Ah yes the intelligent consumer who always has a choice and is never beholden to the whims of a completely dominant supply side economy.
I choose to crush corporations until they are so small they are easily drowned by pissing on them.
Funny. The consumer didn’t make physical media worse for the last 15 years.
Manual or at least something besides the disk: Gone Price: Same as digital despite they getting more profit from digital. Disc: half the game, other half downloads. (Not always, mind you) Game: Half baked without at least two patches.
They’ve been giving less and less with physical editions to push the more profitable digital store, and then they act shocked when no one buys physical.
Shockingly, if the only difference between physical and digital is that you need to go out of your way to pick the physical, most people will just get the digital.
Still I got my Switch games in physical so I can trade with friends.
The current outrage over the shift from physical media to streaming and digital licenses is based on a massive historical misunderstanding. People treat the twentieth century as the absolute baseline for how media should work, but the era of the DVD and the cartridge was actually a historical fluke.
For thousands of years, you could not buy or own a performance. You bought a ticket to experience a play or a symphony, and the creator maintained total control over their work. John Locke argued that individuals own themselves and therefore own the labor of their bodies and minds. When a creator invests their intellect into developing software or art, it is an extension of that labor, and they possess the highest moral claim to it.
Capturing art on physical media was a technological anomaly that broke this rule and created a false sense of consumer entitlement. It birthed legal loopholes that allowed massive secondary markets to profit endlessly off a creator’s intellectual labor without compensating them beyond the very first sale. It tricked the public into confusing the ownership of a piece of plastic with the ownership of the art itself.
You do not own a creator’s code, film, or digital ecosystem, and you never did. Furthermore, modern software and digital media are not static objects like a wooden chair. They are living ecosystems that require ongoing server maintenance, security patches, and active development. Demanding perpetual, lifetime ownership of a digital service for a single upfront fee is essentially demanding forced, uncompensated ongoing labor from the development team.
The transition away from physical media is not a corporate theft of consumer rights. It is a necessary course correction back to the historical norm of the amphitheater. A digital subscription or end user license is simply a modern theater ticket. You are paying for the right to occupy the creator’s digital venue for a set period of time. The architect of the work is just finally reclaiming the moral authority to decide exactly how and when their intellectual labor is consumed.
While I don’t necessarily agree with your POV here, I can at least say it’s more interesting than people realize to look at the growth of the VHS player and how this ownership debacle played out in the video world when it first came around. There were big lawsuits around whether people were allowed to record a movie or show, and then play it in a living room of 4-5 people.
Also the patrons of the people and organizations that produced these works have often been owned by those who funded them, stop kidding yourself
You’re absolutely right that Locke isn’t gospel, so let’s strip the 17th century philosophy away entirely and look at the modern reality. You don’t need Locke to tell you that server hosting, database management, and daily security patching require ongoing human labor and cost money every single month.
You also make a great point about historical patrons owning the art they funded. In modern digital media, the publisher or the studio IS that patron. They funded the millions of dollars to build it, so as you pointed out, they own it. The consumer paying a $60 entry fee isn’t the patron; they are just buying a ticket to access the patron’s digital venue.
If you demand perpetual, lifetime ownership of a digital service for a single upfront payment, you are demanding that the patron provide uncompensated server space and engineering labor for you for the rest of time. That isn’t consumer rights; that’s just entitlement.
The fact that you bought a ticket to watch a movie in a movie theater does not entitle you to watch that movie whenever and however often you want.
The opinions of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are not absolutel nor ubiquitous. They may have said things that are no longer, or never were accurate and almost certainly should never be held to be inviolate/permanent.
You do not own a creator’s code, film, or digital ecosystem, and you never did.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
Art is the common property of all mankind. Art is the human soul. The very idea that you can restrict the creativity of another human being is an affront to the human spirit. You know what is truly a modern anomaly? Copyright and all IP law. For 99% of human history, artists would laugh in your face if you suggested that a musician had some God-given right to prevent others from singing a song they just wrote.
You have no natural right to “intellectual property,” because ultimately what you mean by “intellectual property” is the temporary right to exclusive sale of a product. And that is not a natural right. It’s not a natural right like freedom of speech, or even ownership of tangible property. Copyright violation is fundamentally different from real theft because it doesn’t deprive the owner of an original. Yes, you as an artist may feel you have some innate ownership to an idea, but that is a sense of privilege and entitlement that comes from misunderstanding the history and purpose of IP law. Hell, for most of history, artists were not even considered the source of creative works. Medieval painters didn’t sign their works, because they considered God to be the real creator. Before that, the Muses got credit.
Here is what you are missing. Copyright is not an innate right. It’s a useful legal compromise, nothing more. We discovered through trial and error that providing a limited period of exclusive use of a work to an artist helps get more art made. But that’s all it is, a pragmatic compromise. Do not confuse it for a natural right like life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
No one creates art in a vacuum. Everything is inspired and derived from works that came before it. There are no original stories. Artists are only able to create works because they’ve trained and studied on the works of countless other artists that came before them. Your work as an artist is just one tiny piece of a grand cultural tapestry. And as you were able to benefit from the commons, in turn your work will return to the commons to inspire others. A drop from the ocean. An ocean from a drop. That is the nature of art and creativity.
Whenever people make claims like “You have no natural right to intellectual property”, I’m very curious A) what is the fullest extent of the amount of IP they, as an individual, have worked to create, and B) how secure their living situation and finances are.
I find a lot of people shift their opinion after they’ve worked for years on something under genuine risk of it not doing well.
The very idea that you can restrict the creativity of another human being is an affront to the human spirit.
Strawman. What I said is that the creator of art has full moral authority over when and how it is consumed, if at all. If you have a private sketchbook in your room right now, are we all entitled to its contents as the common property of the human race simply because it exists?
…artists would laugh in your face if you suggested that a musician had some God-given right to prevent others from singing a song they just wrote.
False equivalency. What you are describing would be a unique performance and a completely new creative expression. A fairer question would be whether some hypothetical historical musician would agree with your suggestion that if they had 10 songs written down in a journal somewhere, that the rest of humanity was entitled to read, or hear them performed at their leisure and demand.
You have no natural right to “intellectual property,” because ultimately what you mean by “intellectual property” is…
Another false equivalency. You are confusing private property and personal property. Intellectual property (which would be a form of private property) does not exist; all ideas which benefit humanity should be shared freely. What we are discussing is the capitalization of intellectual labor, and the moral authority over all labor belongs to the individual who executed said labor. The knowledge required to write a song, or make a clay pot has utility to humanity and should be shared freely. If I use that knowledge to actually MAKE a clay pot you are not entitled to its use simply because you also exist.
It’s a useful legal compromise, nothing more. We discovered through trial and error that providing a limited period of exclusive use of a work to an artist helps get more art made.
I disagree 100%. Copyright should have only ever been used to prevent anyone other than a living creator from profiting off a unique creative work. This is why we have fair-use, and time bound public domain exceptions. Fundamentally I disagree with capitalism and commerce more broadly, but that is outside the scope of this conversation. As long as we are operating under those models, then copyright should protect commercial use of original works until the original creator is dead, then the work should enter the public domain.
One last question looking at you profile: do you have all your woodworking plans available for free online?
Well said. I only take issue with your assertion that it is a useful legal compromise. It being useful is entirely dependent upon who you are.
For someone who partakes in the shared cultural tapestry it could come to be that the legal compromise ends up an oppressive force.
For instance, if you went to clubs in your youth, that music became part of your shared culture. When you are older you will struggle to revisit that same shared culture by those using intellectual property legalities to paywall your soul.
When you are older you will struggle to revisit that same shared culture by those using intellectual property legalities to paywall your soul.
Again, you are fully entitled and within you legal right to sing those songs to your heart’s content to relive the glory days; that does not mean that you are entitled to a high fidelity recording of the original work in perpetuity simply because you paid to listen to it once at a club…
Not sure if you are joking or not.
Do you have a compelling moral counterargument?
Stories being owned is not how things always where, not by a long shot.
Bards, actors, and other performers would re-tell them, adding their own twists and artistic choices.
Paintings and books have been being sold for centuries, which in effect, are treated the same way DVD’s are.
The corporate capture of art and , and the monopoly of ideas are newer than you let on.
Remember: the original intent of copyright was to protect the SCIENCES and ARTS, not the copyright holder.
You mention bards adding their own twists. That actually proves my point. The audience didn’t “own” the bard’s unique performance or get to take it home; they just experienced the bard’s specific intellectual labor for the evening. A video game or software platform isn’t a public myth; it’s a highly specific, unique execution of labor.
Furthermore, you’re right that books and paintings have been sold for centuries, but those are static objects. When a painting is sold, the artist’s work is done. Modern digital ecosystems are living things that require active servers, database management, and ongoing engineering. If you demand perpetual ownership for a single $60 payment, who is morally obligated to provide the uncompensated labor to keep those servers running for the next twenty years?
Maybe stop treating private server owners like criminals, and get back to releasing server binaries like we used to?
The original developers of these games aren’t the only ones capable of hosting them.
I cut my teeth hosting by hosting game servers for me and my friends, and now work in the tech industry using those skills to pay rent.
Developers who gatekeep server binaries aren’t just doing a disservice to players, but to the future generation of IT workers, and those who will depend on them.
Furthermore, for many games, these are tacked on features to an already competent single player that doesn’t need online support.
This argument falls apart for anything that isn’t live service, which is basically everything I play…
You are conflating predatory always online DRM with actual live-service architecture. You are entirely right that tacking forced online requirements onto a single-player game is a terrible product choice, but it doesn’t change the underlying reality of ownership.
If a classical painter decides to hang their masterpiece in a pitch-black room, or a sculptor insists their work only be viewed through frosted glass, it makes for a miserable audience experience. But it is undeniably their right to do so. The creator always dictates the terms of engagement. Even if you are playing a completely offline game, you still do not own the code. You only bought a license to execute it. Feel free to go look at the EULA from ANY video game you’ve EVER purchased; you never owned the game, only a license.
Furthermore, demanding that developers just release server binaries treats backend architecture as if it is public property. Backend infrastructure is full of proprietary code, licensed third-party middleware, and security architecture that a studio cannot legally or safely hand over to the public. When a developer chooses to release server tools, that is a generous decision they made regarding their own intellectual labor. You do not have a moral or legal right to demand the keys to a developer’s proprietary backend just because you want to host it yourself. Whether it is a live-service giant or an offline indie game, the creator still gets to choose how their work is distributed.
Of course the “former Valve writer” is Chet Faliszek. The dude never shuts up.
If GOG just hired one full time intern to go ahead and bake Proton into their platform so they could have Linux support that isn’t completely broken, I’d probably start getting more games on their platform again.
Edit: Oh, looks like it’s on the way. Maybe I’d better start wishlisting.
I mean, I’m fully okay with settling for Heroic as my launcher until GOG gets it official.
I feel like everyone in this thread is ignoring the literal headline.
The point being made is that the consumer chose these rights-infringing, privacy-corrupting, ownership-destroying choices.
Then OF COURSE companies weaponised it.
The issue is that your average Joe doesn’t think for a damn second in his life, and picks up whatever is put down.
Yeah, arguments that blank percent of people are morally good are insane since… Most people dont really think about long term morals of their decisions day to day if ever. Most people just live and do by convenience without asking if it is morally good but simply believing the self to be.
It needs to be convenient to do good things for people to do them and the convenient option for a long time has been giving up ownership rights.
Yeah … Morality is subjective… If the majority of a given population does a thing, that thing is moral within that population.
So consumers were given the choice between physical media that you made artificially expensive and overly inconvenient or digital media that you made practically free and ultra convenient. That’s called the illusion of choice. But now you can blame your victims when you abuse them because they brought this on themselves.
It s more nuanced. 80% of buy are digital. Some industries it s worse. Like music and movie. But thoses industry value their “hardcore” consumer and will never shelve their physical release, who also append to be better quality than digital release. Contrary to video game where its litteraly the same product. Nobody has an issue with valve being fully digital cause they can’t lock down other store. What sont does is unprecdent and I pray for their downfall.
Physical media is no more expensive or inconvenient than it ever was. It’s just that you’re now comparing it to downloads, which bear no manufacturing cost and don’t require you to physically go to a store or have the media shipped to you. These are exactly the reasons that consumers prefer downloads.
Up until the Wii era you could just insert the disc in the console and start playing immediately, it was much more convenient than waiting an hour for a game to download and install. You didn’t need to manage disk space as well. Or login before playing. The industry destroyed the convenience. Now only Switch has an option to start playing from cartridge.
As far as I know, no one has produced technology to make disc streaming faster. You can blame console design for this, but even if an indie dev simulated this situation with a 50GB game containing compressed textures placed on a Blu-ray, he’d have the same design problem - loading things off that disc takes a long time, and installation is a far better user experience.
The Wii gets away with it because texture sizes back then were much smaller. If you can point to technical demonstrations of how the same process could’ve been achieved on modern games with much larger textures, I’d be interested to hear it.
Doesn’t most of the physical media still require downloads to actually play anyway? I don’t own a console but it seems like every time I’m at one of my friends who do and they’re putting a new game in they have to wait on it to install/update or whatever. Maybe it’s just the big AAA ones.
Only if you have an internet connection active. Otherwise, I believe it’s just insert disc and play, IIRC.
When all options are rigged, it’s pretty rude to blame “the consumer”
I just wanted to add that it’s also really stupid to claim that “consumers chose thing” because companies did it since they found it more profitable. Companies do many things people don’t actively want (or even dislike) for profit.
That is absolutely not true. Companies chose cloud-streamed gaming. But because no one saw it as useful, it didn’t catch on and Stadia ended up shuttering their services. Companies chose 3D TVs, but consumers didn’t. We are seeing the “choice of AI” in home computing, and it’s remarkable how long they have attempted to extend the effort of “forcing consumers to choose it”, but to their credit, there are at least some home AI afficionados that somehow love Windows 11 Copilot.
I can assume you were not part of the digital games zeitgeist, but I can assure you, a great many (perhaps non-vocal) gamers were, and were very much for it.
An interesting example is brought up by Andreas Malm in his book “Fossil Capital”. He explains how consumers didn’t chose for the manufacturing of electronics and lots of other things to move to China. Companies moved their manufacturing there because it was cheaper and would increase their profits. Now the choice for many consumers is basically to buy Chinese-made or not buy at all. I know since I actually tried a few years ago!
“Former” and “writer”
Sure. So there’s no reason he might not got paid by Sony to say this, right? Or yet alone have any professional knowledge on distribution of games.
Edit: check is wiki. He’s a sorry ass grifter. Putting up valve before his name to make his sorry points more credible. Trying to squeeze out his valve history even though majority of his career was spend on not being able to cope with indie studio workload and then shifting to riot games for monies. Now he’s making TikTok videos talking about valve like it’s his majority of experience. Also he was opposing Stop Killing Games. https://preservetube.com/watch?v=qr6I2BiU238
Try get your games pressed onto disc and boxed. Shit’s difficult as fuck and Sony hasn’t done anything to streamline the process and make it easier and cheaper. Even if you have the money as an indie dev you will basically be forced to go through a publisher and forgo a significant chunk of your margin to get a physical release and the margins are already a quite ways smaller than digital for physical releases. Hence why indie games rarely see a physical release on PlayStation. Sure only a minority of people buy physical but so do a minority of music consumers buy vinyl. Yet vinyl is thriving. Sony is the gatekeeper they hold the keys to turn physical games into a successful niche segment of the market like what vinyl is to music but they purposefully decided not to.
“We gave you two options previously, making one prohibitively expensive unnecessarily, and you didn’t pick that one as we planned. We respect your decision.”
I don’t mind digital if i can own it, store it wherever i want and installing it without internet
I play on PC, last console I owned was Sega Saturn. I have a few physical copies but most of my games are on steam and Gog. a friend who plays in console and perceive as normal Sony’s practices, asked what’s the difference between how he choose to play and me: I shared with him the example, some time ago rockstar delisted the original 3d GTA trilogy. Its not available in any digital platforms as an option to buy, but I still have them and play actually.
Then I shared with him the amazing indie games, he can buy for cheap, and the recurring sales. And let him know that on Sony’s ecosystem, they won’t have this flexibility, they will set dynamic prices, lock people out without any easy way to appeal.
It dawned on him, finally. Yesterday he shared Dammit Jeff’s video advising to turn auto update on ps5 off. Like him, there’s a lot of players misinformed of the consequences of consoles tyranny.
I’m 37 years old, I only buy digital when it’s cheap and easy.
I will never ever buy a $100 game digitally. Years ago when I bought overlord, overlords DLC and overlord 2 all for $5 and I got 40+ hours out of it… That was 10 years ago… If that is taken away from me then I’ll be annoyed but I won’t want to burn down the entire industry.
Rockstar a few years ago created a terrible remaster of GTA3, GTA VC and GTA SA and they wanted to exterminate the original PS2 versions.
I’m Happy the digital versions but I still have all of the PS2 discs in a box somewhere.
GTA VI is releasing soon with no disc… Enjoy! No disc… And no Lazlow… I’ve got plenty of other games on discs I can play.
