3 ms·
>practically there is little difference since they provide offline installers Well it makes it hard or impossible to sell your copy of the game to someone else
by SirMaster 9mo ago
>practically there is little difference since they provide offline installers
Well it makes it hard or impossible to sell your copy of the game to someone else after you are done with it like we used to be able to do with console game discs and cartridges?
Seems like a pretty big and practical difference to me.
- daedrdev 9mo agoYes but if you set up a website to do this they could sue, which I think is reasonable as many if not most people would be happy to both sell and keep a copy
- SirMaster 9mo agoBut it was so much simpler when you had the disc. Whoever had the disc had access to the copy and it could be sold and resold as many times as people wanted. I don't think people are so against DRM, because a disc like that was essentially a form of DRM. They are against an online DRM scheme which could change in the future. I know there were sone disc DRM that could like revoke the disc license, but let's go back before that was a thing to like the Xbox/360 and PS1/2/3 era style.
- daedrdev 9mo agoIt was much harder to sell things online back then too
- rvnx 9mo agoYou can also buy boxed things and have the problem. For example FL Studio, you buy the boxed edition 300 USD, and all you get is a serial number. Once it's linked to an account, it's over (and it's actually the only way). If legislators want to do something good, they could force platforms to allow transfer of games between accounts.
- knollimar 9mo agoDoesn't this fly in the face of Vernor vs Autodesk and other lwgal precedent? Not that they can't change this, but legislators have a vested interest in protecting software rights