7th August 2012, 11:37 AM
Those "you don't actually own it" agreements are a problem though GR. Systemic adaptation of such clauses only establishes that it's a systemic issue, not that it's justified. I really only think that online components of games (all the services the company has to provide continually with their own servers) should be the only things requiring some basic understanding that the company is free to ban you from the server and that you don't "own" their servers. That's it. I honestly wonder about those precedent cases in the 1980's establishing that opening a box does not constitute "agreement" to a company's terms. Well, what is the difference between someone opening a box and finding a slip saying "by installing this you agree to blah blah blah" and putting a disc in the computer and installing only to be presented with an identical notice, only digitally. Either way, the whole "I thought I BOUGHT this" deception is complete. If someone buys a game, they should be able to alter it, back it up (PERSONAL backups), install it on any and all machines they themselves own, and OPERATE all those installs simultaneously if they so feel like it. A company has no obligation to provide their SUPPORT of that, and may block all but one instance of it from connecting to their servers, but they've got no business saying you are only allowed one "install" of the game you own. Yes, I'm debating issues that most people forgot they were mad about decades ago. Let's bring it all back to brass tacks.
ABF, once again I have to point out that you don't need to be online to PLAY the games (with some Ubisoft exceptions). You just need to log in, ONE time only, to validate that you own it. That's it. I consider this a perfectly valid compromise between that and any of the other much more horrid ways to establish ownership companies have, and are continuing to, experiment with. Heck any game bought on their online store is verified right then and there as you download, so it's a non-issue for those. Since the contents of a Steam install can be moved from one PC to another without issue, I don't personally consider it that great a cost. Yes, ideally they'd go with that "digital signature" system where every copy of a game, physical or online, would be traceable to a single owner and thus a single source of illegal sharing and eliminate this too, but really this is a minimal level of inconvenience comparable to putting in a key when you start the game for the first time. Heck you just bought a bunch of Steam games recently right?
ABF, once again I have to point out that you don't need to be online to PLAY the games (with some Ubisoft exceptions). You just need to log in, ONE time only, to validate that you own it. That's it. I consider this a perfectly valid compromise between that and any of the other much more horrid ways to establish ownership companies have, and are continuing to, experiment with. Heck any game bought on their online store is verified right then and there as you download, so it's a non-issue for those. Since the contents of a Steam install can be moved from one PC to another without issue, I don't personally consider it that great a cost. Yes, ideally they'd go with that "digital signature" system where every copy of a game, physical or online, would be traceable to a single owner and thus a single source of illegal sharing and eliminate this too, but really this is a minimal level of inconvenience comparable to putting in a key when you start the game for the first time. Heck you just bought a bunch of Steam games recently right?
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)