Support NeoGAF

[Evil Calvin]

If we are not 'buying' the game then it should be much cheaper that full price.

 

[tylrdiablos]

Post of the month.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

As always, I would focus less on the legalese and more on the practical effect. Technically, you only own a license for any digital game, or any physical game that you buy. The enforceability of that is incredibly suspect and - to my knowledge - hasn't been tested in decades, and we live in a very different world than when those contracts first started being utilized.

But either way, what matters is what you can, in practice, do with the game. Whatever the contracts might say, if I buy a game on GOG, I can keep it and do whatever I want with it. If I buy a game that has to phone home, I can't. The EULA is the same between the two products, but one is obviously worse than the other. Xbox games don't require you to phone home as long (unless you're redownloading obviously), and this change in language doesn't affect that, so... it's really not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ReBurn]

Isn't this a good thing for transparency purposes?

There is only war now

 

[mckmas8808]

Not just 'licenses'.

Digital games should always be cheaper than their physical counterparts, since there's no manufacturing, pressing, shipment etc. The cost to the publisher is lower.

The fact that games are sold at the same price digitally as they are physically, and it isn't fussed over, has been fucking us over for decade(s).

And quite frankly there should be a lawsuit about it. I doubt "the people" would win, but geez.

 

[RayBoy]

Our digital "collections"