3 ms·

This is just pedantry, and incorrect pedantry at that. BUY does not always mean you gain ownership. You can BUY a license or a haircut and you don't own anythin

by nfw2 3mo ago

This is just pedantry, and incorrect pedantry at that. BUY does not always mean you gain ownership. You can BUY a license or a haircut and you don't own anything. Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store? Does anyone really thing Buy here means they will be able to download the game onto their computer and play it there? Fine, pass a regulation that makes online stores change the word to license or whatever. Will that relieve your sense of persecution? Or would just you find another way to cast game publishers as the conniving evil empire (market control, collusion to reduce consumer options, etc.) because they aren't giving you what you want?

tikkabhuna 3mo ago
You can pay for services and you may use the term “buy”, but it is clear you’re receiving a service, and a service in its nature is temporary. Buy a night in a hotel, dinner in a restaurant, haircut, shoe shine. These are all services. Buying of digital services like games, films, and music is an evolution of buying dvds, cds or records. There is an expectation that you now own something. I can dig out my dad’s old records and play them and pass them onto my children. If media companies want to sell a license that has an expiry date, that’s fine, but it has to be explicitly communicated. Consumers have to be well informed about what they’re purchasing.
- nfw2 3mo ago
  Access to an online server is clearly a service, hence the word "server"
  - fizwidget 3mo ago
    The discussion is not just about online multiplayer games though, it’s about games in general. There is no good reason why buying a singleplayer offline game need be a “service”.
    - nfw2 3mo ago
      There IS a reason they don't make it possible to download the game copies directly, which is it becomes trivially easy to perfectly replicate and distribute new copies online, which is not true of any physical good. People who aren't overly-online forum denizens only care about this issue insofar as it affects them, and the only way it affects people in the real world is when they lose access to online games when the server shuts down. Offline games don't get access revoked in practice.
- smelendez 3mo ago
  Yeah, I can’t actually think of any contracts besides media licenses that are fixed payment for access to a resource for an indeterminate length of time. It doesn’t make a lot of sense when you think about it.
- matwood 3mo ago
  > I can dig out my dad’s old records and play them and pass them onto my children. What if you lost or otherwise destroyed/damaged the record, should you still have access through some other means or be forced to buy it again?
  - tikkabhuna 3mo ago
    I think that's on you. I'd expect it to be on me. If I bought another physical product (a bike, football, scissors, knives), I'd expect to buy a replacement if I couldn't fix it. That's definitely a perk of digital media. And for the record, I'm not against digital media. There are a ton of benefits. I think there just needs to be better communication of the expectations between producer and consumers. Reading this thread and seeing that California requires the use of "License" instead of "Buy" is a good example of emphasising the difference between paying for digital media and physical media.
PaulRobinson 3mo ago
Most of the World understands the difference between buying a product and buying a service. Games (and other digital media), are sold as products, not services, mostly. TFA is arguing this should persist and not be replaced as games as (subscription/licensed rental), services. It argues the move to digital is being used by businesses to switch to a services model under the hood, and that this should be resisted and it should remain a product model. > Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store? Demonstrably, provably: yes. > Fine, pass a regulation that makes online stores change the word to license or whatever. Why not make the store change what they sell from being a license and making it a product as the consumer expected?
- nfw2 3mo ago
  An online server is a service. People don't lose access to offline games, generally speaking.
- nfw2 3mo ago
  > Why not make the store change what they sell from being a license and making it a product as the consumer expected? Because we have a free market not a command economy? Publishers can sell whatever they want
  - Telaneo 3mo ago
    Then they can stop pretending and actually sell it as a service. What they're doing now is doing one thing (selling it as a product), while getting the benefits of the other (selling it as a service).
    - nfw2 3mo ago
      That is what I suggested. The other poster said what you are suggesting shouldn't be allowed, not me.
      - Telaneo 3mo ago
_carbyau_ 3mo ago
> This is just pedantry, and incorrect pedantry at that. BUY does not always mean you gain ownership. You can BUY a license or a haircut and you don't own anything. At the end of the day words have to mean something. It is not pedantry to simply discuss what a word or phrase means. There are false advertising laws for a reason. To that end, I would argue you've never bought a haircut, you've paid for a service. The issue at hand here is exactly that the word "buy" is used when discussing the appropriation of a licence for content that in practical terms, is still controlled by someone else. Maybe there are technical reasons for this to be the case, but then maybe the word "buy" should not be used in this instance.
- meh2frdf 3mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

by nfw2 3mo ago

tikkabhuna 3mo ago

You can pay for services and you may use the term “buy”, but it is clear you’re receiving a service, and a service in its nature is temporary. Buy a night in a hotel, dinner in a restaurant, haircut, shoe shine. These are all services. Buying of digital services like games, films, and music is an evolution of buying dvds, cds or records. There is an expectation that you now own something. I can dig out my dad’s old records and play them and pass them onto my children. If media companies want to sell a license that has an expiry date, that’s fine, but it has to be explicitly communicated. Consumers have to be well informed about what they’re purchasing.

nfw2 3mo ago
Access to an online server is clearly a service, hence the word "server"
- fizwidget 3mo ago
  The discussion is not just about online multiplayer games though, it’s about games in general. There is no good reason why buying a singleplayer offline game need be a “service”.
  - nfw2 3mo ago
    There IS a reason they don't make it possible to download the game copies directly, which is it becomes trivially easy to perfectly replicate and distribute new copies online, which is not true of any physical good. People who aren't overly-online forum denizens only care about this issue insofar as it affects them, and the only way it affects people in the real world is when they lose access to online games when the server shuts down. Offline games don't get access revoked in practice.
smelendez 3mo ago
Yeah, I can’t actually think of any contracts besides media licenses that are fixed payment for access to a resource for an indeterminate length of time. It doesn’t make a lot of sense when you think about it.
matwood 3mo ago
> I can dig out my dad’s old records and play them and pass them onto my children. What if you lost or otherwise destroyed/damaged the record, should you still have access through some other means or be forced to buy it again?
- tikkabhuna 3mo ago
  I think that's on you. I'd expect it to be on me. If I bought another physical product (a bike, football, scissors, knives), I'd expect to buy a replacement if I couldn't fix it. That's definitely a perk of digital media. And for the record, I'm not against digital media. There are a ton of benefits. I think there just needs to be better communication of the expectations between producer and consumers. Reading this thread and seeing that California requires the use of "License" instead of "Buy" is a good example of emphasising the difference between paying for digital media and physical media.

PaulRobinson 3mo ago

Most of the World understands the difference between buying a product and buying a service. Games (and other digital media), are sold as products, not services, mostly. TFA is arguing this should persist and not be replaced as games as (subscription/licensed rental), services. It argues the move to digital is being used by businesses to switch to a services model under the hood, and that this should be resisted and it should remain a product model. > Are consumers confused in practice by what happens when they click "Buy" on the playstation store? Demonstrably, provably: yes. > Fine, pass a regulation that makes online stores change the word to license or whatever. Why not make the store change what they sell from being a license and making it a product as the consumer expected?

nfw2 3mo ago
An online server is a service. People don't lose access to offline games, generally speaking.
nfw2 3mo ago
> Why not make the store change what they sell from being a license and making it a product as the consumer expected? Because we have a free market not a command economy? Publishers can sell whatever they want
- Telaneo 3mo ago
  Then they can stop pretending and actually sell it as a service. What they're doing now is doing one thing (selling it as a product), while getting the benefits of the other (selling it as a service).
  - nfw2 3mo ago
    That is what I suggested. The other poster said what you are suggesting shouldn't be allowed, not me.
    - Telaneo 3mo ago

_carbyau_ 3mo ago

> This is just pedantry, and incorrect pedantry at that. BUY does not always mean you gain ownership. You can BUY a license or a haircut and you don't own anything. At the end of the day words have to mean something. It is not pedantry to simply discuss what a word or phrase means. There are false advertising laws for a reason. To that end, I would argue you've never bought a haircut, you've paid for a service. The issue at hand here is exactly that the word "buy" is used when discussing the appropriation of a licence for content that in practical terms, is still controlled by someone else. Maybe there are technical reasons for this to be the case, but then maybe the word "buy" should not be used in this instance.

meh2frdf 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)