Thing is, if “digital” actually meant “own” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Is this one of those things where the old “block chain” could be helpful? Like, a mechanism for actual digital ownership where one can have reasonable assurance that the thing one has downloaded actually belongs to them? That, so long as there’s a unique key, one can access that digital item whenever one desires–AND can transfer that to someone else by way of sale or trade?
I’ve said this before it’s indefinite access you’re paying for when you buy a disc not ownership of the game. The only difference is, is that you don’t lose access to those games when you buy physical, when you buy digital your games access can be heavily modified.
At the risk of now upsetting cryptobros (but no, I’m sure they understand all too well): we need laws. not blockchain. Even if the perfect solution was created (looks at physical), there is no incentive for publishers to use it.
And we’ve already seen what amazing things publishers have done with blockchain. /s
So far, it’s been very rare for digital ownership of games not to stay preserved. Ex: You can’t buy games from the Wii U anymore, but can still install owned ones. Some games are delisted from Steam, but you can install them.
Notable exceptions: Online games (not helped by discs) and Sony’s big attack on movie licenses.
In terms of resale ownership, yeah, it’s not so favorable. I’m ambivalent on that, because resale motivated a lot of changes in games - more online, more perpetual GAAS, fewer short singleplayer experience.
I’ve never been one to sell games, but I give, lend, and borrow games frequently with my friends. This (and some locked away exclusives) are the only reason I still even own consoles. Sony et al have decided they don’t want my money anymore.
Thing is, if “digital” actually meant “own” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Is this one of those things where the old “block chain” could be helpful? Like, a mechanism for actual digital ownership where one can have reasonable assurance that the thing one has downloaded actually belongs to them? That, so long as there’s a unique key, one can access that digital item whenever one desires–AND can transfer that to someone else by way of sale or trade?
I’ve said this before it’s indefinite access you’re paying for when you buy a disc not ownership of the game. The only difference is, is that you don’t lose access to those games when you buy physical, when you buy digital your games access can be heavily modified.
At the risk of now upsetting cryptobros (but no, I’m sure they understand all too well): we need laws. not blockchain. Even if the perfect solution was created (looks at physical), there is no incentive for publishers to use it.
And we’ve already seen what amazing things publishers have done with blockchain. /s
So far, it’s been very rare for digital ownership of games not to stay preserved. Ex: You can’t buy games from the Wii U anymore, but can still install owned ones. Some games are delisted from Steam, but you can install them.
Notable exceptions: Online games (not helped by discs) and Sony’s big attack on movie licenses.
In terms of resale ownership, yeah, it’s not so favorable. I’m ambivalent on that, because resale motivated a lot of changes in games - more online, more perpetual GAAS, fewer short singleplayer experience.
I’ve never been one to sell games, but I give, lend, and borrow games frequently with my friends. This (and some locked away exclusives) are the only reason I still even own consoles. Sony et al have decided they don’t want my money anymore.