Hacker News Reader

Comment by hd4 | Hacker News Reader

"The problem is when we're actually renting but it's being marketed as ownership."

which is the primary form of videogame ownership now.

The point is these companies should legally be restricted from using terms like “buy” or “purchase” wherever their game is sold. Instead they should be required to use terms like “lease” or “rent”. The common understanding of terms like “buy” or “purchase” is that you own the item. This is clearly not the case for nearly all games consumers lease today.

In a way we are moving towards a more honest/ethical way of marketing and selling/leasing games and software in general: SaaS, or subscriptions.

Purchasing a subscription very clearly conveys the ultimately temporary and ephemeral nature of the purchase.

Note: I'm not saying this is necessarily a good or bad thing nor whether we should like or hate it, I'm merely pointing out a shift in market trends.

I'm not sure I see a difference between renting and subscribing, with regards to software. I do know, however, that I hate both models because both seek to milk the user for all they are worth.

I'm saying they're the same and that it is more honest, relatively speaking.

How does that change anything for consumers other than its more clear that they're allowed to fuck us?

That clarity is the point, though not the ultimate goal. If you understand from the start the ways in which you can be screwed, then you’ll think harder before giving them money and may refrain from doing so. Which in turn hurts their profit, which in turns makes them reconsider the business model.

In theory.

The consumer gets to make a more informed decision about whether they’d like to be fucked.

Basically only truly DRM-free, offline games in GOG/itch.io will be able to show "Buy", giving them an advertising edge.

In a EULA this is usually pointed out early in the text: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/40537/what-does-this...

But it translates to "real world" writing very poorly. "Pay for this game now!" "Revocably license for $N". Hope these examples aren't too contrived, in my head they all sound so if I replace the standard "Buy" as a call-to-action.

The fact they’re allowed to hide information like this in the EULA instead of including it up front in product advertisements is part of the problem.

They’re advertising one transaction, but then holding you to another and hoping you won’t notice the legalese.

If this is the language they use then the “Buy” button in the online store should say “License” instead.

If the button they pressed said "buy" that should probably override other terms that are imposed afterwards.

Is it? I know cancerous companies like EA and Ubisoft do that, but are they actually the majority? I’m not a mainstream gamer, so I really can’t tell. None of the games I play require an internet connection.

Yep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com