undefined | Better HN

0 pointsizzydata2y ago0 comments

I agree completely. Also in practice there is almost no such thing as a perpetual license as companies can go bankrupt or just revoke your license whenever they want. They should make the exact nature of the agreement known visibly before you spend any money.

Eventually prices would have to drop to reflect that you are merely temporarily licensed things. A digital game is not going to be perceived as a $60 value when it is more obviously a temporary license regardless of the length. If a physical copy of a game is valued at $60 that can be sold then a digital temporary license is going to have to be less. In my opinion a lot less.

0 comments

15 comments · 3 top-level

jorvi2y ago· 12 in thread

I’m fine with digital products being a license, but then they’re a universal license. Meaning that if I bought the license to play Mortal Kombat via Steam, I should be allowed to freely download it on Xbox and PlayStation too.

Right now companies gives us all the disadvantages of both a product and a license.

Faark2y ago

Idk, porting isn't free, especially good ports. It seems less likely for eg a successful indie game to contract out a port, if all existing owners have to get it for free.

It would be very user-friendly and am quite happy to have also gotten some mobile versions on Humble bundle

0cf8612b2e1e2y ago

Seems like an easy workaround. Steam sold “Mortal Kombat Alpha”, but PlayStation sells “Mortal Kombat Beta”. Many electronics use a similar strategy to prevent price matching between stores where each market gets a specific SKU.

jorvi2y ago

Maybe in the US, but the EU would come in with the steel chair rather quick.

izzydataOP2y ago

I'm fine with licenses too. I just think it should be made more obvious to the user and the price should reflect it's non-perpetual nature.

blooalien2y ago

> ... "and the price should reflect it's non-perpetual nature." (emphasis, mine)

This is one thing that bugs the hell outta me for some game publishers. They used to sell a given ("AAA" or whatever) game for like $60, and you got a disc you could use "forever" (as long as the disc lasted, and compatibility with system updates held out), a fancy manual, slick packaging, and sometimes even a poster or other extra goodie. These days, some (many?) of those companies sell a digital download, hosted by Steam's delivery servers, and often nothing else at all, for the same or sometimes even higher price as physical media. For many of these games, reliance on remote DRM services mean that game can disappear any random time in the future for <reasons>. I generally refuse to support them in doing that, so those companies will only ever see my purchase during a sale that brings the price more in line with the reality. I'd rather spend my money with the publishers / developers that value their customers a bit more than as a "fleshy cash machine".

packetlost2y ago

> I’m fine with digital products being a license, but then they’re a universal license. Meaning that if I bought the license to play Mortal Kombat via Steam, I should be allowed to freely download it on Xbox and PlayStation too.

Eh, I don't think that's fair to the companies paying for the bandwidth and storage costs for those games. They typically take a cut for purchasing on their respective storefronts that cover those costs, so either you pay per MB downloaded or a monthly subscription for access to the library (but not the licenses themselves)

_a_a_a_2y ago

So companies burn it onto a DVD and stick it in the post. Customer pays for post + blank DVD.

sgift2y ago

I'd be happy if we started with forcing them to allow the PC version run on any PC. It's bullshit that only some games run on the NVidia cloud (forgot the name) cause the publishers sued them. I bought the game. I can run the game wherever I want.

(Same for other digital products)

kuroguro2y ago

Yeah, like we should put them in a public digital ledger of some sort... oh wait.

jdechko2y ago

Not that it’s perfect, far from it, but Movies Anywhere is a baby step in the right direction for at least Movies (on some services).

piperswe2y ago

Where does that conclusion come from? It doesn't seem relevant.

jamiek882y ago

Why do we need a database for this?

krisoft2y ago

> Eventually prices would have to drop to reflect that you are merely temporarily licensed things.

I understand that you think that would be fair. I also agree that that would be fair, but I’m not so optimistic about it happening.

The cost of digital content has much more to do with how much faff it is to pirate said content and how desireable the content is preceived to be.

Sorr if this is too depressing, but the whole thing is a bit of “I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.” from the content producers as far as I can see. But! Hope you will be right.

PeterisP2y ago

There is literally nothing in possibility of bankruptcy that conflicts with a perpetual license - honoring the license is neither some goodwill that a company may voluntarily abandon if it's in financial hardship, nor something that bankruptcy courts will void.

The relevant consumer rights laws should simply assert that if you sell a license, then it's irrevocable, no matter what your fine print says.

And also there's nothing inherently wrong with temporarily licensed things as long as you make it clear up front. If you're offering a three-year license, that's just as valid as a monthly subscription, but you shouldn't be permitted to sell a license for the period of "as long as I wish".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse