you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 6 days ago (23 children)

Again this bullshit.

Old consoles did not have mechanisms to prevent you from playing games. Mainly because internet was not widespread enough for hardware vendors to make it mandatory.

A game(or the OS of the console/PC that runs it) that is 100% on your physical media can still require you to connect online, login with an account and all other kinds of bullshit. It was done in CD/DVD distributed games in the 00s. There are of course games released on physical media today that are not complete and require release date updates to run.

A modern unhacked console could refuse to run a game from disk if you don't connect/login to get permission from mommy Nintendo/Sony/MS. Them not doing so is not a limitation imposed on them by physical media. It's a policy, hopefully forced upon them by law.

TLDR: We don't need physical media, we need an unrevocable right to be able to play games we purchased with effective enforcement. Additionally we should have a right to modify the games as needed to be playable in other hardware/OS since we can't expect original hardware to last forever.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 days ago (20 children)

    I feel like we should strive for both, the actual ownership and the physical media

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 days ago (19 children)

    What does physical media actually give you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    The ability to trade or barter it again after purchase.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago

    Physical media alone does not guarantee that. You need a legal framework that forbids mandatory online activation. Actually better forbid them from binding a physical game at all cause or you should never connect your console to the internet.

    But if we manage to get those rights we can also get the right to transferable software in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (16 children)

    A shortcut to actual ownership

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (15 children)

    If the physical media game requires a server connection, how is it ownership, exactly? The corpo can still effectively take away the product from you by shutting down the servers. Or banning you.

    "Plastic stuff" doesn't give you rights. Laws give you rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    We actively avoid those games that require server connections

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago

    So what makes a game on a disk that does not require internet connection to run/activate better than a game distributed GOG style where once you get the game it also no longer requires an internet connection?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (11 children)

    Thankfully, not all games need to phone home

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (9 children)

    So?

    Those games distributed through a platform like GOG also won't phone home, so where's the difference?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (8 children)

    GOG don't sell games on consoles?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (7 children)

    Are you just refusing to answer the question because you know you would have to cede your point...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (6 children)

    I did answer, the difference is GOG don't sell games for consoles, so GOG alone are not the solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (5 children)

    The discussion isn't about a specific platform, it's about physical vs digital media. Therefore you didn't answer the question.

    If you're getting stuck on the "but it's GOG, it's different", replace that with literally any other digital distribution platform, because that is irrelevant to the question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (4 children)

    But this started with me saying that keeping physical media around is better for the here and now because the utopia of digital licenses you're proposong is not fully here yet and physical media is still one of if not the best way to still actually own something.

    Yes I understand that there are some exceptions with some games being online only etc. but even the physical discs (or carts) that only hold a licence are still a valid form of ownership because the physical license that the physical format itself provides can be transferred to another party, like borrowing or gifting it to a friend, or selling it.

    At the moment there is no standard for such transfers with digital content unless the files are fully DRM-free which sadly is still not the norm yet and still in a legal grey area if giving such files to another party. And the current situation we live in right now physical media IS the only way for such a thing to exist for consoles due to the walled garden nature of their digital storefronts.

    I agree that just having the files to keep, unencrypted and without DRM, is the best solution for an end goal for consumers, along with hopefully other laws that protect and allow the owner to transfer ownership to another. But perfect is the enemy of good, and right now that future doesn't feel possible in the short term especially for consoles as they are currently. So it would be best for all if physical still stuck around until the future of digital that the consumer actually wants is a reality and is the industry standard and norm, whether by the corpos falling in line from consumer pressure or via regulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (3 children)

    Yes I understand that there are some exceptions with some games being online only etc. but even the physical discs (or carts) that only hold a licence are still a valid form of ownership because the physical license that the physical format itself provides can be transferred to another party, like borrowing or gifting it to a friend, or selling it.

    And this is what you're misunderstanding.

    There's no physical license attached to your CoD disc - you need an account to activate it. Your disk is irrelevant.

    As long as the publisher/developer is able to just shut-down the game remotely, you having a disk means nothing.

    DRM is only partially relevant here because that's another layer that can be used to block access, but the primary one is how the publisher/developer holds the keys to the kingdom in most cases these days - regardless of the medium the games comes on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    I've already conceded that there are outliers but cod and it's example you used is not the norm. There are no servers needed for me to continue playing Astro Bot in 20 years time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    And yet there are 100% single player games that require a phone-home server to be active.

    If Astro Bot doesn't do that, then it's irrelevant if you have it on a disk, or if you have a digital download. Assuming, of course, the digital download remains available, you get the exact same functionality.

    And, likewise, regardless if you have the game on a disk or from DD, if it requires a server somewhere to be online, you do not have any control over the game or when you can play it, because it can always be rendered unplayable by the publisher pulling the plug on the server.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    I'm not arguing about the games that have phone home mechanics, through personal experience there don't seem to be too many of them out there, they're mostly multiplayer ones (I'm not saying there are no single player games that do that though - but they very much seen few and far between, i can't even think of one off of the top of my head). And there is a difference between having the disc over the download because if i was to uninstall it for space, there is always a chance that during that time my license gets revoked, my account closed, hacked, or just forgotten the password for whatever reason. With a disc, it's always there as long as i always know where it is and i don't break it. Sony aren't ever going to kick down my door and demand the disc back

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (1 child)

    Not disagreeing with your sentiment but you're not right about old consoles.

    All consoles starting with the NES had authenticator chips to cut down on piracy. Arguably the only reason the medium survived is because of the manufacturers tightened control over the flood of low quality games, knock offs, and theft. The Nintendo Seal of Approval was a necessity to buyers because it said the game wasn't shovelware garbage.

    What's happening today with licenses, access control, and long-term renting from the corpos isn't fundamentally different, just more pervasive. But now we have all the shovelware too.

    Also those carts DO just disappear as their RAM dies. The discs last longer, but I bet you have PS1 games that won't read anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago

    My comment on old consoles not preventing you from playing physical games was only in regards to originals, not pirated ones.

    I am well aware that physical media actually provides more ways for vendors to limit control of software/games by the users. Both practical and even legal hurdles.

    I agree that physical media won't last forever and even when they do the hardware that runs them might not work anymore.

  • source
  • parent