I think in terms of the subscriber access to Xbox GamePass or PlayStation Plus, this is valid. But not for game purchases.
The store purchases have always been about buying a game. If I go to Amazon and buy a thing, it gets shipped to my house and I own it - the experience of adding an item to a cart, viewing the cart, and checking out are the same across game stores, for online and brick and mortar, whether digital and physical goods are being purchased.
If I don’t own the item I am buying on the PlayStation store, why the hell am I paying a premium for it? I thought it was because I will always be able to play that game without having to worry about the disc getting scratched and in both cases I would own the item.
If you buy a CD with software and it gets shipped to your house, you own the disc, not the software. It’s always been this way, we are just now living in a world where the technology exists to take the software away from you after you paid.
Hopefully their inquiry will lead to more clear definitions in market places. It could lead to having indefinite leases. For example you will see a button that says lease and below it there will be a time period which would be indefinite. I think that would be a fair portrayal purchase agreements.
Sony has trained me to pay my subscription fee and be extremely skeptical about “buying” any games, no matter how deeply discounted they are. I don’t play much on PC but I have no qualms buying a game on Steam.
I think in terms of the subscriber access to Xbox GamePass or PlayStation Plus, this is valid. But not for game purchases.
The store purchases have always been about buying a game. If I go to Amazon and buy a thing, it gets shipped to my house and I own it - the experience of adding an item to a cart, viewing the cart, and checking out are the same across game stores, for online and brick and mortar, whether digital and physical goods are being purchased.
If I don’t own the item I am buying on the PlayStation store, why the hell am I paying a premium for it? I thought it was because I will always be able to play that game without having to worry about the disc getting scratched and in both cases I would own the item.
If you buy a CD with software and it gets shipped to your house, you own the disc, not the software. It’s always been this way, we are just now living in a world where the technology exists to take the software away from you after you paid.
Correct, I owned the license to it. It wasn’t revokable though.
Which do you want? A single physical disc that is a tangible product? Or access to a server that has data redundancy?
You seem to want the guarantee of high availability servers but expect to claim ownership of the data. You never owned the data, and you don’t now.
You’re hallucinating. I never claimed to want HA servers or claim ownership of data.
If I pay for ownership of a license, I just want it to be permanent. Non-revokable. I don’t care how it is delivered.
This is why I use Serif’s Affinity applications, not Adobe’s etc.
@Couldbealeotard @jsnfwlr sure, but you were also able to sell it eventually.
I don’t believe resale was ever part of the licensing.
This is true.
If it’s a subscription, sure. But if I literally paid to own the game? What the fuck is the point?
Hopefully their inquiry will lead to more clear definitions in market places. It could lead to having indefinite leases. For example you will see a button that says lease and below it there will be a time period which would be indefinite. I think that would be a fair portrayal purchase agreements.
Sony has trained me to pay my subscription fee and be extremely skeptical about “buying” any games, no matter how deeply discounted they are. I don’t play much on PC but I have no qualms buying a game on Steam.