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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
We actively avoid those games that require server connections
So you do acknowledge that it’s not the medium of distribution, but rather the setup of the game itself that matters?
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?
Thankfully, not all games need to phone home
That’s true for games not on physical media as well.
So?
Those games distributed through a platform like GOG also won’t phone home, so where’s the difference?
GOG don’t sell games on consoles?
Are you just refusing to answer the question because you know you would have to cede your point…?
I did answer, the difference is GOG don’t sell games for consoles, so GOG alone are not the solution.
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.
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.
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.