9 ms·

I mean, that would be fine if specified except it's a perpetual license that can be revoked at any time. Whether it's one hour or 10 years I'm not sure how it i

I mean, that would be fine if specified except it's a perpetual license that can be revoked at any time. Whether it's one hour or 10 years I'm not sure how it is good-faith to sell such a license without explicitly specifying the license duration and terms. Of course in practice, it is more like "perpetual provided that the entity you are licensing from elects to re-license from the rights-holder every X years" but I really don't see how such an arrangement should even be legal. You shouldn't be allowed to sell those kinds of licenses where the duration is dependent on third-party negotiations that have nothing to do with the initial license sale.

Alupis 2y ago
It's an odd world where we willingly trade dozens or hundreds of dollars for a couple hours of entertainment (golf, amusement parks, movies, dinner out, bars, vacation) but we're unwilling to trade similar amount of money for software (games) that give you many, many more hours of entertainment. There's people who have spent literal days entertained by a game, but then complain they had to spend $70 for the privilege. Where else can you be entertained for a couple bucks an hour or less? In my opinion, if you license a game and play it for a dozen hours... you've gotten your money's worth already. That said, I too would be disappointed if a game I enjoyed was removed from my library.
- lukeschlather 2y ago
  The point isn't whether or not it's a good deal. If I agree to license a game for 12 hours in exchange for $70, great. Like you say, I make deals like that sometimes. But that's not what we're talking about here, the licensor is misrepresenting it as a perpetual license and that should just be considered fraud.
- TheCoelacanth 2y ago
  Restaurants don't tell me that I'm buying a table in the restaurant; they tell me I'm getting a meal. Movie theaters don't tell me I'm buying a seat in the theater; they tell me I'm seeing a movie. Paying to play a game for some time is fine, but they shouldn't lie about what terms you're getting.
- dfxm12 2y ago
  I think there are more factors at play in this situation. This is a case where even if you wanted to pay money to continue or start playing a game, you can't because someone else simply doesn't want you to. This is a consumer-hostile shift from earlier days where if you owned the disk, disc or cartridge and a computer that could play it, you could play the game, no questions asked. I think it's always worth fighting against consumer hostile shifts. Some people are collectors as much as they are gamers. A license (or whatever) is less valuable to a collector than a game.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    > A license (or whatever) is less valuable to a collector than a game. To be frank - nobody cares about collectors. That argument will not change how software is licensed one bit...
    - dfxm12 2y ago
      I was not making that argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  >Where else can you be entertained for a couple bucks an hour or less? Some examples include: *Mountain hiking *Swimming in a lake *Reading a book *Arguing on HackerNews

Alupis 2y ago

It's an odd world where we willingly trade dozens or hundreds of dollars for a couple hours of entertainment (golf, amusement parks, movies, dinner out, bars, vacation) but we're unwilling to trade similar amount of money for software (games) that give you many, many more hours of entertainment. There's people who have spent literal days entertained by a game, but then complain they had to spend $70 for the privilege. Where else can you be entertained for a couple bucks an hour or less? In my opinion, if you license a game and play it for a dozen hours... you've gotten your money's worth already. That said, I too would be disappointed if a game I enjoyed was removed from my library.

lukeschlather 2y ago
The point isn't whether or not it's a good deal. If I agree to license a game for 12 hours in exchange for $70, great. Like you say, I make deals like that sometimes. But that's not what we're talking about here, the licensor is misrepresenting it as a perpetual license and that should just be considered fraud.
TheCoelacanth 2y ago
Restaurants don't tell me that I'm buying a table in the restaurant; they tell me I'm getting a meal. Movie theaters don't tell me I'm buying a seat in the theater; they tell me I'm seeing a movie. Paying to play a game for some time is fine, but they shouldn't lie about what terms you're getting.
dfxm12 2y ago
I think there are more factors at play in this situation. This is a case where even if you wanted to pay money to continue or start playing a game, you can't because someone else simply doesn't want you to. This is a consumer-hostile shift from earlier days where if you owned the disk, disc or cartridge and a computer that could play it, you could play the game, no questions asked. I think it's always worth fighting against consumer hostile shifts. Some people are collectors as much as they are gamers. A license (or whatever) is less valuable to a collector than a game.
- Alupis 2y ago
  > A license (or whatever) is less valuable to a collector than a game. To be frank - nobody cares about collectors. That argument will not change how software is licensed one bit...
  - dfxm12 2y ago
    I was not making that argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
poincaredisk 2y ago
>Where else can you be entertained for a couple bucks an hour or less? Some examples include: *Mountain hiking *Swimming in a lake *Reading a book *Arguing on HackerNews