• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion MechWarrior 5 developer leaves Steam for the Epic Games Store

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 4, 2009
25,951
6,596
136
There is you're basically allowing companies to undermine your basic rights to own the shit you pay for, and literally helping these companies defraud the world. There is no reason for any piece of software to be split between two machines. To think anandtech of 20 years ago is now filled with computer nerds who literally want a giant corporate d**k in their mouth.

No one is saying devs can't be paid for their work, the problem is developers are selling incomplete software via propaganda to the public. They're using the internet to sell incomplete software and take advantage of public ignorance regarding technology - aka fraud. Since we have the previous versions of games we own and control, their newer versions are just stolen version of past games. To not see that is to be pretty blind and obtuse.

There is no market in games since the internet has undermined any consumer power at all. The modern software market is a market for lemons. To watch the sea change in perception from 20 years ago is pretty alarming, you're literally enabling criminal behavior.
I’ve purchased waaaaaayyyyyy more non functional software on disks and floppies than I have on steam, so we don’t agree there.
Again for the minimal intrusion steam runs it’s a great deal and a great place to “warehouse” your games. Automatic update and no key to lose, plus mods and some games get community patches.
I’ll admit it would be interesting to see what the added cost of an easy to copy game on physical media vs a lightly secured by drm steam version would be. I’m talking what’s the market price. Personally I have no idea but I do suspect the cost difference would be substantial.
I’d also guess many would prefer not to deal with game keys or having to find a keyword in the manual when they start or want to re-load the game again.
Maybe I’m wrong and everyone would prefer to go back to that world but market forces have spoken and people prefer digital as of now.

You continually cherry pick the best stuff of old school game buying but you leave out the parts that were a major hassle to deal with.
Obviously the perfect world would be everyone pays a fair price, everyone receives a fair compensation, nobody cracks or distributes stuff they shouldn’t and all software works perfectly out of the box, nothing ever needs an update of patch (remember playing nearly any shooter pre-steam and a patch was issued? These are massive assumptions to make.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,349
302
126
There is you're basically allowing companies to undermine your basic rights to own the shit you pay for, and literally helping these companies defraud the world. There is no reason for any piece of software to be split between two machines. To think anandtech of 20 years ago is now filled with computer nerds who literally want a giant corporate d**k in their mouth.

No one is saying devs can't be paid for their work, the problem is developers are selling incomplete software via propaganda to the public. They're using the internet to sell incomplete software and take advantage of public ignorance regarding technology - aka fraud. Since we have the previous versions of games we own and control, their newer versions are just stolen version of past games. To not see that is to be pretty blind and obtuse.

There is no market in games since the internet has undermined any consumer power at all. The modern software market is a market for lemons. To watch the sea change in perception from 20 years ago is pretty alarming, you're literally enabling criminal behavior.
Zink, it's a bit ironic that the person you're replying to is the one named fanatical.

You're not entirely wrong. Just passionate about what you are wrong about.

What you could say validly is that you prefer a more full license for the game; reasons you think others should prefer that; and that you spend to support that.

What's not valid is for you to say no one else can have another opinion; to get the facts wrong; to use words incorrectly such as 'fraud' and 'criminal'.

There are all kinds of sleazy practices for software licensing you haven't touched on. The protections are our laws, and your right not to buy. Many of the licenses you don't like are valid, and desirable by both some sellers and some buyers. There are different, legitimate ways to license software and profit. You can vote with your purchases.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
48,410
5,101
126
Someone better not tell Zinc, that "VHS Movie Rental" joints, didn't have the right to rent out (consumer) VHS tapes, just because they paid for them. (The reason: They were only licensed for non-commercial/home viewing. Read the label, they all say that.)

If you wanted to rent tapes, you had to pay 3x-5x the price of the consumer tape, for the "rental OK"/commercial-usage licensed VHS tape.

Is he going to complain that VHS home movie distributors were "stealing" from their customers, because they didn't have the right to rent out their (home-licensed only) tape collection?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NTMBK

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,039
4,997
136
@VirtualLarry


Best explanation on how Games-as-a-service is either fraudulent, or at least a violation of consumer protection laws. Too bad Zink doesn't want to take such a nuanced approach (or admit that MMOs were actually legal because their licenses were structured properly - oops!).

Consumers will continue putting their money on products that work for them. GoG is there waiting to sell games like hotcakes once people realize that they want a fully-functioning game license on games that will continue to work even if the publisher/developer goes out of business. For people who are less-concerned about such things, there's . . . everywhere else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranulf

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
75,831
9,006
126
Someone better not tell Zinc, that "VHS Movie Rental" joints, didn't have the right to rent out (consumer) VHS tapes, just because they paid for them. (The reason: They were only licensed for non-commercial/home viewing. Read the label, they all say that.)

If you wanted to rent tapes, you had to pay 3x-5x the price of the consumer tape, for the "rental OK"/commercial-usage licensed VHS tape.

Is he going to complain that VHS home movie distributors were "stealing" from their customers, because they didn't have the right to rent out their (home-licensed only) tape collection?
Disney tried to sue them and lost.
So, thats almost the same thing as a "right". Not exactly.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,349
302
126
Best explanation on how Games-as-a-service is either fraudulent, or at least a violation of consumer protection laws. Too bad Zink doesn't want to take such a nuanced approach (or admit that MMOs were actually legal because their licenses were structured properly - oops!).

Consumers will continue putting their money on products that work for them. GoG is there waiting to sell games like hotcakes once people realize that they want a fully-functioning game license on games that will continue to work even if the publisher/developer goes out of business. For people who are less-concerned about such things, there's . . . everywhere else.
It's interesting, a technology/legal issue intersects with gaming.

I remember when games were largely designed to be 'played once' mostly, when a replay was mostly 'play again because you really liked it' or to do better. E.g., platformers like Apogee/ID games you could play start to finish, and replay trying for a better score. 'Adventures' and RPGs were sort of 'play and finish'.

That's changed as games have found ways to more more 'an activity' people can do over and over; that's always existed for example for arcade type games designed to eat quarters, but now games like Overwatch or World of Tanks and MMOs are meant for thousands of 'replays' or as an activity. MMOs have more of a challenge, needing 'more new content'.

Those limits - replay when the dev goes out of business - are less of an issue when you look at how much games of the 'play once' type seem to have a short shelf-life. Most people don't go back to most of those games much of at all after playing it, and that's not as big an issue as it might sound like.

It's a bit rarer where there's more of a conflict - when an MMO has shut down quickly after release, when a game like - 'A. P. B.' shut down quickly, when Hellgate: London sold lifetime subscriptions for $300 and then quickly shut down.

But companies leap at the chance to make a lot more money. Games are a very competitive industry, and consumers often reward and fund things that aren't really good things.

For example, games realized the word free was attractive, and began designing games they could sell as 'free to play', which were intentionally crippled, with things like built-in slowdowns designed to frustrate gamers, where they could buy the solutions.

Terrible pretty much, yet gamers did tend to pick the 'free to play' games over the 'subscription' games which gave gamers everything. And so almost every MMO went 'free to play', with 'optional' DLC and subscriptions.

'Games as a service' seems to be another 'more profitable' model. One they can do because the technology allows it and it benefits the seller.

And it's not totally invalid as an idea. When you buy a ticket to a movie, you don't get to watch it in the theater for years. There are lots of rental products. For gamers who want to play a game once and that's it, it might not be a big deal to do it as a 'service' instead of a 'purchase'. Only some will care much about some games.

There's even an element of the issue that companies would rather not compete as much with games from years before for gamers' time. Sell them a new game instead of their re-playing an old copy of Command and Conquer.

For some gamers, games as a service, and game subscriptions, might be a better deal.

Because there is a place where it's a successful model, whether because gamers benefit or simply because they want to play a game only available as a service, and companies benefit, it seems unlikely it's going anywhere.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,039
4,997
136
For some gamers, games as a service, and game subscriptions, might be a better deal.
I would definitely put myself into the "plays once" category, most of the time. The only game I've replayed a lot over the last decade is mostly f2p anyway (TF2). That doesn't mean everyone falls into that category though.

Because there is a place where it's a successful model, whether because gamers benefit or simply because they want to play a game only available as a service, and companies benefit, it seems unlikely it's going anywhere.
Sadly, GaaS uses older license models that don't represent the actual terms of the product legally. And that's a big sticking point.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
rootstereo PC Games 4
Fanatical Meat PC Games 30

ASK THE COMMUNITY