They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it says it on the button doesn’t really help, because no reasonable person thinks that a “purchased” license can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. Why doesn’t anybody think that? Because “owning” a license implies you actually control it. But a license you can’t control at all means you own NOTHING! Not even a license. So “buy license" miscommunicates in the same way as “buy.”
Then maybe is should be forced to say: “Buy revocable license” and require the user to answer randomized multiple choice questions regarding the terms of the license that act in opposition to the purchaser. Collect metrics on wrong answers and if greater than say, 15% of people can’t determine what they are actually handing over money for, fine and require additional clarity.
Or, just flip the tables and say the historical meaning of buy implies transfer of ownership in exchange for some trade. Since the seller no longer owns the items that was sold in the transaction, they have no additional rights that are covered by other areas of the law (such as copyright). First sale applies and if the seller doesn’t provide a mechanism to facilitate that sale, the buyer is free to exercise that right in whatever way they see fit.
Licenses are commonly understood to have variable duration, as specified by the license.
I get that people want to be able to purchase games forever, but this linguistic argument seems tortured concern trolling. maybe Im wrong, but are there even people confused by what they are getting when they pay for a modern online game? It seems like the bigger issues is people know, but dont like those terms.
There is some string of terms that accurately describes the state of current game sales. Even if it is used, most of the people upset by the issue will not be happy.
I'd be very surprised if the average buyer of Call of Shooty was aware that their game could be taken away from them (for reasons (or lack thereof) other than maybe getting their account banned for cheating).
I'd also be fairly surprised if that average buyer cared all that much. For many the life cycle of any random game is short enough that it doesn't matter whether or not it gets revoked, just so long as that's far enough into the future (and Sony probably knows that). So long as the average buyer doesn't have to think about it, since any revocation is so far into the future as to probably not matter, the average buyer won't care.
There's some media attention from the people who do care and want Sony et al. to do better, but they alone don't have the power to fight back against Sony, since even though the rest of the market might even agree that the current situation is bad, it's very difficult to mobilise people into actually doing anything (and what are you even supposed to to beyond 'voting with your wallet'?).
Whether or not people understand it (I’m guess most don’t), we’ve lost something and been handed an inferior alternative with significant disadvantages. I have CDs from the 80s that still work. Plenty of games on disc and cart that still work.
Is not having to get up to change a disc worth giving up libraries, resale, lending, and not having stuff taken away at the whim of the publisher?
But licenses in general you don't just "buy", you "earn" them somehow, then also usually you pay a price for it too, but it's typically about knowing about some rules and/or norms.
And the initial comment that started this was that "Purchase license" in reference to this... software license... wasn't clear. Arguing about whether you buy a hunting license or that it's not a perfect analogy seems pedantic and irrelevant.
> Arguing about whether you buy a hunting license or that it's not a perfect analogy seems pedantic and irrelevant
It's a completely different thing, it's like comparing buying a "license" (ticket) to ride a roller coaster and taking a driving license, they're obviously different things, not exactly pedantic, imo.
Yes, the AllTrails app does this. You can't send a route to your Garmin watch or whatever in the app, you must do it in the browser version.
And since having the app installed at all sort of hijacks AllTrails links, you really don't even want it installed at all. Yet you constantly are told to install the app...drives me up the wall.
They weren't even complex or convoluted. It was just a quiet, "Fuck you, you didn't think to try picking that item an hour ago so now you have to restart."
Other awesome BBS door games, for a those that want a shot of nostalgia:
LORD, Barren Realms, Falcon's Eye, Land of Devastation, Planets: TEOS, Usurper
It was a fun era. I had a BBS all setup and ready to go, complete with insane ASCII art: the plan was to make it live once my sister went to college, giving me the second phone line entirely to myself. But in the intervening two years the internet really took off and by the time she moved out (1997) it felt like a pointless endeavor.
Like others said, pretty much blasphemy leaving off Tradewars, but props for mentioning Usurper! LORD was fun mostly only fun (unless it was heavily modded) for social/community aspects. Usurper was kind of like LORD, but was actually fun to play in and of itself.
The source code to Usurper is on GitHub somewhere and it's a pretty cool read. It's actually kind of busted: I think there are a couple stats that do nothing and several things that are just purely random. Just shows the importance of flavor and presentation, I guess!
Of course. But it's a bit like putting an image of the tank man on a circuit board if you order from china (which I have seen discussed, never found someone who actually did it). Most people don't do it, not because they are for or against censorship, but because they are just there to order circuit boards.
reply