• janonymous@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    If your games are on steam, you’re already not owning them. The only difference seems to be that steam doesn’t demand a monthly subscription cost, yet

    We already have game pass so it’s not like this is something completely new either.

    If this makes money, other big publishers will join and in 10 years it’s the norm.

    Personally, I’ll try my best to keep buying on GOG and itch.io where I get to actually own my games.

  • stardust@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Piracy is a very noble endeavor to keep alive. Thank you Ubisoft for keeping us on our toes instead of being complacent with trusting digital platforms. Piracy is the true preservation and ownership.

  • thoro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the direction the big companies are looking to move in. This is the direction Microsoft is banking on, too. Even if you like one service more, the end result may be the same. It’s a matter of time before we see subscription exclusives.

    GamePass subscribers are the pre-orderers and mtx consumers of yesteryear, normalizing the industry to practices harmful to general consumers.

  • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    One thing I read (a lot, oddly) is that GamePass is ‘really popular’/the most popular ‘subscription’ service, but I have never met anyone who uses it.

    I checked the numbers of people using GamePass, and it seems the numbers have gone:

    2021 - 23 million

    2022 - 25 million

    2023 - there was a brief post on linkedin saying 30 million, but it was removed.

    If even the most popular service is struggling to pass 30 million users, how exactly is Ubisoft going to compete? There’s what, 120 million people with Xbox subscriptions, and they can barely get 1/4 of them to use GamePass?

    It’s interesting to watch ‘AAA’ studios absolutely faceplanting every year now, hopefully we can make a full indie-sweep soon.

    • spez_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      All my friends have it. They just want to play the game once and move on

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Buying a CD/DVD was never ownership of the media that’s on it. It’s ownership of a piece of plastic and a license to play to the content on the plastic within certain limitations. If it was ownership, you would be allowed to project the DVD on a wall and charge patrons to view it, but legally you can’t, because you don’t own anything but the plastic. Buying a CD/DVD was always just a more convenient version of buying a ticket to a concert/theater to see the same thing. You’re paying for the experience of viewing their artwork.

      So, as long as you also agree that sneaking into a concert/theater to view a show without paying also isn’t theft in any way, then I can’t argue.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Blah blah blah. Shove that copyright-maximalist take. You own things, god dammit. Even if you only own your copy of a book, it’s not somehow an ink-and-paper license to a copy, it is your copy. That’s what ownership means.

        If you don’t know the difference between individual property and intellectual property, stop spitting at people who do.

        • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think his point in this case is you own the physical item but not the information on it. If not then I could buy some musician’s cd then I could say “Now I own their music” and start selling copies of their cd, publishing it, stealing their rights to it, etc. I think we can all agree that would be bad.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I think we can all agree that would be bad.

            You’d be surprised. There seem to be vanishingly few people here willing to honestly discuss the legal questions around piracy and copyright. The vast majority are just here to circle jerk about how much corporations suck, completely forgetting about the rights of artists they’re defending in the anti-AI circle jerk one thread over. I honestly think they spend more time flaming anything they disagree with than actually putting any thought into the matter. The dogmatism rivals that of conservative forums.

  • Weslee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    If paying full price and obtaining a digital copy isn’t ownership, then taking that digital copy without paying can’t be stealing can it?

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not sure how you drew this conclusion, since most people I know consider paying full price to obtain a digital copy to be extremely close to ownership.

      I liked Telltale’s Law and Order series. They can’t sell it anymore, but I can still download my digital copy because I bought it full price.

      The whole argument in the article is about monthly subscription rentals.

      • nfh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        When a contract ending almost caused Sony to remove all Discovery content from users last year, including digital copies of things people had paid full price for, the cracks between buying a digital license and actually owning something that can’t be taken away became more visible to a chunk of people. It’s something, but it’s not ownership, and it can be taken away based on agreements you may have no way of gaining insight into.

        • Seudo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Audible is open about it. Well, if you dig through the fine print. Easy enough to rip copies but I’d say most people only realise they need to when they loose access. Maybe not, but $30 for an audiobook seems like pretty shity value if you’re only renting it untill you cancel your subscription.

          E: I might be misinformed/ outdated.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s rather amusing how everything people fear happening under communism comes to pass under capitalism in one way or another. Turns out that it is the capitalists who aim to strip individuals of their personal property by transforming everything into a rental service. You see, you no longer possess your media, books, computer, phone, or any other device; they’ve all been transformed into internet-connected subscriptions. The moment you cease paying or when the company decides to discontinue its services, you find yourself in quite an unfortunate predicament.