Yes what we want is transferable licenses, that’s what we are losing and or lost with digital storefronts. We want to own the license. We want a physical, tangible thing
Technically yes, in the legalese context the term people should be using is ‘license’, but for most people that’s what the game is, it’s always been that, but that’s not the term people use. “owning the game” is the exact same thing as the legal term “owning a transferable license”.
What we want is that tangible transferable license, aka owning the game. We don’t want the source code, or the IP. We just want to be able to own the game that lets us trade, borrow/lend, sell, or buy ‘used’ games.
But boiling it down to just “license” allows for that terms of the license to be changed because corporations have been given the power to change the terms of every license ever to fit their own whims without the real consent of both parties. We’ve seen that shit already with digital license games. Sony can just up and remove the game from your account without consulting you or even informing you the second party of the license. They don’t have to give you a reason, they can just up and change the agreement without you needing to agree to the changes. And even if they do ask you to agree to the changes, they only present you with 2 choices: agree or lose access. That’s bullshit.
Sony won’t do it, and no one did anything when they stopped making music CDs. It’s unfortunately just a pipe dream to think gamers get to force sony to print blurays but music enjoyers can’t force them to make CDs or those live DVDs.
Hey, maybe I’m wrong, but capitalism doesn’t usually go against the giant IP holders in America.
Yes what we want is transferable licenses, that’s what we are losing and or lost with digital storefronts. We want to own the license. We want a physical, tangible thing
Technically yes, in the legalese context the term people should be using is ‘license’, but for most people that’s what the game is, it’s always been that, but that’s not the term people use. “owning the game” is the exact same thing as the legal term “owning a transferable license”.
What we want is that tangible transferable license, aka owning the game. We don’t want the source code, or the IP. We just want to be able to own the game that lets us trade, borrow/lend, sell, or buy ‘used’ games.
But boiling it down to just “license” allows for that terms of the license to be changed because corporations have been given the power to change the terms of every license ever to fit their own whims without the real consent of both parties. We’ve seen that shit already with digital license games. Sony can just up and remove the game from your account without consulting you or even informing you the second party of the license. They don’t have to give you a reason, they can just up and change the agreement without you needing to agree to the changes. And even if they do ask you to agree to the changes, they only present you with 2 choices: agree or lose access. That’s bullshit.
irrevocable transferable licenses
Sony won’t do it, and no one did anything when they stopped making music CDs. It’s unfortunately just a pipe dream to think gamers get to force sony to print blurays but music enjoyers can’t force them to make CDs or those live DVDs.
Hey, maybe I’m wrong, but capitalism doesn’t usually go against the giant IP holders in America.
You are an idiot. How do you charge two people separately if one can just transfer the license to another person independently?