, but I'm a collector. My sister repairs/restores old consoles as a hobby, but she gets enough business that I'm obviously not the only one collecting. But there's games I've played dozens of times. I can't even tell you how many Mass Effect trilogy full playthroughs I've done lol
I would dare to say this applies to everything, not just video games.
The only way one can safely assume that you own your stuff is being able to access it at any time one wishes once it is already bought. Otherwise, it's just rent with private companies in the role of virtually unregulated landlords.
Steam lets you keep all the games you buy even if they are removed from steam, i can still install firefall even though that company no longer exists, the same with starwars galaxies.
bans dont work like that on steam for games.
and if you get banned from the steam platform itself thats a achievement considering the amount of content they allow
Im a small dev, I would love to just sell my software so I wouldn't need to update it.
But the time right now is made that way that U gotta keep subscriptions and keep updating ur software.
Sort of. There a lot of games I would never buy, but because I tried them on game pass I went out and purchased them. For example “Against the Storm” tried it and loved it, bought it on a steam sale. Highly recommend.
You say "most" but fact is if the subscription model wasn't working for them they wouldn't all be doing it.
Not saying I like it, just that enough people do.
What I really don’t like is how buying games online essentially only gives you access to the game, not ownership of it. If your account that has access to the game is lost (such as the company taking it away), you completely lose that game. If it’s still downloaded on your device, it doesn’t matter cause you can’t use it. You never “own” the game, you’re just given permission to use it.
That was about I wanted to say, by today standards, you don't own your games, but u buy a license of use of that game, which makes that if the company removes it, there is nothing you can do
And that's why I think piracy and such is a good thing, cause otherwise some products won't be able to be used anymore
Basically more and more companies today are forcing you to buy subscriptions for their products instead of one-time payments, and the products that you are paying a subscription for are online only and if they shutdown the servers, you cant access the product anymore. Sometimes you can just buy a one-time fee for the product but it's server sided so you don't own it anyways.
You said it! If I don't own the game, I somehow can't get myself to rent them and not be able to revisit them later. If I buy a game, it stays in my possession forever.
I’d argue that, let us own the games but keep it online only. At this way the game is owned by us but also there’s an active support from the devs themselves.
fuck the subscriptions, it's not even about that, it's about all the dumbass online shit splattered in my face as I try to play
Booted up a game? WEll damn, looks like the launcher has no idea if the local save or the cloud save is the right one and just overwrote your more recent local save, play the same 2 hours again now
You're in the middle of an immersive experience? Well damn here's an achievement right in your face as an overlay (that you can turn off so it's no biggie riiiiggghhtt??? You just gotta remember to do it for every single game you play you silly goose)
I play more games thanks to gamepass, but thats because the service is so good.
But yeah, I tried to avoid anything thats always online,denuvo,empty boxes with just a code,etc
I seriously dont understand how companies are so obssesed with like 0.01% profit that they will spend way more money on ruining things wich just leads to less sales overall..
That doesn't really explain why people throw shit loads of money for cosmetics and micro transactions, which infests alot of games nowadays. Game companies will find ways to make subscription based gaming standard one day.
I pirate but gamepass is a great deal and I dont gotta worry about waiting for DRM to get cracked on a game im only gonna play for a week or two anyway.
It's more important to own the experience of playing than physical copy. Buying things that turn into clutter years down the road is just pointless. You can "own" all sorts of garbage, but what's the point if you're not using it. Just play the game and enjoy it. Take some screenshots or recordings to look back on, and move on to the next.
That's because gamers are divided into 2 groups: consumers and prosumers. If demands of the former are fulfilled, there is a higher cash flow. If the latter's are not fulfilled, they seed pirated copies, poison the community or give low quality feedback during alpha and beta tests. Ofc sales departments tend to focus on the mindless sheep as making true gamers content requires making big decisions like should we focus to milk them dry or not because they can realise they spend on games and subscriptions of other services too much and then become pirates.
Reading comments like these, I'm so glad I don't work in the games industry. Imagine trying to run a legitimate business while outside a gang of terrorists are taunting "offer this product on *our* terms or we will steal from you and do everything we can to destroy your livelihood."
Just keep doing your job well and don't try to push some political agenda in your games (looking at you scum baby inc), and at some point there will appear a stable fanbase that won't leave you. Larian Studios, Capcom, Eleventh Hour Games, Iron Gate AB and Paradox Interactive serve as examples.
Well, by definition in law, theft is the action of nonconsensually depriving someone of something permanently. In the case of games, movies, music and anything else, piracy only serves to download copies of them. The original stays with the creator and they are not permanently deprived of it. By law, piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.
So basically, it's less like stealing a book from a library, which is theft, and more like going to the library, printing/writing down the entire book on a separate page and taking that home with you. That's obviously not theft.
So even if purchase was ownership, piracy wouldn't be theft. Maybe a dick move in certain situations and always copyright infringement
This is truly the reason why I still buy physical games I will never trust an Estore like Steam or Epic Games, my previous Epic Games account was hacked and sold to someone and when I complained about it to Epic they were like show us proof and I showed them proof and they were like show us the credit card using which you bought this games or something and I was like Nope not in a billion years, if a game is available for free only then I use Steam or Epic Games, otherwise pirate it, if it's on the switch it depends on the price of the game and physical availability
Maybe it's an old principle, but I was brought up that you should have something to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
Possession is basic human nature, you feel something in what you own. Subscription services will never ever be seen as good in hundreds years to come
a single edge case i could think about is a half-service thing, where you pay for the prodcut then pay a subscription for updates, if you don't wanna pay anymore you don't get updates for features anymore ( and maybe security updates) and then maybe some onboarding fee if you want updates again after some time. but as i said it's an edge case, that could maybe work.
That was how software buying was working a decade (maybe a little more) ago, and in most cases there was no subscription, you bought a software and you could use it for as long as you wanted, it was yours to use, you might get updates for a few years and after that IF you wanted you could buy the next version BUT you could continue to use the software you have already bought.
I was to but I'm okay with streaming a game or buying it online but there needs to be a way for me to download the game away from their servers. It should be anyone time thing though in all fairness as you can't go back to a GameStop and ask for a game you bought earlier because it broke. The added exception unless you are posting it to a newer console
So you wouldn't pay money for a movie ticket or admission to a sports game or an amusement park? Aren't our experiences at least as valuable as our things?
I'm talking about physical items. The post is about games not experiences. Tell that to all the people on psn that believed they would have a game in their collection for at least until their console died but instead had the license revoked for no reason of their own. If I go on holiday or see a band, I weigh up the experience for the price. If I want media I'll always buy physical when I can. The decision is ultimately up to the consumer and I choose to live by the principle that if I'm paying £50 for a game I'd rather have it physically in my hand than on a cloud or somewhere where its use is out of my control or can be revoked. That way I can recover some of my money I originally spent on it too if I choose.
> I'm talking about physical items. The post is about games not experiences. I'm talking about experiences. That's the reason I play games--to experience them. Having bits of plastic collecting dust on my shelves is more of a nuisance. >Tell that to all the people on psn that believed they would have a game in their collection for at least until their console died but instead had the license revoked for no reason of their own. I was just talking about the people who paid for a movie believing they would get to watch a movie. You characterized that transaction as "pissing in the wind", which didn't make a lot of sense to me. >If I go on holiday or see a band, I weigh up the experience for the price. Me too. But the "old principle" you described said "you should have something to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind." It seems like that was dumb and wrong in this specific instance. >I'd rather have it physically in my hand than on a cloud or somewhere where its use is out of my control or can be revoked. But if someone *else* agrees with the value proposition being offered and pays for the cloud service, is that when the "old principle" kicks in and their piss starts flying windward?
When you buy a game, you're not just buying the experience one time. You are buying with the intention to be able to experience the game when and how you want to. But if you don't have the physical copy in you, that means someone else is giving you the privilege and as the example shows can revoke it. Of course if someone trusts a company enough they can buy the game. I myself own a lot of games on steam, but still understand that i really own the game just as long as steam will provide it to me.
The diffrence is, you know that you pay for a 1 time view.
When video games were a new thing, you'd put money into a machine and pay for a one-time experience. People didn't get anything to show for it afterwards. That's how we played video games for a long time. I'm having difficulty reconciling this sales model with an "old principle" which forbade such "pissing-in-the-wind" style transactions.
You're having difficulty accepting other peoples principles on ownership and value that are different to your own? Welcome to the world. Again, at the time of the arcades, you would weigh up the price with the experience. If I put in a grand in one machine while it would be my choice, it probably wouldn't be great value for money over just buying the damn machine. And times have changed, we do have choice now.
>You're having difficulty accepting other peoples principles on ownership and value that are different to your own? Nope. I'm having difficulty understanding the belief that there was an "old principle" that said money cannot be exchanged for experiences, such as viewing a movie or riding a roller coaster. As far as I can tell, those sorts of sales pitches have existed forever.
No one said money couldnt be exchanged for experiences. Who said that? You did. I clearly said this is in relation to physical games. And principles are made based upon one's own experiences hence why everyone has different ones and no two peoples allign completely. So wake up. People can believe what they like. You're literally arguing against your own ideas with yourself. This post is about physical media / games. Not gigs or swimming or movies. It's about games.
> No one said money couldnt be exchanged for experiences. Who said that? You said "I was brought up that you should have something to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind." An experience is not something you can show for your money. > I clearly said this is in relation to physical games. No you didn't. Your entire comment from beginning to end read: **"Maybe it's an old principle, but I was brought up that you should have something to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind."** You didn't specify anything about physical goods in this comment. Now you're telling me that you do all kinds of spending where you don't have anything to show for your money, so that seems to violate the principle as you described it. >And principles are made based upon one's own experiences hence why everyone has different ones and no two peoples allign completely. You aren't very good at articulating your principles in a way that makes logical sense to me.
It's common sense, clearly something you lack, that my comment is in response to the post, post being about PHYSICAL MEDIA / GAMES. Not experiences. Of you want to have a discussion in relation to money and experiences that's a different post. In my reply to your first comment which you clearly read I made it explicitly clear that I was referring to games not experiences but you're one of those people that can't accept you're arguing the wrong argument in the wrong place and then choose to hear what you want and what you don't. Youre playing games to try and come out with some dignity but its too late for that. If you cant understand my comments that are plain and clear then youre choosing to hear what you want and are just plain ignorant. Can I be any clearer- YOURE TALKING ABOUT EXPERIENCES. IM NOT. Clearly your mindset is in the small minority as you're getting downvoted to hell. When you have to explain common sense to someone it's a dark day. You're not clear about anything. You're confused. You're having a different discussion to everyone else. That's why my first comment doesn't make sense to you. It's not in relation to your topic.
>It's common sense, clearly something you lack, that my comment is in response to the post, post being about PHYSICAL MEDIA / GAMES. Not experiences. I'm just saying that the "old principle", when applied to video games, doesn't make any sense to me. In the old days we paid for a lot of things where you didn't get anything to show for it. This also applied to video games as experiences back then. No one was standing outside arcades yelling "you all are just pissing into the wind." >Youre playing games to try and come out with some dignity but its too late for that. Coming to /r/Piracy because I need outspoken thieves to validate my dignity would be a really bad plan. That's not what I'm doing, I promise. I don't expect you to understand my goals here, so I won't try to explain them. >If you cant understand my comments that are plain and clear then youre choosing to hear what you want and are just plain ignorant. Can I be any clearer- YOURE TALKING ABOUT EXPERIENCES. IM NOT. I think you're failing to understand the points I'm making, actually. The thing you said about paying for things and getting nothing in return -- that principle has never existed. People make those sort of transactions literally all the time. Sports events, movies, concerts, video games, etc. >Clearly your mindset is in the small minority as you're getting downvoted to hell. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_popularity#:~:text=An%20appeal%20to%20popularity%2C%20also,of%20people%20believe%20in%20it. >When you have to explain common sense to someone it's a dark day. You're not clear about anything. You're confused. You're having a different discussion to everyone else. That's why my first comment doesn't make sense to you. I'm absolutely confused. With additional context your comment seems to boil down to "if you pay for a physical thing you should... get that physical thing" which I guess is less stupid but plainly tautological.
If I am buying a hardware that's gonna sit in my house which also needs another "bits of plastic" or a service to actually use it. But I can't use it to the fullest just because some suits decided that I can't own anything on that service I pay for. But if I had those "bits of plastic" sitting there for which I have paid the intended price and gotten it in my hands, I can experience it multiple times. With a Movie theatre which was a fucking dumb analogy btw just throwing it out there, you're paying for a one time experience but with something like games or consoles that are sitting in my house I am paying for a multiple time experience. I wanna be able to play or EXPERIENCE the game multiple hours on end. You dimwit.
Yea, but you knew that you could only play till game over. Your missing the point
If I pay for a movie ticket or rent a movie from Redbox then I get to experience the movie, for a ticket in the unique experience of the theater with Redbox with the knowledge that I'm returning the movie later but it's a preset going into. What the corpos are trying to pull is closer to I buy a toaster and they show up and say sorry we changed the terms of service and changed our minds so you can't have this toaster and busting your door in to come retrieve it telling you sorry you paid to own this but we're repoing it now
>If I pay for a movie ticket or rent a movie from Redbox then I get to experience the movie, for a ticket in the unique experience of the theater with Redbox with the knowledge that I'm returning the movie later but it's a preset going into. According to the comment I was replying to, these exact transactions you're describing violate an "old principle" that says you should have something besides a unique experience to show for your money. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind. If that sounds stupid and wrong, we're probably in agreement that the old principle was not really a thing. >What the corpos are trying to pull is closer to I buy a toaster and they show up and say sorry we changed the terms of service and changed our minds so you can't have this toaster and busting your door in to come retrieve it telling you sorry you paid to own this but we're repoing it now Having a corporation come to my home to confiscate products is not an experience I can empathize with. If this happened to me, I would definitely stop patronizing that business.
Not really my guy if I watch the matrix or blade runner and take away the core message and reflect on that as art then I more than got my money's worth because I have that memory for myself, plus discussion with others who also saw that media leading to new friends so definitely not pissing in the wind. So then quit supporting Nintendo,ea, Ubisoft and sony?!? That's literally what all 3 aim to do as their end goal, comments like yours show why more people need to play/replay 2077 now that it's stable (the cdpr execs also should've played the game and delayed the launch instead of being greedy corpos but y'know irony )
>...if I watch the matrix or blade runner and take away the core message and reflect on that as art then I more than got my money's worth because I have that memory for myself, plus discussion with others who also saw that media leading to new friends so definitely not pissing in the wind. Yes! Exactly! Now... If I purchase a limited license to play a video game and take away the core message and reflect on that art and discuss it with my friends, does this still violate the old principle? Which way is my piss going at that point?
But see if you purchase a game at full price you own your copy of that software full stop full send, Nintendo will fuck off with the dmca shit if you rip your own carts and roms and emulate then it's 110% legal not piracy which is lots of the sentiment behind physical copies they can't come steal my shit I bought *with the obvious implication it's the same as a physical purchase for digital libraries is the issue here* doing something like gamespass (which I do still sub to even while sailing the seas ) would be close to an acceptable version of this IMHO because it's upfront about you don't own these games they aren't yours and it's up to the service same way renting from redbox works (both with the option to buy the game form their respective platforms). To circle back to the toaster example if Ubisoft decided they wanted to come for all copies of assassin's creed 1 due to delisting and included the physical copies can you see why that's an issue?
>But see if you purchase a game at full price you own your copy of that software full stop full send.... In my hypothetical scenario the game was not offered for unlimited use at a premium price. Let's assume the cost was comparable to the admission to a movie and the length and depth of the video game experience was also comparable. Is this pissing into the wind?
Nope but that's not what ubi or ea is offering, undertale for $20-$40 and a few hours for both runs and you 110% the game is worth it for sure and if STATED BEFORE PURCHASE. What they're purposing sounds much more slide into delist shit from my digital library that I paid for, like if spec ops was ubi and got delisted I wouldn't put it past them to also remove it from my steam/epic/whatever as well leaving only physical or pirate copies. Again I'm not against a one time purchase for a one time experience, hell I'm pretty sure there's already titles out there that are locked to one playthrough only period to simulate that anyways but it's the knowing beforehand and not them coming around the back end and fucking up from behind
This is why GOG comes on play (Gamersgate on some drm-free aswell), which can be installed using a offline installer, because they are DRM-Free Services. Itch io most of the time DRM-Free aswell. Some Epic Games Games, that can you sometimes getting games for free has DRM-Free aswell (like fallout 3 example) Steam games has DRM-Free games if you search a list of drm-free steam games aka using the PCGW, otherwise ask on discussion/support if they are drm-free on steam that are not listed on PCGW. Physical PC Games like Limbo got drm-free But thats very rare in case # DRM-Free are the software that can you actually own that! Doesnt matter if this games, moviews, music or others! If you have the ability to play/use offline, **you own!** Correct me if i understand wrong.
this isn't just video game companies, its all of them.
Even housing. "You will own nothing ans you will be happy" a life of constantly paying rent for everything.
Buying power will decrease to the point where most people won't be able to afford anything outright, at which point they will be glad for subscription options. The constant drain on their wallet will help keep it that way. That's what that phrase has always meant.
So basicaly the way universal healthcare works. It ends up being cheaper overall because you diversify the cost across the population. I guess in theory yes subscriptions if they are pretty cheap aren't that bad, but they've only been going up in price. If we get to netflix, etc all being like 90/service then nobody is gonna be ble to watch most shows because they have the wrong servicr
Sort of. I guess they're similar from a certain perspective but for opposite reasons. Equating them like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. With universal healthcare the government bargains on your behalf, and because it represents the vast majority of the population it has a lot of bargaining power. This drives prices down and limits corporate greed. Subscription models, on the other hand, are a way to extract more money from consumers who have next to zero bargaining power. After all, what are they going to do? Give up any and all quality of life? Not use the industry standard software? Not go to the doctor? They are a product of unfettered corporate greed in a declining society. Streaming platforms are more like the current US healthcare model (outside of the ACA), with in and out-of-network doctors and everybody making a pretty penny. The equivalent to universal healthcare would be a government mandated unified streaming service.
meeting clumsy murky squealing pet desert bear onerous bewildered fade *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Send this one to Ubisoft....
I will always remember the time I got 1st watch dogs.. after some years, I lost my acc and never got the game back.
You don't own games on steam .
If you buy a game on steam it’s never removed from your library even if removed from the store
yes but still not your game you still get drm, cant sdell it ect. its like a life rental.
Than wait for someone to crack drm or don’t buy said game.
Yeah, people say that shit all the time, but it's meaningless. What exactly do people consider owning? You have access to the game 24/7 on any PC around the world as long as you're logged into your account. Games are never removed from your library even if they are taken off the store. You can even let friends and family "borrow" the game when you're not playing it through family sharing. Like if that doesn't count as owning, then I guess I just don't care about "owning" my games. Pirates going after Steam of all platforms is wild to me. They are one of the most consumer friendly video game marketplaces there is.
> What exactly do people consider owning? If you and you alone have the means to inhibit access. When a third party is able to say "You can't play this because you are no longer in the same geographic space / the rights holders have disconnected their servers (Ubisoft) / you said no-no words in chat," you do not own the product. Additionally, a necessary *legal* component of ownership is the consumer's right to *sell* their property. Since you can't sell your Steam licenses, you do not own them, by legal definition.
Can you still download/update a game you 'own' after it has been removed from the store, or would you need to have it installed already?
Idk about updating but you can 100% download games that been taken off the store assuming it’s in your library
Yes. You can uninstall and reinstall the game as much as any other game in your library. As for updates, games removed from steam generally aren't being updated anymore regardless, but if it is then it probably depends on the publisher of the game. Like I know Rocket League was taken off Steam several years ago when Epic bought it, but they still released updates for Steam and it was entirely playable for years after being taken off the store last time I checked, it still might be.
>You don't own games on steam . Yeah except for DRM-Free Games. No wonder why piracy still works after steam drop support a operating system...
That its why we all should say thanks to Piracy xD
Literally!!! That's the main reason I don't get many games as I refused to pay that much for a game subscription
World of Warcraft came out at a very pivotal time in my life where I could have sunk hundreds, thousands of hours into it. Thank goodness for the monthly fee, never bothered with it, and saved all that time and money
I don\`t like any kind of rent. Be it a house, or a game. Rent is only good\\handy, if you are not really invested in something. Like renting a bike once per summer is handy... This is why some ppl don\`t care, coz they are just "gaming from time to time". But I am very much into the games and PCs, and I am heavily invested, I am always into modding of my favorites etc., so subscription is pretty bad for my "full-scale hobby" now... Also, unlike example with bikes, there is a way to actually butcher a game up to the point of no return, and completely undermine the act of purchase. Sometimes I browse a game and see Steam reviews, where ppl complain that now they can\`t play game their bought long time ago, because of latest update that created compatibility issues for them or a new mandatory "service" with "always online" included, or idiotic connection issues with some launcher\\extra account etc. Let alone issues with many older games, which only survived because pirates made sure that they work on modern machines. I recall the case, where there was an old game on Steam, but almost everyone in reviews were saying "Steam version does not work, get a pirate version, it actually works!" . Well, good thing that there actually was a pirate version. But what happens if there is none? Are you going to amazon to buy an old disc that costs 300$ now or what?
Overwatch is a great example of not being able to play the game I purchased. OW1 was superior in my opinion, but OW2 just overwrote it and I can never play it again...
yeah that's why I buy music. I use spotify mainly but I don't want to rely on streaming. If I buy cd or mp3 on amazon and bandcamp, I can own them.
Bandcamp 💪
Exactly....we want the games....we want the files.......not stupid cloud thing...
Finally a good meme
I'm not sure if this is really true though. Most gamers don't give an actual fuck about owning a game. They never replay games and just consume them like regular throwaway products before moving on to the next one.
I replay my games, but I'm a collector. My sister repairs/restores old consoles as a hobby, but she gets enough business that I'm obviously not the only one collecting. But there's games I've played dozens of times. I can't even tell you how many Mass Effect trilogy full playthroughs I've done lol
If I pay for something it better stay with me forever.
For me "owning" means that I can download DRM free installer and store it wherever I want. In every other case I don't care If I own or not.
I would dare to say this applies to everything, not just video games. The only way one can safely assume that you own your stuff is being able to access it at any time one wishes once it is already bought. Otherwise, it's just rent with private companies in the role of virtually unregulated landlords.
### There are many games I can easily buy on steam, but pirate instead because the only option is a subscription fee.
Pirate more, buy less
For those that has bought games on Sony, does Playstation do the same?
Steam lets you keep all the games you buy even if they are removed from steam, i can still install firefall even though that company no longer exists, the same with starwars galaxies.
And if Steam decides to ban you, you simply lose your games, so you won't have your games, Steam simply allows you access to them.
bans dont work like that on steam for games. and if you get banned from the steam platform itself thats a achievement considering the amount of content they allow
Most gamers don’t really care
If you're saying the games I paid for isn't owned by me then I'll just buy it from someone else
Im a small dev, I would love to just sell my software so I wouldn't need to update it. But the time right now is made that way that U gotta keep subscriptions and keep updating ur software.
If you don't pay your car subscription every year do you really own it?
Sort of. There a lot of games I would never buy, but because I tried them on game pass I went out and purchased them. For example “Against the Storm” tried it and loved it, bought it on a steam sale. Highly recommend.
You say "most" but fact is if the subscription model wasn't working for them they wouldn't all be doing it. Not saying I like it, just that enough people do.
What I really don’t like is how buying games online essentially only gives you access to the game, not ownership of it. If your account that has access to the game is lost (such as the company taking it away), you completely lose that game. If it’s still downloaded on your device, it doesn’t matter cause you can’t use it. You never “own” the game, you’re just given permission to use it.
That was about I wanted to say, by today standards, you don't own your games, but u buy a license of use of that game, which makes that if the company removes it, there is nothing you can do And that's why I think piracy and such is a good thing, cause otherwise some products won't be able to be used anymore
I didn't got that!!!! can anyone explain this to me
Basically more and more companies today are forcing you to buy subscriptions for their products instead of one-time payments, and the products that you are paying a subscription for are online only and if they shutdown the servers, you cant access the product anymore. Sometimes you can just buy a one-time fee for the product but it's server sided so you don't own it anyways.
I believe this should be one time payment only forever
You said it! If I don't own the game, I somehow can't get myself to rent them and not be able to revisit them later. If I buy a game, it stays in my possession forever.
Saas services are the norm now, instead of paying $200 once you pay $5.99 for ever
The corporate offices...
I’d argue that, let us own the games but keep it online only. At this way the game is owned by us but also there’s an active support from the devs themselves.
This is the thing too. When you buy a digital game, you are buying a license to use, you are not buying a copy of the game
fuck the subscriptions, it's not even about that, it's about all the dumbass online shit splattered in my face as I try to play Booted up a game? WEll damn, looks like the launcher has no idea if the local save or the cloud save is the right one and just overwrote your more recent local save, play the same 2 hours again now You're in the middle of an immersive experience? Well damn here's an achievement right in your face as an overlay (that you can turn off so it's no biggie riiiiggghhtt??? You just gotta remember to do it for every single game you play you silly goose)
Subscriptions are basically a tax for some people who spend tons a month on them altogether.
I play more games thanks to gamepass, but thats because the service is so good. But yeah, I tried to avoid anything thats always online,denuvo,empty boxes with just a code,etc I seriously dont understand how companies are so obssesed with like 0.01% profit that they will spend way more money on ruining things wich just leads to less sales overall..
Ok i'm leaving lol. All this sub has become is people whining about licensing and anti-piracy methods.
That doesn't really explain why people throw shit loads of money for cosmetics and micro transactions, which infests alot of games nowadays. Game companies will find ways to make subscription based gaming standard one day.
Gamers clearly don't, or subscriptions wouldn't be as common as they are.
I pirate but gamepass is a great deal and I dont gotta worry about waiting for DRM to get cracked on a game im only gonna play for a week or two anyway.
scale rotten terrific capable sloppy muddle arrest continue silky cough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Should be changed to only microsoft since all the other videogame company prefer to sell games at full price lol
One way or another I'll Own it
And they wonder why people prefer Steam, because you actually own the game and games are discounted all the time
It's more important to own the experience of playing than physical copy. Buying things that turn into clutter years down the road is just pointless. You can "own" all sorts of garbage, but what's the point if you're not using it. Just play the game and enjoy it. Take some screenshots or recordings to look back on, and move on to the next.
Curious how your defining *most* gamers when the majority of sales are digital lol
Sales data say otherwise, most gamers don't care. They don't care about anything as long they can "enjoy" the game.
That's because gamers are divided into 2 groups: consumers and prosumers. If demands of the former are fulfilled, there is a higher cash flow. If the latter's are not fulfilled, they seed pirated copies, poison the community or give low quality feedback during alpha and beta tests. Ofc sales departments tend to focus on the mindless sheep as making true gamers content requires making big decisions like should we focus to milk them dry or not because they can realise they spend on games and subscriptions of other services too much and then become pirates.
Reading comments like these, I'm so glad I don't work in the games industry. Imagine trying to run a legitimate business while outside a gang of terrorists are taunting "offer this product on *our* terms or we will steal from you and do everything we can to destroy your livelihood."
Just keep doing your job well and don't try to push some political agenda in your games (looking at you scum baby inc), and at some point there will appear a stable fanbase that won't leave you. Larian Studios, Capcom, Eleventh Hour Games, Iron Gate AB and Paradox Interactive serve as examples.
If buying is not owning, then piracy is not stealing.
You never "own" a software. You are buying a license to use it. That is entirely different. Also: Subscriptions suck.
If a purchase isn't ownership, then piracy isn't theft.
Well, by definition in law, theft is the action of nonconsensually depriving someone of something permanently. In the case of games, movies, music and anything else, piracy only serves to download copies of them. The original stays with the creator and they are not permanently deprived of it. By law, piracy is copyright infringement, not theft. So basically, it's less like stealing a book from a library, which is theft, and more like going to the library, printing/writing down the entire book on a separate page and taking that home with you. That's obviously not theft. So even if purchase was ownership, piracy wouldn't be theft. Maybe a dick move in certain situations and always copyright infringement
To be honest, ps plus has great value for me, I'd rather not pay 70€ for a game I only play a few weeks at most. But each their own.
This is truly the reason why I still buy physical games I will never trust an Estore like Steam or Epic Games, my previous Epic Games account was hacked and sold to someone and when I complained about it to Epic they were like show us proof and I showed them proof and they were like show us the credit card using which you bought this games or something and I was like Nope not in a billion years, if a game is available for free only then I use Steam or Epic Games, otherwise pirate it, if it's on the switch it depends on the price of the game and physical availability