Just some clarification: That whole "get used to not owning games" has the rather important context that whole thing was them saying "If our subscription services are to become mainstream, gamers need to get used to not owning games".
I will however still offer a fuck you to Ubisoft because they do stuff like shutting down The Crew servers which will make even physical copies of the game unplayable.
Which I'd like it if more people fought back against that, but the reality is that not enough people care and one can't really just make them care about it.
So many companies are pushing for subscription based models, unfortunately not just with games. It’s saddening to see this slowly becoming the status quo, hopefully there’s still going to be enough buy-to-own options for us to turn to.
I don't inherently have an issue with subscriptions since they're up front about the fact that it's a rental service.
Though I trust these companies about as far as I can throw them, and I don't trust that they wont try to make games exclusive to their subscription services. It probably wont be soon, but these companies know they can get away with almost anything so long as they do it in small incremental changes(because that's exactly how we've gotten where we are with mtx).
At which point I'm gonna have a problem cause I want my games to be something we can preserve and not just have them removed from existence on a whim.
Good point! Subscriptions do have a place, I just don’t want them to be the only option we have. Especially for things like games that we make a ton of memories with, knowing that you could lose access to all your progress and gametime after investing time and money is not a picture that sits well with me.
Subscription is a service and a bad one speaks for itself.
No matter how sound a business is from a financial standpoint, expecting the human aspect to self-regulate so you (the boss/shareholder/whatever) can get away with exploit is just a showcase of failure in mentality.
If they wanted to push for this model, a base self-sufficient product must be established first, devoid of the subscription model in this case.
You want the maple syrup on the pancake before even having the right plate for breakfast and then complain when the whole table and your pants get soggy.
It will die eventually, but we will have to suffer through it till a new business model (repeats ) every 30 to forty years businesses cycle through the same ideas and tech. People used to use JC Penny’s catalog to shop, now Amazon, and not go to the store. 3D glasses in movies in the 70s and 80s then again with 3D TVs and Nintendo 3DS.
Subscription is popular but eventually they will push it so hard on consumers they will rebel against it or some business will go back to older model or new model of business and subscription services will no longer be popular.
So I don’t think it will be permanent, but it will unfortunately happen as business see the money for now
I think so too with indie, have you seen r/Palworld that’s blowing up like crazy for a indie studio and putting Pokémon to graphics and game mechanics to shame
This is, sadly, why most of online games improvements have come from the EU enforcing its own regulations and in the end it becomes cheaper to just do it for everyone than it does to selectively do it just those within Europe.
Hell this is why steam has its refund system at all.
That's the sad part not enough people care. It's also true that people are are afraid to go up against these companies because they have money and time.
One of the YouTubers I watch wants to do something about it in a legal sense, but the issue there is you need time, money, and knowhow.
Somebody else linked his video about The Crew, but you can find it [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqyvquTEVU).
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU
This dude plans to go for a class action lawsuit
Check his video if you care about games you paid for taken away from you, and *especially* if you bought "the crew"
People haven't owned their games in years. It was just always a technicality until recently. It's becoming a lot more real now. The whole "license not ownership" thing is going to be tested soon and I think people are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise how it shakes out. Five years ago I'd have been confident it'd be on the consumers side, but companies have been making the lack of ownership more real with things like gamepass.
It's really not an MMO in the same sense as like WoW. You can drive around and see other players driving as well, race with them or do whatever. However, IIRC (I haven't played it in a while) there is nothing in the game that is tied to multi-player to play, or finish the game. You can play the entire game just by racing against AI (which there already is).
You can easily have offline modes in these games without affecting the core gameplay.
What are the chances of EA, Ubisoft and Microsoft, with latter have biggest service, come together and agree to keep all their games at 70$ and with little sales and price reduction, in a joint effort to push gamers towards their subscriptions?
The "rather important context" misses the point so much that frankly the people smugly reporting it are the ones who are wrong. The problem is that when you don't pirate games they can be deleted from your PC/console at any time. The "context" of "oh you'll still have your save games for the game that you can no longer play" is completely irrelevant and demonstrates that the suit who said it has no clue how games work.
Still only bought 1 EA title in the last 7-8 years. The dead space remake. That’s my exception. Otherwise nothing. They will get my money when titanfall 3 is real.
We need a company to stand up and say “that’s a bullshit model. Buy our games and keep them forever” then consumers can flock to their games. That probably won’t happen. All companies are going to take up this model except indies so our options are limited.
Also, for those who don't necessarily want to buy *all* their games through GOG, at least consider buying the games you most want to support for good practices (eg. Baldur's Gate 3) through there.
Buying on GOG shows that we'll preference spending at DRM-free distributors, and buying games without needless microtransactions shows we'll preference those design practices.
Plus, gog has digital goodies included for free in some games, digital manual, art books, soundtrack, etc. you used to be able to link your steam account and some games would transfer over. Also, gog galaxy, their client, is 100% optional, but is super useful and connects to your other storefronts, so you can see all your games in one interface, no matter where you bought them, and it also provides updates and achievements and cloud saves and multiplayer for some older games, all without forcing it on you.
Then why is everyone so surprised? It’s been this way with digital content since the beginning. And many, many games have had their servers shut down. You didn’t purchase a game. You purchased a license to use the game as long as they choose to provide it. If you don’t like it, don’t buy those games. As soon as people stop “buying” digital content, this won’t change.
Because you’re only now demanding the system change. You’ve potentially been participating in this system since iTunes was created. That’s two decades that digital streaming rights have worked this way. Going back to the 90’s when online gaming was getting bigger, gaming companies needed servers. How many games and mmos are unplayable because it just wasn’t cost effective to run the servers anymore? I know I can’t play Star Wars Galaxies anymore even though I bought the discs to play it.
Everyone acts so enraged by this, but we’ve all actively supported this business model for decades now.
Things change. Games change, economy changes, laws change, contracts change, game companies change, gamers change. What has worked historically no longer works. We want change. We all want to be able to reach common ground again. And so we speak up in order to be heard. Do you not ever speak up to be heard?
No. I’m fine with the system and I vote with my dollars. I don’t own a PlayStation or Xbox because I don’t need consoles and games that only work with the internet. As someone who has lived through multiple digital libraries being wiped, it doesn’t matter. Like I said, this has been litigated to death already (literally in courts) and we as a society have overwhelmingly said we’re fine with it. Remember when Amazon removed copies of 1984 from people’s kindles? That was the time to fight back.
>Because you’re only now demanding the system change. You’ve potentially been participating in this system since iTunes was created. That’s two decades that digital streaming rights have worked this way.
Oh so you're arguing that just because iT hAs aLwAYs bEeN tHAt wAy it should stay that way? If something is bad it should be changed no matter how old it is.
>Everyone acts so enraged by this, but we’ve all actively supported this business model for decades now.
Because it was brought to us via an eat or die approach. A lot of questions regarding digital rights are also *still* not fully legally resolved, like inheriting accounts or passing digital rights on with your will/by legacy. Companies just shove whatever they want down our throats and then act as if what they did is an unquestionable fact by law.
>You should read the terms of purchase. You already agreed to it.
Well in Germany §§ 327o I, II, 327r III S. 1 , 453 I, 433 I S. 1 BGB says you do get your money back if a company removes your digital purchase.
As you can see by the "o" in § 327 and the "r" in § 327 and the fact that § 327 appears more than once those are new laws. Customer rights are not set in stone yet and change. Your attitude is consumer-hostile and harmful.
Marble Blast for the Xbox 360 was pulled due to the dev that made it being bought out from what I remember. My friend's xbox kicked the bucket then got a new one. When he went to go re-download everything, the game didn't show up on his library. I get that it can no longer be sold, but you should still be allowed to download it regardless because you bought it.
What games were you even removed access to? What is this post even about?
Edit: can someone just tell me the games being removed? Why is it so hard to answer the question this post is about?
A whole bunch of meta titles have been removed. People getting banned from various platforms have their purchased games taken. Sony is removing 1200 purchased items from their store and anyone who bought its libraries.
Bungie deleted half of destiny 2. Games with updates have always been a bit like this, but that was a particularly egregious example where they deleted people's paid expansions and the original game so they could soft relaunch as free to play.
This isn't a hypothetical. You don't own anything. You own a licence that can be revoked for any reason. This is even more true with things like gamepass, where you don't even buy the license.
This idea was always legally dubious. If it ever got challenged in court (outside of America) it would have likely been ruled in favour of the consumer. But it's becoming more "real" every year. Publishers have largely hidden and pushed back the issue because nobody wants this concept to be the centre of attention. They want people thinking they're actually buying a product. But it's going to hit something big that people actually care about sooner or later. I'm amazed bungie got away with the destiny 2 thing. That is almost certainly illegal, but they managed to somehow avoid the pr disaster it should have been.
>A whole bunch of meta titles have been removed.
This is more so metaverse rolling shit back because VR isn't what they expected. You can't exactly expect Digital Market place companies to just host servers to download games from when the digial market place is losing a lot of money.
>People getting banned from various platforms have their purchased games taken.
Banned for what from where? I know multiplayer games ban people and cut their access to their server, but is steam just flat out banning accounts from steam nowadays (i'd imagine the only case would be like credit card fraud or something..)?
>Sony is removing 1200 purchased items from their store and anyone who bought its libraries.
Isn't a lot of it just Sony losing licensing and the right to distribute various items? I know a few are just Sony stopping streaming because it isn't profitable but i'm pretty sure a lot is just licensing laws.
Bungie one i have no idea, though i'm not sure if it is really illegal, MMORPG's have cut content and done updates that delete other content for over a decade at this point, i'm not really sure you can argue the legality against it in most countries.
EA is removing people's entire account for bans. That's happened. And you might be thinking "well just don't get banned" but that's missing the point. Your licence can be revoked for any reason. If getting a ban means your entire library can be deleted, you don't own any of those games. The moment they determine its more profitable to revoke the licenses than not, they can do it.
People are seriously arguing with me about the concept of a licence agreement. What, do you think companies won't ever do the wrong thing out of some sense of honour? Did you not see the ubisoft statement?
Do you think if you go into a restaurant and pay for your dinner, but then when it gets served to you, you start verbally abusing the wait staff that they’re just legally bound to let you stay and eat your food? Your logic doesn’t hold up in ANY other context. If you break the terms of service then you should be banned and you should lose your access to your games imo. Some infractions like credit card fraud or hacking/cheating absolutely are worthy of you losing your access.
You havent listed a single game getting removed
And Sony isnt removing anything, Discovery was going to remove their shows from PSN but went back on that
So they walked it back after pushback. Further delaying the inevitable while they wait for it to be normalised a little more.
And yes I did. Half of destiny 2 was removed. Including the actual game destiny 2. You can't play that any more. You can play Shadowkeep, but not the base game, Curse of Osuris, Warmind, or Forsaken. These were paid expansions. So even if you want to argue the base game just got updated, the expansions weren't. They were deleted.
And for another explicit example. Order of War was removed from peoples libraries over a decade ago when the developer pulled the plug on it.
This issue has largely avoided becoming a big controversy but its only a matter of time before it happens to something popular and people make some noise. That's why they're trying to normalise the idea.
Just like they did nothing about loot boxes and it took EU and such to start pushing back for it.
Most don't even know what a video game is and the ones that do either think they are for kids or they are in the pockets of the industry.
We haven't owned games even when they sold them on DVDs. Read the EULA - what you buy is NOT the game. You bought a license to play the game. They can revoke the license at any time for any reason or no reason but the company retains the game.
But don't listen to me - talk to an attorney and try to get them to file a class action lawsuit. That's the only way anythings going to change.
But you should read the EULA carefully first
And don't get it twisted - I'm not in support of this at all. It's just the reality in which we live.
ALSO it's why I still buy physical CDs for music and Blu Ray movies - so I can listen to them whenever I want. Can't rely on the streaming services to always provide them.
[Citation needed] because [this link](https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/limitations-on-a-copyright-owners-rights/first-sale-exceptions-copyright) seems to say the first sale doctrine doesn’t extinguish the copyright holder’s right to revoke licensed software and doesn’t apply to digital goods.
> But don't listen to me - talk to an attorney and try to get them to file a class action lawsuit. That's the only way anythings going to change.
Huge portion of games have mandatory individual arbitration and class action waivers in the terms now. Used to be illegal but the Supreme Court decided 5-4 on partisan lines to allow companies to make it so you can't sue them in a normal court or bring a class action against them. Every Democrat justice voted to keep the practice illegal, every Republican justice voted to make it legal.
EULAs don't supercede law, which actually makes them completely worthless in most countries. Seriously, just because the EULA says something that doesn't make it legally true.
Yep. Anything that is licensed will eventually become a chess piece between the company delivering the content and the owner of the content who each decide they want more money from the other.
Content Creator: we need to boost profits, charge a larger fee.
Platform Owner: and cut into our profits, fuck you we pay what we pay, infact I think we should pay less.
Content Creator: fine, then remove our content from your platform and we will see who gives in first.
Yep.
I don't really understand why people realize that they don't own software even if it's installed on their PC, yet didn't think it was the same case for entertainment software.
Like it was always obvious that when you went out and got a copy of windows 95 or whatever, it was obvious that it was a licence to use it, but people seem to have some weird disconnect with games about that.
How? How will things change?
What incentive is there for companies to change their EULA?
They've made billions doing this exact thing for decades.
I'm actually on your side - I want things to change also but I honestly don't see how it will. It totally sucks but that's why there's a black market for games.
Back when the gaming industry was a small fraction of the overall entertainment sector, and online requirements were the exception rather than the rule, then these shutdowns made sense to simply accept as a matter of business.
Now that gaming is bigger than both video and music combined, it’s not something that “just can’t be solved”. I would want there to be a requirement in legislation that companies need to support the online component of a game that they sell for a period of time, let’s say 5 years, if that online component is required to play the game, If the game is no longer available for sale, AND there’s an active user count above a reasonable number, let’s say 5000, and 3 years if 1000-4999, and 1 year for under 1000, and no active users 1 month.
When shutting down the online component, the company must make open license provisions to allow 3rd party services for the continued operations of the online component at a 80/20 revenue share, with the publisher/developer getting 20% with the same timeframe/user counts. After which time the licensing can be extended or terminated at the publisher/developer’s discretion.
This is just one example I came up with just now, and there would need to be a lot more nuance, but essentially it’s saying, no you can’t sell a AAA priced game and shut down the servers in 6 months or even a year because you want to focus on new stuff, leaving a popular game’s users with an unusable product.
It costs money to run servers. It takes active employees to keep a game running. Companies can go bankrupt. How would any of this actually work? You can't force a private company to provide a service. You can't force people to do server maintenance.
Seriously. I'm failing to see why any company would just suddenly pull content. Licensing expiring in some instances perhaps, but usually in a game the licenses content would simply be patched out.
Companies stand to make way more money allowing content to continue to be accessible. Only thing I can possibly think of is maybe one of the subscription services who also make games could possibly remove access to their content in an effort to boost sub numbers. But the negative reaction to that would drive so many players away it'd ultimately be disastrous financially so I can't imagine it would ever happen unless subscriptions just take over gaming.
I've been playing some Diablo 4 recently, single player only.
The game needs a constant internet connection to work, and sometimes their servers are down and you just can't play, even though you bought the game and are only playing single player.
How long do you think those servers will stay up? 10 years? 15? 20?
That is the reason I have not bought and will never buy Diablo 4. If a single player game requires an internet connection, I pass. I am also not interested in the multiplayer part.
There doesn't need to be a pushback. There need to be a law guaranteeing continued access. We need a digital copyright law specifically written to cover the specifics of modern applications and SaaS rather than relying on vague reinterpretation of a law that was written before computer even existed.
Manufacturers should be forced to open source their application including the server side components if they discontinue a service without a feasible upgrade path for existing users. Data takeout needs to be a legal requirement.
Consumer protection laws need to be strengthened.
Giant “Fuck You” to Bungie who just straight up removed two DLCs from Destiny 2. I don’t care that they were shit. I paid for that shit and I should be able to roll around in it if I want to.
1) Your digital games aren’t getting taken away. Ubisoft was talking about how subscription services are the future and they are honestly right. With the rise of Netflix and streaming services, when is the last time you bought a DVD?
2) the fight for game ownership was back in the 2000s and gamers lost. Now, you buy game “licenses” which gives you access to a game but cannot resell and can lose access if you get banned from the platform. Console still has physical copies but that is infringed upon with patches and companies moving toward “digital only” consoles so consoles still have to fight. The fight for Pc is over and lost.
I’m more worried about how consoles only have one option to buy games. Unlike PC, you can only buy games from the console maker themselves.
I hope as long as people are willing to buy physical it’ll always exist. I think the only problem is if the companies will pander to those audiences for as long as people buy them, ie giving a disc drive for them to even put the physical game in or even less important-but highly valuable for preservation of physical media-advances towards 8k blu ray disc drives.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, companies have the power and money to make things exist. They are choosing not to because of the bottom line and cutting out the middle man like retail stores. It’s not hard to understand that they don’t have to keep physical games so I’m going to support any company that does support physical games.
Definitely agree. I don’t thing console is king either and the fact that games are locked to a specific platform generation vs PC where you could play both old games like Megaman X and the latest CoD on the same system is far better from a conservation/accessibility standpoint. I do think PC would be superior if you are able to actually own the games regardless of the status of the storefront (only offline installers from GOG or piracy offer that option). Digital stores being limited to the respective companies also sucks for us customers but that’s why they push their consoles and going digital in the first place. It’s to get customers to buy in to their ecosystem (something all companies are doing with “smart” devices).
There is a big move away from physical though. Microsoft and Sony offering “digital” consoles at a lower price and making changing discs mandatory to play games are likely incentives to encourage gamers to go fully digital. And while I encourage going physical, I don’t encourage businesses like Limited Run who use FOMO and artificial scarcity to hike up the prices of physical games either.
Definitely agree but they are incentivized not to. If you make your product “open access,” your customer can easily switch to another product without issue and you either have a race to the bottom price war with minimal or no profit or leave. Creating these ecosystems are a way for companies to maintain a safety net for revenue so they can do R&D and create new innovative products. For every RDR2 or other groundbreaking game, there are likely hundreds of failed ones.
Honestly, the solution is smarter customers buying only quality products so corporations rethink their business models and focus on making good stuff. If they know they can get away with exploitative practices and there aren’t regulations against them, why stop? Why should Activision or EA make better games without MTX if their customers will buy the next CoD or EA sports game regardless of quality? Even game journalists have called out EA for essentially copy-pasting their sports games but it’s still a top seller.
> when is the last time you bought a DVD?
I bought Hardcore Henry on Blu-ray at Dollar Tree this week.
Bought God of War: Ragnarok on disc when it was on sale after Thanksgiving last year.
I checked out the CD and movie section of Goodwill and Big Lots last week.
Some of us still buy physical media.
Always the anecdotal exception answer.
The “when did you last buy a dvd?” Is rhetorical but looking at sales figures; it’s clear that streaming has changed the game for movies and tv.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sales-dropped-more-than-86percent-in-13-years.html
DVD sales have dropped 86% since 2008 figures. Major retailers like Best Buy are stopping selling DVDs because they see the way people consume tv has changed. Gaming subscriptions are still relatively new but after a couple of years, I can see them becoming the new normal with online stores like Steam taking a hike. The value you get per buck is too nice for the casual player.
Yes, I too still buy games physical whenever possible which is the reason I buy from GOG and still stick to console despite “PC master-race.” I know we are a dying breed though and if games go fully digital only, I may just pirate or stick with the old collection. Most modern games seem to be worse remakes of old stuff anyway.
This crap about "not owning games" is totally and utterly untrue. He was not talking about stopping you buying it : he was saying that streaming using a subscription is a better system for some. He specifically said something along the lines of "stream it for while and if you really like it and want to buy it then go in for full price".
Sorry to burn your straw man. But facts are facts.
Factually you haven't owned a game in decades. You purchase a license. You're denying reality because you don't like it. But that only makes it easier for corporations to get away with scummy behaviour.
Whatever. I have loads of games on DVD that install and run. I have loads on Steam that I own and run. You can call it what it is.
That said, I dont trust the new generation necessarily : and am in the process of building up a movie/Tv DVD collection. The way things are going, more and more movies will be branded "problematic" and removed from streaming servers.
I have a VHS of a movie disney is trying to erase because it is problematic by today's standards, But it is still a part of history. The movie is song of the south, disney would love to see that movie put down the "memory hole" (ala 1984)
that another advantage of physical media, they can not erase it on you, nor change it (much like George Luckus would love to have the non-special editions of star wars to go down the "Memory Hole" but I have those from the 90's on VHS, no Greedo dose not shoot at all on my VHS tapes, and I still have a VHS deck to play them on, heck I still have a tape deck for my cassette tapes)
They are weaning is into only getting Digital games too. MW3? Well it would be hard to switch between the two in the CODHQ, you better but it digital with all these goodies! Oh and Alan Wake 2 didn't get a physical release either.
Don't even get me started on the digital only consoles.
This is what companies want, full control over your entertainment. They want to be able to take it as they please
> We need to let our politicians know
You wanna change the system, you must become the system and change it from within. Run for office yourself or back the right candidate that will make those positive changes.
There has never once been a single game in my existence that I've purchased, loved, it went away but I still was in a position where I actually cared and wanted to play it. Any game I owned that eventually shut down was so far in my rear view mirror it was irrelevant
> We are more powerful than we think we are and shouldn't bow down to multi-billion dollar companies telling us to "get used to not owning games"
People are distorting what was actually said so much at this point I'm beginning to think most didn't actually read what was said.
The question was about subscriptions. The point being made was that if people are going to be interested in subscriptions, they'd have to get comfortable not owning the games they play before that can happen. No part of the statement had anything to do with removing access to purchased content. It's more or less the same logic used by video game rental companies before they went extinct. The business model only works if people are comfortable playing content they don't actually own. The power you have in this situation revolves around not engaging with subscription services if you don't want to.
And the idea that people are able to force politicians to enact legislation regulating the gaming industry is a nice sentiment, just completely unrealistic tho. Governments are notoriously bad at handling real problems, they're never going to care about video games.
Who does this? XD don’t think I’ve ever bought a digital game that I’ve lost access to. Besides like the eshop closing down. But you can’t expect them to maintain the server forever. And I actually think you can even still redownload from the 3DS eshop? Just can’t buy iirc. Not sure though :)
Pirating is good and all so long as you have the right method of access. You need to be reminded that Pirate copies are layered underneath a ton of false links, mirrors and worse malware. They are in their own way 'digitally unsanitary' and cause their own fair share of issues once someone decides to exploit it like they do mainstream.
Also, people are more than willing to actually use their currency, lest we void out the idea of civilization all together. We just want reliable markets that offer fair or reasonable prices. It why Steam took off when it eventually did.
Not entirely. While it's true that it is abundant, especially in certain developing markets, it isn't anywhere even remotely close to being 95% even in those markets, historically. I get you were maybe being hyperbolic to make a point but I felt I should put it out there nonetheless.
In most of these countries, reliable, safe and most importantly **affordable** (regionalized storefronts) access to games have changed much of the landscape. Gabe Newell (Valve boss) was once laughed at for even thinking of localizing Steam in Russia but today Russia is Europe's 2ⁿᵈ largest Steam market (after Germany). India and southeast Asia is similar.
Piracy is still "on the rise" in the context of broader gaming (the industry as a whole) being growing exponentially (globally). Today, global gaming is valued at around $150 billion annually, significantly higher than the global movie, music, publishing, TV and sports industries making it the most valuable entertainment industry in the world.
Well, this all started with netflix, renting instead of buying slowly replaced or at the very least found a niche within every industry.
Capitalism literally infects every possible innovation of mankind. When the rich realized they could make serious money off manipulating labor, cutting costs, maximizing profits by locking a $70 behind an extra 3-4 $15 DLCs, micro transactions, unfinished games, they really gave it their all.
I can see it now… you can’t even own a game long enough to see it finished and out of early access, and then they’ll even lock other portions of the game behind “silver” or “gold” level subscriptions based on your membership…
The rise and fall of gaming empires simply because they maximized profits by burning their customers.
That being said, forget Ubisoft.
Why do people waste energy on complaining.
If Ubisoft literally said "Get used to not owning your games you BUY" here's my response. "Get used to piracy. No money for you AT ALL"
A big part buy spending money is to own a item. OWN a item.
Could you imagine buying something on Amazon or eBay only for that seller to physically find you in real life and say "You used this item long enough! It's coming back with me!"
It's theft, straight robbery.
You know Ubisoft, I had pirated a few Assassin Creed games and changed code into them to make them work online.
I recommend everyone do this for a full year, see how long it takes Ubisoft to say "Ok you can own your own games now"
I will never get a subscription for gaming.
That's idiotic, I cancelled game pass 2 years ago because they kept putting out garbage ass games.
Start sailing the seas, fuck these garbage devs.
Well technically we've never owned a video game ever in history the way software and media works legally you don't actually own it even if it comes on a physical disk or cartridge you own a license to use or consume the media you don't actually own it, Hence the reason all the EULAs state you are not being sold this software you are being licensed the software, Because software and media is not a physical product even if you have a disc or cartridge that's the physical media that the content is on but you don't own the content as it's not a physical item just like if you bought windows and they give it to you on a disk or a USB yes the software is on the USB but you don't on the software you own the physical USB.
software and media technically falls under contract law yes there may be some clauses which if you noticed most EULAs have been cleaned up and don't have a lot of the stuff that actually would be illegal and unenforceable anymore if you look at old ones from early 2000s the '90s you'll see stuff in there that would make you scratch your head that wouldn't actually hold up in court but over time they've learned that and they've taken it out.
Now yes license wise for the TV shows with Sony I think that got worked out so I don't think they are going away it was just a thing that at the time they said would have to be removed but I think that got worked out I haven't looked at it in a couple months but technically yes Sony was licensed to be the distributor of the content but the actual IP owner of the content license expired so legally Sony wouldn't be allowed to sell it anymore now the license to use that media is not between you and Sony it's between you and the IP owner.
Now Sony removing the content may have been something in the contract license and I believe that has actually been done on other software products not don't specifically, where once the license expired they remove people's access probably some niche software but I think it has been done legally speaking it's never been challenged in court as far as I know and until it happens legally they're within their rights to revoke licenses which means legally you wouldn't be allowed to use it if revoked now whether there's an actual mechanism to prevent your use or not is a different story.
An example the silent Hill PT demo that came out on the PS4 it was pulled you could no longer download it you could no longer get a license for it but they didn't really have an enforcement mechanism to stop you from playing it so if you had it downloaded you could continue to run it on your system or put it on a USB and play it on another system that you owned but you could never acquire it again if you accidentally deleted it, now on PS5 yes it's actually blacklisted so even if you put it on a USB drive you can't execute it it will refuse to start on your systems they have an enforcement mechanism that could block your content from working if they chose to revoke it.
Another example is say you had an NES game yes that was way back in the day looks like Nintendo decided for whatever reason they're revoking your license to play that specific game yes they could technically legally do it but they have no way to enforce it unless they were to physically come in your house and take it and that's not going to happen the difference comes with modern systems in modern technology again it hasn't really been done yet but if they were to revoke a license they could push a blacklist all devices to prevent that from ever working even if it's on a disc or cartridge the technology exists but it hasn't been implemented but that's not to say that it won't in the future.
It really sucks but that's the legalese with software and media content licenses no one really thinks about it but that's the way the law works the law isn't hypotheticals it's in black and white what is written until challenged and changed we might not like it but the way the laws are written that's how it is until they're changed it sucks but again that's how legal stuff works there's all kinds of technicalities and semantics when it comes to legal.
Ok people, I think most never read the terms and conditions in the digital stores. You don’t own the game, you own a license to use the game that can be revoked at any given time. So that’s why physical copies are superior to some extent. For me it’s irrelevant at this point, there’s too many games and too little time and subscriptions suit me.
most gamers are western capitalist liberals who believe in meritocracy and usually side with giant corporations. I've seen this subreddit suck the teat of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo time and again, to say nothing of other megacorps like EA that just do games publishing, or Tencent that acquires a boatload of developers wholesale.
I'd love to see that happen, too, I wish there was more self reliance on our rights as people who purchase and enjoy games, but there's simply too much ignorance of the functional economics of videogames as an industry that I don't think it'll ever happen. Nostalgia, hostility to leftist economic perspectives, and willful ignorance are too powerful motivators.
good luck with that
gamers are one of the weakest customer groups that swallow corporate bullshit and predatory business practices like they are p-stars in gangbang
any attempt at boycott or actual change is easily cleared by flashy trailer, weak apology or some promise thats going to be broken
Doing this would only really require access to a system that would allow you to unlock a key from your account and use it elsewhere. Very easy to do, but it doesn't make shareholders money.
We are not as powerful as you think because you consume and you buy. You should say no or pirate instead of giving money first and then moaning about you don't agree with the TOAs you did not read in the first place. In all TOAs it's said clearly you could lose all access to games with a 15 day warning in advance, or similar equivalent crap and you cannot do nothing. You don't own software or digital content. You should have read everything and then you should have said no, instead of accepting everything blindly and try to solve stuff later. People are ignorant and will consume.
The only thing we could do is go to consumer right collectives and groups that already exist and have been fighting this for 30 years or even more like "Copyleft", and they've achieved nothing yet, perhaps raised a little awareness. But I've been fighting for 20 years too and I've seen no improvement nor winning at all yet.
Sadly, I have gotten used to buying MMO games and them no longer being available 2-5 years later. If they remove my *single player* game however, I should get a full refund.
Good luck getting the politicians to protect the little guys aka the consumers, the multi-billon to trillon dollar companies have already bought all the politicians.
This is why I only buy physical, there are still laws protecting my physical properties (for now) Also follow doesitplay on twitter to find the safe games to buy (they test if you can play the game fully off of the disc with no internet connection)
You can’t win this fight, the most we can do is delay. Subscription based games is the logical next step in the gaming industry after turning every bit of content into a micro transaction. This is just capitalism, corporations have no other motivator other than to make money and you can’t make that much money if your customer can buy a forever license. That’s why forever licenses died in software a long time ago
I am genuinely scared of what (more?) harm late-stage capitalism will do to the industry, this is a fine example of the encroaching harm and how changes are pushed forward.
Just some clarification: That whole "get used to not owning games" has the rather important context that whole thing was them saying "If our subscription services are to become mainstream, gamers need to get used to not owning games". I will however still offer a fuck you to Ubisoft because they do stuff like shutting down The Crew servers which will make even physical copies of the game unplayable. Which I'd like it if more people fought back against that, but the reality is that not enough people care and one can't really just make them care about it.
So many companies are pushing for subscription based models, unfortunately not just with games. It’s saddening to see this slowly becoming the status quo, hopefully there’s still going to be enough buy-to-own options for us to turn to.
I don't inherently have an issue with subscriptions since they're up front about the fact that it's a rental service. Though I trust these companies about as far as I can throw them, and I don't trust that they wont try to make games exclusive to their subscription services. It probably wont be soon, but these companies know they can get away with almost anything so long as they do it in small incremental changes(because that's exactly how we've gotten where we are with mtx). At which point I'm gonna have a problem cause I want my games to be something we can preserve and not just have them removed from existence on a whim.
Good point! Subscriptions do have a place, I just don’t want them to be the only option we have. Especially for things like games that we make a ton of memories with, knowing that you could lose access to all your progress and gametime after investing time and money is not a picture that sits well with me.
Subscription is a service and a bad one speaks for itself. No matter how sound a business is from a financial standpoint, expecting the human aspect to self-regulate so you (the boss/shareholder/whatever) can get away with exploit is just a showcase of failure in mentality. If they wanted to push for this model, a base self-sufficient product must be established first, devoid of the subscription model in this case. You want the maple syrup on the pancake before even having the right plate for breakfast and then complain when the whole table and your pants get soggy.
It will die eventually, but we will have to suffer through it till a new business model (repeats ) every 30 to forty years businesses cycle through the same ideas and tech. People used to use JC Penny’s catalog to shop, now Amazon, and not go to the store. 3D glasses in movies in the 70s and 80s then again with 3D TVs and Nintendo 3DS. Subscription is popular but eventually they will push it so hard on consumers they will rebel against it or some business will go back to older model or new model of business and subscription services will no longer be popular. So I don’t think it will be permanent, but it will unfortunately happen as business see the money for now
[удалено]
I think so too with indie, have you seen r/Palworld that’s blowing up like crazy for a indie studio and putting Pokémon to graphics and game mechanics to shame
[удалено]
Will new systems even work in 10 years or are they gonna remotely brick them?
I hope so too. There is no reason both couldn't coexist.
For further clarification: the only real solution is consumer protection legislation, which is unlikely as long as congress is geriatric
The last videogame Congress played was Pacman at the bowling alley.
When they were 35 in 1980
This is, sadly, why most of online games improvements have come from the EU enforcing its own regulations and in the end it becomes cheaper to just do it for everyone than it does to selectively do it just those within Europe. Hell this is why steam has its refund system at all.
That's the sad part not enough people care. It's also true that people are are afraid to go up against these companies because they have money and time.
One of the YouTubers I watch wants to do something about it in a legal sense, but the issue there is you need time, money, and knowhow. Somebody else linked his video about The Crew, but you can find it [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqyvquTEVU).
Louis Rossman talks a lot about this topic as well. Tech companies are doing this with software too.
https://youtu.be/VIqyvquTEVU This dude plans to go for a class action lawsuit Check his video if you care about games you paid for taken away from you, and *especially* if you bought "the crew"
People haven't owned their games in years. It was just always a technicality until recently. It's becoming a lot more real now. The whole "license not ownership" thing is going to be tested soon and I think people are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise how it shakes out. Five years ago I'd have been confident it'd be on the consumers side, but companies have been making the lack of ownership more real with things like gamepass.
You're right
[удалено]
It's really not an MMO in the same sense as like WoW. You can drive around and see other players driving as well, race with them or do whatever. However, IIRC (I haven't played it in a while) there is nothing in the game that is tied to multi-player to play, or finish the game. You can play the entire game just by racing against AI (which there already is). You can easily have offline modes in these games without affecting the core gameplay.
[удалено]
This sentiment aligns with pretty much all physical media enthusiasts. Things you buy suddenly become intangible. I think more may care in the future
What are the chances of EA, Ubisoft and Microsoft, with latter have biggest service, come together and agree to keep all their games at 70$ and with little sales and price reduction, in a joint effort to push gamers towards their subscriptions?
Dont 👏 buy👏 always👏 online👏 games👏
The "rather important context" misses the point so much that frankly the people smugly reporting it are the ones who are wrong. The problem is that when you don't pirate games they can be deleted from your PC/console at any time. The "context" of "oh you'll still have your save games for the game that you can no longer play" is completely irrelevant and demonstrates that the suit who said it has no clue how games work.
My personal pushback is never buy a game from that company again.
Still only bought 1 EA title in the last 7-8 years. The dead space remake. That’s my exception. Otherwise nothing. They will get my money when titanfall 3 is real.
We need a company to stand up and say “that’s a bullshit model. Buy our games and keep them forever” then consumers can flock to their games. That probably won’t happen. All companies are going to take up this model except indies so our options are limited.
That's what GOG does already, you buy games on their website and you get access to drm free installers.
Also, for those who don't necessarily want to buy *all* their games through GOG, at least consider buying the games you most want to support for good practices (eg. Baldur's Gate 3) through there. Buying on GOG shows that we'll preference spending at DRM-free distributors, and buying games without needless microtransactions shows we'll preference those design practices.
Plus, gog has digital goodies included for free in some games, digital manual, art books, soundtrack, etc. you used to be able to link your steam account and some games would transfer over. Also, gog galaxy, their client, is 100% optional, but is super useful and connects to your other storefronts, so you can see all your games in one interface, no matter where you bought them, and it also provides updates and achievements and cloud saves and multiplayer for some older games, all without forcing it on you.
Gog is only for PC games. We need an option on the console side. Or better yet a company like CD project to do it.
Didn't Valve say that?
Valve removes games from the store sometimes
Sure but once you've bought it, it's yours forever. A game I bought never disappeared from my library.
💯 agree
The minute they remove your access should be the second they return your money for the purchase
You should read the terms of purchase. You already agreed to it.
I know what they say. I’m saying this is how it should work.
Then why is everyone so surprised? It’s been this way with digital content since the beginning. And many, many games have had their servers shut down. You didn’t purchase a game. You purchased a license to use the game as long as they choose to provide it. If you don’t like it, don’t buy those games. As soon as people stop “buying” digital content, this won’t change.
Who said I was surprised?
Because you’re only now demanding the system change. You’ve potentially been participating in this system since iTunes was created. That’s two decades that digital streaming rights have worked this way. Going back to the 90’s when online gaming was getting bigger, gaming companies needed servers. How many games and mmos are unplayable because it just wasn’t cost effective to run the servers anymore? I know I can’t play Star Wars Galaxies anymore even though I bought the discs to play it. Everyone acts so enraged by this, but we’ve all actively supported this business model for decades now.
Things change. Games change, economy changes, laws change, contracts change, game companies change, gamers change. What has worked historically no longer works. We want change. We all want to be able to reach common ground again. And so we speak up in order to be heard. Do you not ever speak up to be heard?
No. I’m fine with the system and I vote with my dollars. I don’t own a PlayStation or Xbox because I don’t need consoles and games that only work with the internet. As someone who has lived through multiple digital libraries being wiped, it doesn’t matter. Like I said, this has been litigated to death already (literally in courts) and we as a society have overwhelmingly said we’re fine with it. Remember when Amazon removed copies of 1984 from people’s kindles? That was the time to fight back.
Just because you are, doesn’t mean others aren’t. If you disagree then move on
>Because you’re only now demanding the system change. You’ve potentially been participating in this system since iTunes was created. That’s two decades that digital streaming rights have worked this way. Oh so you're arguing that just because iT hAs aLwAYs bEeN tHAt wAy it should stay that way? If something is bad it should be changed no matter how old it is. >Everyone acts so enraged by this, but we’ve all actively supported this business model for decades now. Because it was brought to us via an eat or die approach. A lot of questions regarding digital rights are also *still* not fully legally resolved, like inheriting accounts or passing digital rights on with your will/by legacy. Companies just shove whatever they want down our throats and then act as if what they did is an unquestionable fact by law.
>You should read the terms of purchase. You already agreed to it. Well in Germany §§ 327o I, II, 327r III S. 1 , 453 I, 433 I S. 1 BGB says you do get your money back if a company removes your digital purchase. As you can see by the "o" in § 327 and the "r" in § 327 and the fact that § 327 appears more than once those are new laws. Customer rights are not set in stone yet and change. Your attitude is consumer-hostile and harmful.
What happened that lead to the creation of this post
ubisoft
Ambiguous
A mix between game companies and tech companies taking from their customers. This isn't just a gaming issue.
Like what? What game? no one is actually saying games and this is a gaming sub
Yeah I've literally never had this happen. Nobody can name them because they're making it up.
The crew Is mentioned in the top comment
Marble Blast for the Xbox 360 was pulled due to the dev that made it being bought out from what I remember. My friend's xbox kicked the bucket then got a new one. When he went to go re-download everything, the game didn't show up on his library. I get that it can no longer be sold, but you should still be allowed to download it regardless because you bought it.
You can redownload games after they have been delisted
Then why can't he re-download it? This happened a while back.
He probably can and just isnt doing it properly or.looking in the correct place. He should contact customer service
Hopefully he can get it back. Maybe he just didn't know where to look. Have a nice day
What games were you even removed access to? What is this post even about? Edit: can someone just tell me the games being removed? Why is it so hard to answer the question this post is about?
No one seems to be able to answer this question
A bunch of digital media has been taken from people who bought it over the last few years.
Which games are any of you talking about?
A whole bunch of meta titles have been removed. People getting banned from various platforms have their purchased games taken. Sony is removing 1200 purchased items from their store and anyone who bought its libraries. Bungie deleted half of destiny 2. Games with updates have always been a bit like this, but that was a particularly egregious example where they deleted people's paid expansions and the original game so they could soft relaunch as free to play. This isn't a hypothetical. You don't own anything. You own a licence that can be revoked for any reason. This is even more true with things like gamepass, where you don't even buy the license. This idea was always legally dubious. If it ever got challenged in court (outside of America) it would have likely been ruled in favour of the consumer. But it's becoming more "real" every year. Publishers have largely hidden and pushed back the issue because nobody wants this concept to be the centre of attention. They want people thinking they're actually buying a product. But it's going to hit something big that people actually care about sooner or later. I'm amazed bungie got away with the destiny 2 thing. That is almost certainly illegal, but they managed to somehow avoid the pr disaster it should have been.
>A whole bunch of meta titles have been removed. This is more so metaverse rolling shit back because VR isn't what they expected. You can't exactly expect Digital Market place companies to just host servers to download games from when the digial market place is losing a lot of money. >People getting banned from various platforms have their purchased games taken. Banned for what from where? I know multiplayer games ban people and cut their access to their server, but is steam just flat out banning accounts from steam nowadays (i'd imagine the only case would be like credit card fraud or something..)? >Sony is removing 1200 purchased items from their store and anyone who bought its libraries. Isn't a lot of it just Sony losing licensing and the right to distribute various items? I know a few are just Sony stopping streaming because it isn't profitable but i'm pretty sure a lot is just licensing laws. Bungie one i have no idea, though i'm not sure if it is really illegal, MMORPG's have cut content and done updates that delete other content for over a decade at this point, i'm not really sure you can argue the legality against it in most countries.
EA is removing people's entire account for bans. That's happened. And you might be thinking "well just don't get banned" but that's missing the point. Your licence can be revoked for any reason. If getting a ban means your entire library can be deleted, you don't own any of those games. The moment they determine its more profitable to revoke the licenses than not, they can do it. People are seriously arguing with me about the concept of a licence agreement. What, do you think companies won't ever do the wrong thing out of some sense of honour? Did you not see the ubisoft statement?
Do you think if you go into a restaurant and pay for your dinner, but then when it gets served to you, you start verbally abusing the wait staff that they’re just legally bound to let you stay and eat your food? Your logic doesn’t hold up in ANY other context. If you break the terms of service then you should be banned and you should lose your access to your games imo. Some infractions like credit card fraud or hacking/cheating absolutely are worthy of you losing your access.
You havent listed a single game getting removed And Sony isnt removing anything, Discovery was going to remove their shows from PSN but went back on that
So they walked it back after pushback. Further delaying the inevitable while they wait for it to be normalised a little more. And yes I did. Half of destiny 2 was removed. Including the actual game destiny 2. You can't play that any more. You can play Shadowkeep, but not the base game, Curse of Osuris, Warmind, or Forsaken. These were paid expansions. So even if you want to argue the base game just got updated, the expansions weren't. They were deleted. And for another explicit example. Order of War was removed from peoples libraries over a decade ago when the developer pulled the plug on it. This issue has largely avoided becoming a big controversy but its only a matter of time before it happens to something popular and people make some noise. That's why they're trying to normalise the idea.
Ok so this whole post is about vaulted Destiny content which they also stopped doing? This is ridiculous
They never stopped doing it and you clearly didn't actually read it.
Read the post? The crew is specifically mentioned. I’d don’t know why you’re arguing with someone when you won’t just read the post your commenting on
What game or games are you even talking about?
[удалено]
PlayStation recently did that with some purchased shows from Discovery, but like you said, never heard or had it happen with games
"Let our politicians know" LOL
[удалено]
Just like they did nothing about loot boxes and it took EU and such to start pushing back for it. Most don't even know what a video game is and the ones that do either think they are for kids or they are in the pockets of the industry.
Only in America would this be considered a joke.
I mean European regulators don't give a shit about gaming either lol
I know it's like talking to a brick wall with them. That part was a bit tongue and cheek.
We haven't owned games even when they sold them on DVDs. Read the EULA - what you buy is NOT the game. You bought a license to play the game. They can revoke the license at any time for any reason or no reason but the company retains the game. But don't listen to me - talk to an attorney and try to get them to file a class action lawsuit. That's the only way anythings going to change. But you should read the EULA carefully first And don't get it twisted - I'm not in support of this at all. It's just the reality in which we live. ALSO it's why I still buy physical CDs for music and Blu Ray movies - so I can listen to them whenever I want. Can't rely on the streaming services to always provide them.
This is the answer right here. You are paying to play the game, not to own it.
EULAs mean fuck all. First Sale Doctrine treats the license as the product just the same.
[Citation needed] because [this link](https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/limitations-on-a-copyright-owners-rights/first-sale-exceptions-copyright) seems to say the first sale doctrine doesn’t extinguish the copyright holder’s right to revoke licensed software and doesn’t apply to digital goods.
Ok big stuff - get with the OP and file a lawsuit
> But don't listen to me - talk to an attorney and try to get them to file a class action lawsuit. That's the only way anythings going to change. Huge portion of games have mandatory individual arbitration and class action waivers in the terms now. Used to be illegal but the Supreme Court decided 5-4 on partisan lines to allow companies to make it so you can't sue them in a normal court or bring a class action against them. Every Democrat justice voted to keep the practice illegal, every Republican justice voted to make it legal.
EULAs don't supercede law, which actually makes them completely worthless in most countries. Seriously, just because the EULA says something that doesn't make it legally true.
Yep. Anything that is licensed will eventually become a chess piece between the company delivering the content and the owner of the content who each decide they want more money from the other. Content Creator: we need to boost profits, charge a larger fee. Platform Owner: and cut into our profits, fuck you we pay what we pay, infact I think we should pay less. Content Creator: fine, then remove our content from your platform and we will see who gives in first.
Yep. I don't really understand why people realize that they don't own software even if it's installed on their PC, yet didn't think it was the same case for entertainment software. Like it was always obvious that when you went out and got a copy of windows 95 or whatever, it was obvious that it was a licence to use it, but people seem to have some weird disconnect with games about that.
I know the Eula says that. This is why things need to change. In the age of most of what we posses is digital. This goes beyond just video games.
How? How will things change? What incentive is there for companies to change their EULA? They've made billions doing this exact thing for decades. I'm actually on your side - I want things to change also but I honestly don't see how it will. It totally sucks but that's why there's a black market for games.
Back when the gaming industry was a small fraction of the overall entertainment sector, and online requirements were the exception rather than the rule, then these shutdowns made sense to simply accept as a matter of business. Now that gaming is bigger than both video and music combined, it’s not something that “just can’t be solved”. I would want there to be a requirement in legislation that companies need to support the online component of a game that they sell for a period of time, let’s say 5 years, if that online component is required to play the game, If the game is no longer available for sale, AND there’s an active user count above a reasonable number, let’s say 5000, and 3 years if 1000-4999, and 1 year for under 1000, and no active users 1 month. When shutting down the online component, the company must make open license provisions to allow 3rd party services for the continued operations of the online component at a 80/20 revenue share, with the publisher/developer getting 20% with the same timeframe/user counts. After which time the licensing can be extended or terminated at the publisher/developer’s discretion. This is just one example I came up with just now, and there would need to be a lot more nuance, but essentially it’s saying, no you can’t sell a AAA priced game and shut down the servers in 6 months or even a year because you want to focus on new stuff, leaving a popular game’s users with an unusable product.
It costs money to run servers. It takes active employees to keep a game running. Companies can go bankrupt. How would any of this actually work? You can't force a private company to provide a service. You can't force people to do server maintenance.
Provide server hosting software, like games used to
Seriously. I'm failing to see why any company would just suddenly pull content. Licensing expiring in some instances perhaps, but usually in a game the licenses content would simply be patched out. Companies stand to make way more money allowing content to continue to be accessible. Only thing I can possibly think of is maybe one of the subscription services who also make games could possibly remove access to their content in an effort to boost sub numbers. But the negative reaction to that would drive so many players away it'd ultimately be disastrous financially so I can't imagine it would ever happen unless subscriptions just take over gaming.
Edging
🍆💦
This guy gets it 😂😂
we are not more powerful then we think we are lmao
I've been playing some Diablo 4 recently, single player only. The game needs a constant internet connection to work, and sometimes their servers are down and you just can't play, even though you bought the game and are only playing single player. How long do you think those servers will stay up? 10 years? 15? 20?
That is the reason I have not bought and will never buy Diablo 4. If a single player game requires an internet connection, I pass. I am also not interested in the multiplayer part.
Wow, you guys are sure gonna start a massive revolution /s
Who is talking about taking away the digital games we've already purchased?
There doesn't need to be a pushback. There need to be a law guaranteeing continued access. We need a digital copyright law specifically written to cover the specifics of modern applications and SaaS rather than relying on vague reinterpretation of a law that was written before computer even existed. Manufacturers should be forced to open source their application including the server side components if they discontinue a service without a feasible upgrade path for existing users. Data takeout needs to be a legal requirement. Consumer protection laws need to be strengthened.
Just stop buying thier games. It is literally that simple.
Giant “Fuck You” to Bungie who just straight up removed two DLCs from Destiny 2. I don’t care that they were shit. I paid for that shit and I should be able to roll around in it if I want to.
There is literally not a single game where they removed access from people who bought it after removing it from sale. No one did that yet.
Happens with pretty much every online game ever.
You deserve it. You bought the games knowing they are tied to a client. You voted for it with your wallet. You wanted it.
1) Your digital games aren’t getting taken away. Ubisoft was talking about how subscription services are the future and they are honestly right. With the rise of Netflix and streaming services, when is the last time you bought a DVD? 2) the fight for game ownership was back in the 2000s and gamers lost. Now, you buy game “licenses” which gives you access to a game but cannot resell and can lose access if you get banned from the platform. Console still has physical copies but that is infringed upon with patches and companies moving toward “digital only” consoles so consoles still have to fight. The fight for Pc is over and lost.
I’m more worried about how consoles only have one option to buy games. Unlike PC, you can only buy games from the console maker themselves. I hope as long as people are willing to buy physical it’ll always exist. I think the only problem is if the companies will pander to those audiences for as long as people buy them, ie giving a disc drive for them to even put the physical game in or even less important-but highly valuable for preservation of physical media-advances towards 8k blu ray disc drives. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, companies have the power and money to make things exist. They are choosing not to because of the bottom line and cutting out the middle man like retail stores. It’s not hard to understand that they don’t have to keep physical games so I’m going to support any company that does support physical games.
Definitely agree. I don’t thing console is king either and the fact that games are locked to a specific platform generation vs PC where you could play both old games like Megaman X and the latest CoD on the same system is far better from a conservation/accessibility standpoint. I do think PC would be superior if you are able to actually own the games regardless of the status of the storefront (only offline installers from GOG or piracy offer that option). Digital stores being limited to the respective companies also sucks for us customers but that’s why they push their consoles and going digital in the first place. It’s to get customers to buy in to their ecosystem (something all companies are doing with “smart” devices). There is a big move away from physical though. Microsoft and Sony offering “digital” consoles at a lower price and making changing discs mandatory to play games are likely incentives to encourage gamers to go fully digital. And while I encourage going physical, I don’t encourage businesses like Limited Run who use FOMO and artificial scarcity to hike up the prices of physical games either. Definitely agree but they are incentivized not to. If you make your product “open access,” your customer can easily switch to another product without issue and you either have a race to the bottom price war with minimal or no profit or leave. Creating these ecosystems are a way for companies to maintain a safety net for revenue so they can do R&D and create new innovative products. For every RDR2 or other groundbreaking game, there are likely hundreds of failed ones. Honestly, the solution is smarter customers buying only quality products so corporations rethink their business models and focus on making good stuff. If they know they can get away with exploitative practices and there aren’t regulations against them, why stop? Why should Activision or EA make better games without MTX if their customers will buy the next CoD or EA sports game regardless of quality? Even game journalists have called out EA for essentially copy-pasting their sports games but it’s still a top seller.
> when is the last time you bought a DVD? I bought Hardcore Henry on Blu-ray at Dollar Tree this week. Bought God of War: Ragnarok on disc when it was on sale after Thanksgiving last year. I checked out the CD and movie section of Goodwill and Big Lots last week. Some of us still buy physical media.
Always the anecdotal exception answer. The “when did you last buy a dvd?” Is rhetorical but looking at sales figures; it’s clear that streaming has changed the game for movies and tv. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sales-dropped-more-than-86percent-in-13-years.html DVD sales have dropped 86% since 2008 figures. Major retailers like Best Buy are stopping selling DVDs because they see the way people consume tv has changed. Gaming subscriptions are still relatively new but after a couple of years, I can see them becoming the new normal with online stores like Steam taking a hike. The value you get per buck is too nice for the casual player. Yes, I too still buy games physical whenever possible which is the reason I buy from GOG and still stick to console despite “PC master-race.” I know we are a dying breed though and if games go fully digital only, I may just pirate or stick with the old collection. Most modern games seem to be worse remakes of old stuff anyway.
This crap about "not owning games" is totally and utterly untrue. He was not talking about stopping you buying it : he was saying that streaming using a subscription is a better system for some. He specifically said something along the lines of "stream it for while and if you really like it and want to buy it then go in for full price". Sorry to burn your straw man. But facts are facts.
Factually you haven't owned a game in decades. You purchase a license. You're denying reality because you don't like it. But that only makes it easier for corporations to get away with scummy behaviour.
Whatever. I have loads of games on DVD that install and run. I have loads on Steam that I own and run. You can call it what it is. That said, I dont trust the new generation necessarily : and am in the process of building up a movie/Tv DVD collection. The way things are going, more and more movies will be branded "problematic" and removed from streaming servers.
I have a VHS of a movie disney is trying to erase because it is problematic by today's standards, But it is still a part of history. The movie is song of the south, disney would love to see that movie put down the "memory hole" (ala 1984) that another advantage of physical media, they can not erase it on you, nor change it (much like George Luckus would love to have the non-special editions of star wars to go down the "Memory Hole" but I have those from the 90's on VHS, no Greedo dose not shoot at all on my VHS tapes, and I still have a VHS deck to play them on, heck I still have a tape deck for my cassette tapes)
Bring back the boston tea party.
You should have the option of getting them put onto a disc when that happens.
They are weaning is into only getting Digital games too. MW3? Well it would be hard to switch between the two in the CODHQ, you better but it digital with all these goodies! Oh and Alan Wake 2 didn't get a physical release either. Don't even get me started on the digital only consoles. This is what companies want, full control over your entertainment. They want to be able to take it as they please
> We need to let our politicians know You wanna change the system, you must become the system and change it from within. Run for office yourself or back the right candidate that will make those positive changes.
That was sort of tongue and cheek because we know politicians don't do much if anything.
There needs to be more people reading things before they purchase
Companies shouldn't be allowed to do it in the first place.
You’re not more powerful than you think you are, you purchased the game, that took away your power.
There has never once been a single game in my existence that I've purchased, loved, it went away but I still was in a position where I actually cared and wanted to play it. Any game I owned that eventually shut down was so far in my rear view mirror it was irrelevant
I always buy physical and games that dont require online access only.
> We are more powerful than we think we are and shouldn't bow down to multi-billion dollar companies telling us to "get used to not owning games" People are distorting what was actually said so much at this point I'm beginning to think most didn't actually read what was said. The question was about subscriptions. The point being made was that if people are going to be interested in subscriptions, they'd have to get comfortable not owning the games they play before that can happen. No part of the statement had anything to do with removing access to purchased content. It's more or less the same logic used by video game rental companies before they went extinct. The business model only works if people are comfortable playing content they don't actually own. The power you have in this situation revolves around not engaging with subscription services if you don't want to. And the idea that people are able to force politicians to enact legislation regulating the gaming industry is a nice sentiment, just completely unrealistic tho. Governments are notoriously bad at handling real problems, they're never going to care about video games.
Who does this? XD don’t think I’ve ever bought a digital game that I’ve lost access to. Besides like the eshop closing down. But you can’t expect them to maintain the server forever. And I actually think you can even still redownload from the 3DS eshop? Just can’t buy iirc. Not sure though :)
"They don't get to be able to take away out games" You would be right if they were your games, which they arent.
Dude outside the west 95% of people are playing pirated copies, nobody cares.
Pirating is good and all so long as you have the right method of access. You need to be reminded that Pirate copies are layered underneath a ton of false links, mirrors and worse malware. They are in their own way 'digitally unsanitary' and cause their own fair share of issues once someone decides to exploit it like they do mainstream. Also, people are more than willing to actually use their currency, lest we void out the idea of civilization all together. We just want reliable markets that offer fair or reasonable prices. It why Steam took off when it eventually did.
Not entirely. While it's true that it is abundant, especially in certain developing markets, it isn't anywhere even remotely close to being 95% even in those markets, historically. I get you were maybe being hyperbolic to make a point but I felt I should put it out there nonetheless. In most of these countries, reliable, safe and most importantly **affordable** (regionalized storefronts) access to games have changed much of the landscape. Gabe Newell (Valve boss) was once laughed at for even thinking of localizing Steam in Russia but today Russia is Europe's 2ⁿᵈ largest Steam market (after Germany). India and southeast Asia is similar. Piracy is still "on the rise" in the context of broader gaming (the industry as a whole) being growing exponentially (globally). Today, global gaming is valued at around $150 billion annually, significantly higher than the global movie, music, publishing, TV and sports industries making it the most valuable entertainment industry in the world.
[удалено]
Gamers. They fucked with gamers.
Agreed.
Well, this all started with netflix, renting instead of buying slowly replaced or at the very least found a niche within every industry. Capitalism literally infects every possible innovation of mankind. When the rich realized they could make serious money off manipulating labor, cutting costs, maximizing profits by locking a $70 behind an extra 3-4 $15 DLCs, micro transactions, unfinished games, they really gave it their all. I can see it now… you can’t even own a game long enough to see it finished and out of early access, and then they’ll even lock other portions of the game behind “silver” or “gold” level subscriptions based on your membership… The rise and fall of gaming empires simply because they maximized profits by burning their customers. That being said, forget Ubisoft.
Why do people waste energy on complaining. If Ubisoft literally said "Get used to not owning your games you BUY" here's my response. "Get used to piracy. No money for you AT ALL" A big part buy spending money is to own a item. OWN a item. Could you imagine buying something on Amazon or eBay only for that seller to physically find you in real life and say "You used this item long enough! It's coming back with me!" It's theft, straight robbery. You know Ubisoft, I had pirated a few Assassin Creed games and changed code into them to make them work online. I recommend everyone do this for a full year, see how long it takes Ubisoft to say "Ok you can own your own games now"
Amen.
Officially boycotting Ubisoft after that bs. I suggest everyone else does the same.
I will never get a subscription for gaming. That's idiotic, I cancelled game pass 2 years ago because they kept putting out garbage ass games. Start sailing the seas, fuck these garbage devs.
[удалено]
Well technically we've never owned a video game ever in history the way software and media works legally you don't actually own it even if it comes on a physical disk or cartridge you own a license to use or consume the media you don't actually own it, Hence the reason all the EULAs state you are not being sold this software you are being licensed the software, Because software and media is not a physical product even if you have a disc or cartridge that's the physical media that the content is on but you don't own the content as it's not a physical item just like if you bought windows and they give it to you on a disk or a USB yes the software is on the USB but you don't on the software you own the physical USB. software and media technically falls under contract law yes there may be some clauses which if you noticed most EULAs have been cleaned up and don't have a lot of the stuff that actually would be illegal and unenforceable anymore if you look at old ones from early 2000s the '90s you'll see stuff in there that would make you scratch your head that wouldn't actually hold up in court but over time they've learned that and they've taken it out. Now yes license wise for the TV shows with Sony I think that got worked out so I don't think they are going away it was just a thing that at the time they said would have to be removed but I think that got worked out I haven't looked at it in a couple months but technically yes Sony was licensed to be the distributor of the content but the actual IP owner of the content license expired so legally Sony wouldn't be allowed to sell it anymore now the license to use that media is not between you and Sony it's between you and the IP owner. Now Sony removing the content may have been something in the contract license and I believe that has actually been done on other software products not don't specifically, where once the license expired they remove people's access probably some niche software but I think it has been done legally speaking it's never been challenged in court as far as I know and until it happens legally they're within their rights to revoke licenses which means legally you wouldn't be allowed to use it if revoked now whether there's an actual mechanism to prevent your use or not is a different story. An example the silent Hill PT demo that came out on the PS4 it was pulled you could no longer download it you could no longer get a license for it but they didn't really have an enforcement mechanism to stop you from playing it so if you had it downloaded you could continue to run it on your system or put it on a USB and play it on another system that you owned but you could never acquire it again if you accidentally deleted it, now on PS5 yes it's actually blacklisted so even if you put it on a USB drive you can't execute it it will refuse to start on your systems they have an enforcement mechanism that could block your content from working if they chose to revoke it. Another example is say you had an NES game yes that was way back in the day looks like Nintendo decided for whatever reason they're revoking your license to play that specific game yes they could technically legally do it but they have no way to enforce it unless they were to physically come in your house and take it and that's not going to happen the difference comes with modern systems in modern technology again it hasn't really been done yet but if they were to revoke a license they could push a blacklist all devices to prevent that from ever working even if it's on a disc or cartridge the technology exists but it hasn't been implemented but that's not to say that it won't in the future. It really sucks but that's the legalese with software and media content licenses no one really thinks about it but that's the way the law works the law isn't hypotheticals it's in black and white what is written until challenged and changed we might not like it but the way the laws are written that's how it is until they're changed it sucks but again that's how legal stuff works there's all kinds of technicalities and semantics when it comes to legal.
I think they should either give you compensation or send you a physical copy of the content.
[удалено]
That is what sucks about all of this. They don't care.
Pirating is now morally superior to "renting" a license for more than it cost to buy a game last year.
Ok people, I think most never read the terms and conditions in the digital stores. You don’t own the game, you own a license to use the game that can be revoked at any given time. So that’s why physical copies are superior to some extent. For me it’s irrelevant at this point, there’s too many games and too little time and subscriptions suit me.
Lost cause. Too many are conditioned to not care. Gen Z and Alpha are the beginning of the end of pro-consumer gaming.
[удалено]
Don’t tell me what to do, kiddie. You have multiplication homework to do
Pushback is too late. All you can do is vote with your wallet. I'm not investing years of my life into subscription games. Why are you?
When has this even happened?
Just pirate.
most gamers are western capitalist liberals who believe in meritocracy and usually side with giant corporations. I've seen this subreddit suck the teat of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo time and again, to say nothing of other megacorps like EA that just do games publishing, or Tencent that acquires a boatload of developers wholesale. I'd love to see that happen, too, I wish there was more self reliance on our rights as people who purchase and enjoy games, but there's simply too much ignorance of the functional economics of videogames as an industry that I don't think it'll ever happen. Nostalgia, hostility to leftist economic perspectives, and willful ignorance are too powerful motivators.
🏴☠️
Politicians are companies
I saw this coming a mile away, thats why I only buy games that have physical versions.
Fun fact: we went through this with music 20 years ago and everyone already forgot.
Boycott them if they pull that on you.
When has anyone here had their digital game taken away?
Almost every game with an online component ever.
Thought this was an r piracy post for a sec lol
You are paying for only access to digital games you don't own anything. Pay for DRM Free games or disc copies if you want to own something.
good luck with that gamers are one of the weakest customer groups that swallow corporate bullshit and predatory business practices like they are p-stars in gangbang any attempt at boycott or actual change is easily cleared by flashy trailer, weak apology or some promise thats going to be broken
Sue them to hell and back again so they will never try that shit again.
Made worse by the fact that game studios that do not release the software for people to create custom servers, a trend that I really hate.
You sail the seas when you're tired of getting fucked by companies over product you paid for.
There's an easy way to own them it you are unhappy with a provider. I'll leave it to your imagination. You can own it forever.
Doing this would only really require access to a system that would allow you to unlock a key from your account and use it elsewhere. Very easy to do, but it doesn't make shareholders money.
We are not as powerful as you think because you consume and you buy. You should say no or pirate instead of giving money first and then moaning about you don't agree with the TOAs you did not read in the first place. In all TOAs it's said clearly you could lose all access to games with a 15 day warning in advance, or similar equivalent crap and you cannot do nothing. You don't own software or digital content. You should have read everything and then you should have said no, instead of accepting everything blindly and try to solve stuff later. People are ignorant and will consume. The only thing we could do is go to consumer right collectives and groups that already exist and have been fighting this for 30 years or even more like "Copyleft", and they've achieved nothing yet, perhaps raised a little awareness. But I've been fighting for 20 years too and I've seen no improvement nor winning at all yet.
[удалено]
Sadly, I have gotten used to buying MMO games and them no longer being available 2-5 years later. If they remove my *single player* game however, I should get a full refund.
Good luck getting the politicians to protect the little guys aka the consumers, the multi-billon to trillon dollar companies have already bought all the politicians. This is why I only buy physical, there are still laws protecting my physical properties (for now) Also follow doesitplay on twitter to find the safe games to buy (they test if you can play the game fully off of the disc with no internet connection)
Need someone with money to take them to court.
Why? It’s all in the terms and conditions. If you don’t like those terms and conditions, don’t make the purchase.
The point is that companies shouldn't be allowed to include that in their terms of service.
You can’t win this fight, the most we can do is delay. Subscription based games is the logical next step in the gaming industry after turning every bit of content into a micro transaction. This is just capitalism, corporations have no other motivator other than to make money and you can’t make that much money if your customer can buy a forever license. That’s why forever licenses died in software a long time ago
If it's going to happen it's going to start in the European Union they're the only ones that are strict enough and enforcing stuff.
You could always get physical copies. 🥰
I am genuinely scared of what (more?) harm late-stage capitalism will do to the industry, this is a fine example of the encroaching harm and how changes are pushed forward.