-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
California’s new law forces digital stores to admit you’re just licensing content, not buying it
- Thread starter bitbydeath
- Start date
- News Business
pudel
Member
I dont know. This doesnt change much imho. Its just a little better clarification of the current messed up situation. Instead of "buy/purchase" the new button will now have the name "license". But you still buy the license and everybody seems to be free to put in these licenses whatever they want. So the problem is not how you call the whole thing, but rather the license conditions.
angrod14
Member
GOG's distribution method (DRM-free copies) should be the standard in the future. Digital purchases will become more and more prevalent and these will be pressing issues for all consumers.
If a company won't initially sell the digital copy DRM-free (because of piracy concerns, for example), they should at least be required by law to remove DRM from the buyers copy right before such software gets delisted or the store is closed.
If a company won't initially sell the digital copy DRM-free (because of piracy concerns, for example), they should at least be required by law to remove DRM from the buyers copy right before such software gets delisted or the store is closed.
Last edited:
dragonyeuw
Member
The companies will probably tell you that 'well actuallllllly' you never owned the physical game either. The difference being that they can't control your usage after the sale, especially for pre-online consoles. With digital the control of the product is squarely on their side, it makes it harder for you to quit a digital ecosystem because you've got money tied up in it, and they cut out various middleman between themselves and the end-user. It's ultimately a very lopsided arrangement not in favor of the consumer.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
So I dreamt one of the biggest repo's of old console software getting gutted earlier this year thanks to action by Nintendo did I?
Also "abandonware" is not a permanent designation. If anyone subsequently buys the IP/content off of the rights-holder, its no longer abandoned and you are subject to the usual limitations.
The problem with people who share your outlook is that you're apparently blissfully unaware of the difference between rights and tolerated actions.
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
... a step in the right direction, but what they should be doing is fighting to ensure that digital games aren't merely just "licenses"
GHG
Gold Member
I'm talking about PC abandonware software or games. I thought that was clear from my very first reply to this topic.
crackajack
Member
I have no problem with not owning my games, but this, the correct label for the "purchase/rent", should have been put into law 20 years ago, so every doofus get's it.
Guilty_AI
Gold Member
That isn't exactly true. What defines their control over the product is the necessity of an internet connection for the game to function, not whether the product is digital or physical.
A GOG copy of Baldurs Gate 3 installed locally will always remain under your control, much like a ps5 physical copy. By the same token, physical copies of Concord and The Crew are not be playable anymore just like their digital counterparts.
Last edited:
You'll still own nothing and will be happy.
Griffon
Member
I'm a bit torn on this...
While it is indeed a more exact wording on stores... I fear it will create a feedback of lower expectations from customers. There wont be as big of an outrage when a game license gets removed.
For instance, about 100% of the games I bought on steam over the last 20+ years are still available to download and play, even games that are not for sale anymore, with expired licenses or dead/different publishers or whatever else happens. Will this continue to be the only accepted outcome of getting a steam license?
While it is indeed a more exact wording on stores... I fear it will create a feedback of lower expectations from customers. There wont be as big of an outrage when a game license gets removed.
For instance, about 100% of the games I bought on steam over the last 20+ years are still available to download and play, even games that are not for sale anymore, with expired licenses or dead/different publishers or whatever else happens. Will this continue to be the only accepted outcome of getting a steam license?
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
How about we just make that illegal and a violation of consumer rights?
bitbydeath
Gold Member
I think you’re referring to rips.
Abandonware is old games being given away by their respective developers/publishers and made available to the world for free.
Rips are illegal copies.
Unknown?
Member
A step in the right direction and one of the few times I've actually agreed with a law from this super majority.
He should also make a law to change the verbiage of banks. When you get paid, call it "direct loan" instead of "direct deposit" because you aren't actually depositing anything. Legally, once it's in your account, it is being loaned and is no longer yours.
He should also make a law to change the verbiage of banks. When you get paid, call it "direct loan" instead of "direct deposit" because you aren't actually depositing anything. Legally, once it's in your account, it is being loaned and is no longer yours.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
They should also be priced accordingly then... but I am sure in their minds, that's exactly what it is priced at.
dragonyeuw
Member
Yes but its also about their ability to control the method of distribution, pricing on top of granting accessibility and removing resale options. Even a 'coaster' like the physical versions of Concord and The Crew have real world value as tangible products.
Digital is much better on an open platform though. I'm imagining a future where Sony is only releasing digital consoles and Xbox has exited the console market. It's not pretty.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
I don't know what the risks would be but they should start providing downloads for patches in a central location by game. It should be required lol.
sainraja
Member
In Concord's case, product was purchased (license was handed out) and then product was refunded (license was given up). Anyone who bought the game had the option to get their money back while there are others who went out and bought a physical version just because. So they have their physical game case and disc. They knowingly bought something that was taken away.
Bojji
Gold Member
Accepted? You mean forced?
mrcroket
Member
Backing up your games is NOT illegal. The difference is that on the PC it is possible because it is an open platform, on a console it is not.
Setsuna Mudou
Member
Oh, the mythical false problem of buying digital and the store front closing. Pretty sure all those games we download can be stored in hard drives, all that's lost is the possibility to re-download them again from the store front. If you keep them on your own cold storage, you have access to it forever. Unless you have some bs DRM that forces online only, but that would impact people buying "physical" just the same.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Which would be fine if ownership was always cut-and-dried, and in the real world its rarely that simple. Unless something is entirely self-written and self published and contains no material sourced from third parties even if the author decrees something to abandoned, ultimately all bets are off.
And let's be real here, software being "abandoned" is an often abused term. Just because a developer is no longer active is hardly unusual for people to simply assume abandonware status due to ownership rights not being exercised.
This all feeds into what this topic is about; the difference between licensing and ownership.
GHG
: Another common misunderstanding -and I freely admit to being guilty of this myself on occasion- is when quoting a person is treated as a specific commentary on their line of argument, rather than as a jumping off point when entering a larger discussion. The latter being the case regarding my post that referenced your statement. My point was about the general stability and permanence of most online repositories containing old software due to IP infringement litigation.
DryvBy
Member
Did you happen to invest in NFTs, outside of the obvious digital games you've paid money to rent.
Your license expires without server check-ins.
Last edited:
MasterDerico
Member
More like Physical master race...
Killjoy-NL
Member
Nah, I just don't think >owning< games is essential to life.
Lokaum D+
Member
well, always remember, on PC we dont need to buy to play
DryvBy
Member
Lots of things aren't essential to life that you find important. It's a principle thing.
Killjoy-NL
Member
willothedog
Member
Not theft anyway but copyright infringement.
Fbh
Gold Member
Good, if they don't actually want to sell games they shouldn't be able to speak as if they did.
Any communication where they refer to "your" games should also be banned. No phrases like "access all your Ps5 games on Ps6" or "download your games on a new machine". It should be "access the Ps5 games you have a limited license for on Ps6"
Any communication where they refer to "your" games should also be banned. No phrases like "access all your Ps5 games on Ps6" or "download your games on a new machine". It should be "access the Ps5 games you have a limited license for on Ps6"
Guilty_AI
Gold Member
That depends heavily on the game. Great majority doesn't need server check-ins
Esppiral
Member
A digital license can be revoked at any time, plus the store could pull it down or just disappear, the licence on the disc is yours forever.
Nice try though
Guilty_AI
Gold Member
tbf, it does say law doesn't apply to digital goods that can run offline without restrictions.
Rudius
Member
Jack Sparrowing is inevitable. Some of those disks are almost worthless with all the updates we get. What good is a disk copy of No Man's Sky or Driveclub, for example? It's like owning games in beta state, or worse.
Guilty_AI
Gold Member
You could technically sell or give away accounts with all the games in them. It's usually against the EULA of these stores but so is selling used games on that note, certainly hasn't stopped anyone from doing either
DryvBy
Member
Got some names? PS and Xbox shows when the expiration is. It's typically a long time before expiration but it's there. Steam also expires. GOG is the best place for digital purchases as there's no DRM for backup.
BbMajor7th
Member
What always threw me is that people often expect that a generational upgrade - PS4 to PS5, say - to be either free or, at least, heavily discounted, otherwise - on principle - you're being asked to buy the game twice. I don't think I've ever seen a single soul make that complaint about buying the same game on different platforms though. Go out and buy any day-one game on PS5, XBOX, Switch and PC and you'll be fleeced four times at full price for owning four slightly different encodes of exactly the same game.Team Physical
Movies especially irritate me. I own a license of a movie not the movie product, so why do I need to pay extra for 4k? If I own a HD movie and they release a 4K copy, I should get that version for free since I technically only own the license.
Last edited:
Guilty_AI
Gold Member
answered your own question
Like i said, depends. Game that uses 3rd party accounts or denuvo do expire and require online checks. Still, many games there are fully DRM free (usually the same ones that are also sold on GOG or Itch io), while the ones that need the Steam client (with nothing else on top) need a one time activation but will work offline eternally after that.
Last edited:
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
Oi do you have a license for that videogame!
aclar00
Member
I would say clearly stating and apparent are two separate things. While they may state it, it's not apparent if you have to dig through the terms.