Support NeoGAF

[Schrödinger's cat]

...No one cares who owns what..

Wrong. The genuine owners care.

Many are still assuming ownership in these pleas.
The fact you don't own something is hardly pedantry. It's a big ugly, legally enforceable, inconvenient truth.

And, ultimately, if there comes a time that nobody owns it, then that nobody includes you. It never will.
(Unless you stump up a very large sum of money to genuinely purchase ownership and control of the software.)

The emotive cards always get played when people simply can't bear to acknowledge the reality of the situation. "Preservation" etc. This is just emotive noise that clouds the objective facts.
If it's gone it's gone. You're not the owners. You don't get a say. Acting upset about it doesn't change the fact.
Sometimes life sucks.

I absolutely get the point.
I don't argue that I should be magically granted rights that I would never have simply because I don't like what that point is.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Read the ToS and understand that all you own is a license to use the software in a particular way. You can maybe lay claim to the disk or other medium on which the code resides, but the recorded code is something over which you have no claim.

 

[jshackles]

you never actually owned the physical games you paid for... that was a licensing fee. That software was licensed to you. You paid for permission to use their software. I get that it sucks that it's going away... but legally no one has ever owned anyth piece of media they have "purchased"

Except that with physical media, the licence (or at least your ability to utilize it) can't be revoked from you at any time on the copyright holder's whim.

 

[LittleBusters]

This is why sites like Abandonia are important.

 

[Fizggig]

People LOVE physical media. Look at steelbook collecting its a very big fan base. Look at Limited Run Games they sell out quickly, Look at Rare games same. Look at collection editions people buy them. Im telling you people love physical media because a digital game even tho I can sit inside and press download. I can still walk to my local store and pick up a game and swipe my card to buy. Im perfectly fine buying my games. It creates my own library in my own house.

 

[MP!]

Except that with physical media, the licence (or at least your ability to utilize it) can't be revoked from you at any time on the copyright holder's whim.

yes ... that really sucks

 

[gspat]

And, ultimately, if there comes a time that nobody owns it, then that nobody includes you. It never will.

Once it enters the public domain, the public owns it. That includes you.

Copyright is a temporary monopoly on ownership rights.

Once expired, the owner has no more rights than anyone else.

But, that's not the issue here, the issue is that a vast majority of the works most likely won't survive until then because of the volatile nature of digital goods.

The value of the digital lease we have on use of a digital product is about as solid as the digital paper it's written on.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

No.
You are still assuming ownership of something you have no right to. This is a remarkable level of entitlement to base an argument on.
Ownership is never transferred to individuals.
Evidence: Abandonware sites are persistently shutdown and abandoned IP and distribution rights are still available for purchase by other publishers.

Regardless: once something is no longer accessible, for any reason, your assumed ownership, incorrect as it is, will still amount to nothing.

the issue is that a vast majority of the works most likely won't survive until then because of the volatile nature of digital goods.

That is the unpalatable reality of the matter. And I can assure you that no matter how righteously you smash your fist into your palm this reality isn't going to alter as a result.

(The choice of rhetoric being used in some arguments is quite immature - "ownership is pendantry", "nobody cares about ownership" and then "copryight is a monopoly on ownership rights" - these are statements driven by something other than understanding).

 

[jshackles]

No.
You are still assuming ownership of something you have no right to. This is a remarkable level of entitlement to base an argument on.
Ownership is never transferred to individuals.
Evidence: Abandonware sites are persistently shutdown and abandoned IP and distribution rights are still available for purchase by other publishers.

Regardless: once something is no longer accessible, for any reason, your assumed ownership, incorrect as it is, will still amount to nothing.
That is the unpalatable reality of the matter. And I can assure you that no matter how righteously you smash your fist into your palm this reality isn't going to alter.

Actually, G gspat has it right in this case. You're just not thinking long-term enough. US copyright law for works created for hire (aka, by a company such as a game development studio) have copyright protections for "95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter". Source

What you're thinking of - abandonware sites and such: they get shut down because those works have yet to enter the public domain. If a game was made in 1985 (for example, Super Mario Bros. for the NES) Nintendo will hold the copyright on that game until 2080. After 2080 (unless the copyright laws change between now and then) it will enter public domain and it will indeed belong to everyone. If in 2081 you wanted to re-release your own version of the NES Classic using games made in 1985, you would be legally allowed to do so, in addition to making derivative works such as commercializing your own ROM hack. Mario (the character) would presumably still have an active trademark so that could get tricky, but if you wanted to distribute NES ROMs once they're in public domain, nobody could legally stop you.

Granted, I'll probably be dead by 2080 so that's never going to be part of my own personal reality.

 

[gspat]

No.
You are still assuming ownership of something you have no right to. This is a remarkable level of entitlement to base an argument on.
Ownership is never transferred to individuals.
Evidence: Abandonware sites are persistently shutdown and abandoned IP and distribution rights are still available for purchase by other publishers.

Regardless: once something is no longer accessible, for any reason, your assumed ownership, incorrect as it is, will still amount to nothing.


That is the unpalatable reality of the matter. And I can assure you that no matter how righteously you smash your fist into your palm this reality isn't going to alter as a result.

(The choice of rhetoric being used in some arguments is quite immature - "ownership is pendantry", "nobody cares about ownership" and then "copryight is a monopoly on ownership rights" - these are statements driven by something other than understanding).

Actually, what I stated is correct. We need some kind of public trust to enable it to happen.

I should probably try to change the title of the OP, but I doubt I can... This topic was meant to be strictly about digital preservation and the issues regarding it, since the industry is pushing toward full digital and streaming in the near future.

 

[petran79]

That's not a new thing. If you look at most of the ROMs available for the Atari ST for instance, they're almost all pirate discs from the likes of Pompey Pirates, Automaton, D-Bug, etc. The companies around at the time are mostly not around anymore, and those that are have gone through many changes of personel, and data on floppies doesn't last long, so the original source code is likely gone for 99% of old games.

In cases where they are still around they do care but not to the draconian degree companies like Sega or Nintendo do.
Eg I had bought this game
http://www.adventuresoft.com/gehp.html

Older gamers know that company from the UK. Main owners and developers of those games are still active, even as publishers. Difference is they will not bother how and in what platform you'll play the game, as opposed to Sega that implements Denuvo.
I emailed them once and they said once you own the game you can play it on any platform you like.

 

[ThaPhantom]

I can understand digital downloads being the wave of the future for gaming but as soon as streaming games becomes the only way to play titles I am out.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

You are failing to see the wood for the trees.
You still aren't ever getting ownership (it's really important to understand what ownership of software actually is - and buzzword laden tweets from console manufacturers wanting to sound cute aren't helping matters.)

And once it's inaccessible and gone, it won't be magic'd back into existence simply because you say so. Whatever way you argue it, the practical outcome is going to be the same.
There's a massive dose of reality that people are wilfully ignoring here.

 

[jshackles]

You are failing to see the wood for the trees.
You still aren't ever getting ownership (it's really important to understand what ownership of software actually is - and buzzword laden tweets from console manufacturers wanting to sound cute aren't helping matters.)

And once it's inaccessible and gone, it won't be magic'd back into existence simply because you say so. Whatever way you argue it, the practical outcome is going to be the same.
There's a massive dose of reality that people are wilfully ignoring here.

You're right, I don't understand what you mean by what ownership of software actually is. And I'm a software developer who holds several code copyrights.

If you were born after 1976, you've lived your entire life in a world where the concept of public domain largely hasn't existed. Ownership is a societal structure and not some biological function or God-given right, but something our elected officials have collectively agreed on. Ownership of rights (in this case, copyright) is something we've collectively come together to agree on in order to promote creative works by making them financially viable. Without them, if you created a video game there would be nothing stopping others from distributing it without you getting compensation thus reducing your incentive to create said work. Works used to enter the public domain after 35 years, until it was extended massively in the 1970s and 1990s.

Please enlighten us as to why we're being ignorant here. There is a valid concern that by the time these works enter public domain (90+ years later) they will be unsalvagable.

 

[gspat]

You are failing to see the wood for the trees.
You still aren't ever getting ownership (it's really important to understand what ownership of software actually is - and buzzword laden tweets from console manufacturers wanting to sound cute aren't helping matters.)

And once it's inaccessible and gone, it won't be magic'd back into existence simply because you say so. Whatever way you argue it, the practical outcome is going to be the same.
There's a massive dose of reality that people are wilfully ignoring here.

Something being in the public domain literally means no-one owns it.

 

[hariseldon]

Schrödinger's cat is fixated on legalities, where the rest of us are focusing on technical realities and capabilities. Schrodinger is either being willfully ignorant, or perhaps has a bit of a case of aspergers, or something else, because most people gain an understanding of moral greyscale sometime in their primary school years (eg the concept that stealing is ok to save someone's life - a toddler will say no don't do it because stealing is wrong where an older child with developed reasoning will argue in favour of stealing in that scenario). Whether something is legal or not does not change the de facto state of whether a thing can be used or not. If a thing can be used, without third party intervention, then for all intents and purposes you have ownership of that piece of media. It may not be actual legal ownership but it's as good as. If that thing can be taken away from you, as is the case with any streaming service, then no you do not own it in the same way as with physical media, and as others have pointed out, preservation is badly hurt by this. We learn from the past, thus preservation matters. But of course if stealing is always wrong, even if to save a life, then you won't understand the shades of grey here.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Something being in the public domain literally means no-one owns it.

Non-ownership is not the same as ownership.

People can come at this from as many angles as they like, they can make moralistic-sounding pleas which amount to nothing more the gross levels of self entitlement and disregard what is legal, they can say absurd things like "ownership is pedantry" and so on. They can demonise whoever is telling them something they don't like the sound of.

None of this is going to change the reality of:

1. You are never buying ownership.
2. As you are never the owner you never have a say in these matters.
3. Just because you may not like 1 and 2 doesn't magically make them invalid.
4. If the software is withdrawn and made inaccessible for any reason, you have no say - because 1 and 2.

Everything else is noise.
The practical outcome is always going to be the same. Protesting it, especially in such obtuse and frequently selfish ways, won't change it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

If you bought a cookie from DunDunDunPachi Cookie Emporium (completely real business, I swear) and held it in your hands, could I argue that you don't "own" it because you don't have the recipe?

Consuming the cookie is irrelevant. Imagine that it was a cookie that replenished itself but could never be more than one cookie (therefore, I could transfer "ownership" of the cookie but never sell copies).

 

[jshackles]

If you bought a cookie from DunDunDunPachi Cookie Emporium (completely real business, I swear) and held it in your hands, could I argue that you don't "own" it because you don't have the recipe?

Consuming the cookie is irrelevant. Imagine that it was a cookie that replenished itself but could never be more than one cookie (therefore, I could transfer "ownership" of the cookie but never sell copies).

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

 

[gspat]

Non-ownership is not the same as ownership.

In the case of Public domain, it is. And that's a legal reality.

Still waiting on your take of software ownership from a few posts back.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Nah bruv, my wife makes apple pie that transcends the universe.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Non-ownership is not the same as ownership.

In the case of Public domain, it is. And that's a legal reality.

No, the two contrasting and opposite things are not the same as each other.

And I struggle to empathise with arguments that disregard what is legal when they feel those laws do not directly benefit them, but preach the importance of legalities that do.

There are mutiple levels of 'having your cake and eating it' at play in such rhetoric.

None of which is going to change the practical outcome. And you'll note that I'm far from the only person in this thread that has said as much.

You can choose to dispute it, but the reality will have the final say.

 

[gspat]

No, the two contrasting and opposite things are not the same as each other.

And I struggle to empathise with arguments that disregard what is legal when they feel those laws do not directly benefit them, but preach the importance of legalities that do.

There are mutiple levels of 'having your cake and eating it' at play in such rhetoric.

None of which is going to change the practical outcome. You can choose to dispute it, but the reality will have the final say.

Collins dictionary definition:

public domain

noun

1. US lands owned by a state or by the federal government
2. the status of a published work or invention upon which the copyright or patent has expired or which has not been patented or subject to copyright. It may thus be freely used by the public
3. in the public domain able to be discussed and examined freely by the general public

Please do take a gander at definition #2

Still waiting on that definition we requested.

 

[Barakov]

The whole "owning physical copies" is pretty moot these days anyway. Your physical copy is essentially an unfinished beta, in need of a day 1 patch, and then multiple patches after that. At some point, those patches will no longer be available, your console with the patches already installed will die, and you'll be stuck with your unfinished beta copy. Enjoy.

This is the other problem with the current state of things. I remember picking up DOOM on PS4 and I thought I'd just play a couple levels while the patch downloaded and I was wet with screen tearing.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

G gspat :
Nowhere in your quoted definition does it support your claim that non-ownership equates to ownership. Or that 'thats a legal reality'.

You are hoping to blur definitions and conflate distinct things so you can believe you are right. I'm frankly surprised at your voluntary quoting of something that actually disproves the very thing you claim it proves.

Doubling down on not-getting-it isn't a great position to argue or act superior from. Making things up because you feel you can retcon them into your desired, self-serving conclusion doesn't make them so.

None of this disengenuous rhetoric is going to change the outcome of the reality.

 

[gspat]

G gspat :
Nowhere in your quoted definition does it support your claim that non-ownership equates to ownership. Or that 'thats a legal reality'.

You are hoping to blur definitions and conflate distinct things so you can believe you are right.

Doubling down on not-getting-it isn't a great position to argue or act superior from. Making things up because you feel you can retcon them into your desired conclusion doesn't make them so.

None of this disengenuous rhetoric is going to change the outcome of the reality.

OK... Apparently I'm missing your point, because you seem to be repeating the same thing without actually saying anything.

Please do share with the class.

The discussion was about digital software and the high probability of it not surviving to the expiration of copyright and what will happen to software without a consumer usage license due to not actually running the software, only streaming it.

1). What is your definition of Public Domain? (My previous statements are that no-one owns software that has it's copyright expired. It's effectively owned by the public - hence public domain - thus by no-one in particular and everyone in general. Allowing anyone to use it. This may not be "Ownership" per se, but it is "Ownership" de facto.)

2). What is your interpretation of ownership of previously copyrighted works esp. in regards to software?

 

[LucidFeuer]

That's why I have 9000 games on Steam, and collect all physical copies of console exclusives...

If people thought the DLC, micro-transaction, lootboxes galores was crap they're not ready for the hell that game streaming is going to be in terms of services and prices...

 

[LucidFeuer]

you never actually owned the physical games you paid for... that was a licensing fee. That software was licensed to you. You paid for permission to use their software. I get that it sucks that it's going away... but legally no one has ever owned anyth piece of media they have "purchased"

Absolutely inaccurate. For centuries (yes centuries) whenever you bought a piece of "media" wether it's a book, a painting, a dvd, a vinyl, a cartridge or a blu-ray, you're not buying an object per-se since if it's empty it's useless, you're not buying the content either since you don't own the right of distribution or exploitation of it, you buy a licence of unlimited access and use to a copy (not the copy, any one copy) of said media for personal or singular usage.

Digital media work exactly the same, with the difference that since platforms and publishers are incredibly greedy they want to sell you a zero production cost copy at full price while preventing you to resell it, which has pushed them to improvise legal skirting to justify the fact that you don't so much own a licence but a subscription (which is of course an illegal definition of things you buy with your money).

 

[MP!]

Absolutely inaccurate. For centuries (yes centuries) whenever you bought a piece of "media" wether it's a book, a painting, a dvd, a vinyl, a cartridge or a blu-ray, you're not buying an object per-se since if it's empty it's useless, you're not buying the content either since you don't own the right of distribution or exploitation of it, you buy a licence of unlimited access and use to a copy (not the copy, any one copy) of said media for personal or singular usage.

isn't that what I said?

 

[Iaterain]

I don't expect anything good from gaming industry. They will use all technologies, innovations and best lawyers to make all things worst and more expensive for consumers.

Corrupted mass media, paid shills and delusional fanboys are ruining our chances to fight for our consumer rights.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Surely in the face of the inevitable a new hope will arise and spark the rebellion to victory?

 

[Petrae]

I’m well aware that I don’t “own” anything— but publishers of games before the Internet Era aren’t showing up at my house to take back my cartridges and discs because of various reasons. These games are mine to play at will and without restriction, unless/until the media that the games are on— or the hardware to play them on— fails.

The Internet Era has given publishers the ability to jack in and enforce whatever rules it wants remotely. Games you bought can have their licenses terminated, sometimes with little warning. If you don’t (re-)download that game before the license expires, you lose. Want to buy a digital game that’s been delisted because reasons? Tough shit— compared to buying physical games that came out years ago, which are often on eBay or Amazon. At least you have a chance with these. Not so with OutRun Online Arcade, Scott Pilgrim, and others from the previous console generation.

I’m glad I have a ton of physical, non-Internet games to fall back on once publishers go all in on digital and take complete control. They cannot be trusted to keep consumers’ best interests in mind, and will continue to enjoy fucking them royally without consequence for years (if not decades) to come.

 

[Fuz]

pirates are unintentionally doing more to preserve content than the content creators/owners ever will

Not unintentionally.

 

[greyshark]

Once I download a game to a console, don't I "own" it the same way I own a physical disc as long as the hard drive/backups are good? How is that appreciably different than physical ownership?

 

[Petrae]

Once I download a game to a console, don't I "own" it the same way I own a physical disc as long as the hard drive/backups are good? How is that appreciably different than physical ownership?

You can have the license yanked remotely by the platform holder. It’s not a common occurrence, but it has happened in the past.

Internet connectivity gives platform holders and publishers unprecedented power to decide who gets to play their games and for how long.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Once I download a game to a console, don't I "own" it the same way I own a physical disc as long as the hard drive/backups are good? How is that appreciably different than physical ownership?

Hard drives die a lot faster, but I agree with you in principle.

If I ever got back into PC gaming, I'd give GOG.com a fat wad of cash, buy a hundred or so favorites, put copies on two drives (one solid state, one HDD), and stash them somewhere as my "personal copy". The key here is that I can copy, move, play, re-copy as much as I please at that point.

I believe that for some of these downloadable games on 360 and PS3, if that drive dies, you're finished. Maybe there's a way to transfer it to a new drive? Personally, I'm in the dark there.

The other issue is getting the license yanked, rendering your local installation of the game useless. This has happened to me for several games on PS3 already.

 

[greyshark]

You can have the license yanked remotely by the platform holder. It’s not a common occurrence, but it has happened in the past.

Internet connectivity gives platform holders and publishers unprecedented power to decide who gets to play their games and for how long.

What are the circumstances around the license getting removed? With digital becoming more standard, I can't imagine something like Mario Odyssey ever being unplayable on the Switch.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

What are the circumstances around the license getting removed? With digital becoming more standard, I can't imagine something like Mario Odyssey ever being unplayable on the Switch.

It's commonly done for games with licensed music. Either the game is patched to remove the song, or the game itself is removed. It's difficult -- for instance -- to get a version of Crazy Taxi with the original soundtrack. I believe the 360 port (and maybe the iOS and PC versions?) had certain songs removed due to licensing. Jet Grind Radio was a licensing headache for a while which prevented it from getting ported or added to digital storefronts. Unsure if some songs were removed from it or not.

Another common example is IP licensing. Stuff like The Simpsons Arcade Game and X-Men Arcade Game require sign-off from the license holders, even if Konami developed and published the game.

 

[jshackles]

What are the circumstances around the license getting removed? With digital becoming more standard, I can't imagine something like Mario Odyssey ever being unplayable on the Switch.

OK - story time. It's not something I like to bring up often because it still pisses me off all these years later.

I bought an Xbox 360 at launch, and thought it was pretty novel buying digital games (mostly XBLA stuff) and having a "digital locker" that I could delete said games and re-install when I wanted to. I probably dropped about $1,000 into my account, which is pretty impressive because this was before you could buy "Full" / "On-Demand" games, but I did have a bunch of DLC for games like Oblivion and such. Then one day, I went to sign into my Xbox Live account as usual, and an error came up on the screen. I did some research and it appears that the error in question meant that Microsoft had disabled my Xbox Live account. I wasn't able to sign into my console's online service, and I wasn't able to play any of the games I had purchased. This was about 10 years ago.

I contacted Microsoft and they said they suspected my account of hacking and that the ban would be permanent and that there was no recourse. I guess this was back when people were spoofing random live IDs on their hacked consoles and my account got caught in the crossfire. My old account is still to this day banned, although I tried (unsuccessfully) for about 8 years to have it re-established. It says the ban will be lifted December 31st, 2999. I even went through their legal department to try and argue my case, but it got to the point that the next step would have been to hire an attorney and take them to court, which wasn't worth the $1,000 "value" of the account especially since many years had passed and most of the stuff I had bought was old at that point. Instead, I tossed my Xbox in the trash and spent 8 years not buying a single Microsoft product due to the incident. I believe now they've since changed their policies regarding these types of matters and give you a digital counseling session instead, but my locked account is still banned and not eligible for review.

The point is - rights holders and platform holders absolutely can revoke your ability to play the digital games you've purchased, as long as you're connected to the internet.

 

[Iaterain]

I can't imagine something like Mario Odyssey ever being unplayable on the Switch.

Nintendo is shutting down the Wii Shop in 2019.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/29/...channel-january-2019-shut-down-download-games

you also won’t be able to re-download previously purchased Wii and Virtual Console games or the Wii System Transfer Tool to move files to the Wii U. Nintendo recommends that if you have games you want to download or content you want to move to a Wii U, do it while you still can.

I don't want to cause a panic, but you should play Mario Odyssey while you still can! The Switch shop shut down is inevitable.

 

[greyshark]

Nintendo is shutting down the Wii Shop in 2019.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/29/...channel-january-2019-shut-down-download-games



I don't want to cause a panic, but you should play Mario Odyssey while you still can! The Switch shop shut down is inevitable.

But again, if I've already downloaded the games, why should I care if the shop has been shut down? I can still play them as long as my SSD or hard drive still work.

 

[greyshark]

It's commonly done for games with licensed music. Either the game is patched to remove the song, or the game itself is removed. It's difficult -- for instance -- to get a version of Crazy Taxi with the original soundtrack. I believe the 360 port (and maybe the iOS and PC versions?) had certain songs removed due to licensing. Jet Grind Radio was a licensing headache for a while which prevented it from getting ported or added to digital storefronts. Unsure if some songs were removed from it or not.

Another common example is IP licensing. Stuff like The Simpsons Arcade Game and X-Men Arcade Game require sign-off from the license holders, even if Konami developed and published the game.

Those issues were all related to ports, correct? What about original games? What percentage of games had their ability to play them removed from users who had previously downloaded them?

 

[greyshark]

OK - story time. It's not something I like to bring up often because it still pisses me off all these years later.

I bought an Xbox 360 at launch, and thought it was pretty novel buying digital games (mostly XBLA stuff) and having a "digital locker" that I could delete said games and re-install when I wanted to. I probably dropped about $1,000 into my account, which is pretty impressive because this was before you could buy "Full" / "On-Demand" games, but I did have a bunch of DLC for games like Oblivion and such. Then one day, I went to sign into my Xbox Live account as usual, and an error came up on the screen. I did some research and it appears that the error in question meant that Microsoft had disabled my Xbox Live account. I wasn't able to sign into my console's online service, and I wasn't able to play any of the games I had purchased. This was about 10 years ago.

I contacted Microsoft and they said they suspected my account of hacking and that the ban would be permanent and that there was no recourse. I guess this was back when people were spoofing random live IDs on their hacked consoles and my account got caught in the crossfire. My old account is still to this day banned, although I tried (unsuccessfully) for about 8 years to have it re-established. It says the ban will be lifted December 31st, 2999. I even went through their legal department to try and argue my case, but it got to the point that the next step would have been to hire an attorney and take them to court, which wasn't worth the $1,000 "value" of the account especially since many years had passed and most of the stuff I had bought was old at that point. Instead, I tossed my Xbox in the trash and spent 8 years not buying a single Microsoft product due to the incident. I believe now they've since changed their policies regarding these types of matters and give you a digital counseling session instead, but my locked account is still banned and not eligible for review.

The point is - rights holders and platform holders absolutely can revoke your ability to play the digital games you've purchased, as long as you're connected to the internet.

I'm sorry to hear about your story (which is total BS), but wouldn't you agree that your situation is highly unusual? If we do hit an all digital future I'd like to think (perhaps naively) that we'd have recourse to prevent something like that from happening.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Those issues were all related to ports, correct? What about original games? What percentage of games had their ability to play them removed from users who had previously downloaded them?

The only one I personally experienced was the removal of TMNT: Turtles Reshelled by Ubisoft. That was a new game (technically, a remake of an old game) and is no longer available to play or download, even though I bought it.

I don't own the Scott Pilgrim game but that would be another example.

 

[Pompi]

The sad thing is that gaming consoles might step back in terms of latency.
Somehow playing games on an Android you have a measurable latency.
With streaming there is going to be even more latency between the time you press the button and when sonic starts to jump.
Its a small latency but it's noticeable.
What I hope is that streaming wob't work with VR because latency in VR is really bad. So maybe not all hope is lost.

 

[Petrae]

But again, if I've already downloaded the games, why should I care if the shop has been shut down? I can still play them as long as my SSD or hard drive still work.

Virtual Console games for the Wii saved to the SD card are attached to the console. When the console inevitably ceases to function, you lose all of your games— even if you buy a replacement Wii.

 

[greyshark]

Virtual Console games for the Wii saved to the SD card are attached to the console. When the console inevitably ceases to function, you lose all of your games— even if you buy a replacement Wii.

Can't you transfer ownership to a new console on current gen systems like the Switch?

 

[jshackles]

I'm sorry to hear about your story (which is total BS), but wouldn't you agree that your situation is highly unusual? If we do hit an all digital future I'd like to think (perhaps naively) that we'd have recourse to prevent something like that from happening.

Yes, I would definitely agree that it's an unusual situation - I just wanted to point out that stuff like that can happen. Should it happen? No. I think I even mentioned in my post above that I believe they already have new systems in place (which, sadly, don't carry over for old bans) so it's a step in the right direction. I believe Steam's current policy is that if you break their terms of service you can still sign into your account and play your games but you don't have access to the community features and you're unable to make new purchases. Sony is probably the most backwards in this regard - it's still not uncommon to read stories about people who (knowingly or not) issued a payment chargeback and had their entire PSN account revoked.

The bottom line is, the "all digital future" (whether that means streaming or not is kinda irrelevant honestly) is taking away a lot of customer protections that used to be inherent in the fact that the goods were distributed physically.

 

[greyshark]

The bottom line is, the "all digital future" (whether that means streaming or not is kinda irrelevant honestly) is taking away a lot of customer protections that used to be inherent in the fact that the goods were distributed physically.

That's fair. I went digital kicking and screaming in my other forms of electronic media (music, pc games, movies) and haven't regretted any of those choices. I also own every physical system I've ever played back to a 28 year old NES. I have little desire to play any of my games that are over 15 years old, and frankly don't own a CRT to properly play with those systems anyway. I think that we'll look back on this time and realize that while the transition wasn't smooth, going all digital will be better in the long run.

 

[bitbydeath]

You owned the right to use this software.

People are concerned about that aspect changing from owning to renting.