You want to really own your game, not just a license, buy on gog. Not on Steam, not on Epic, not on uplay and whatever else.
Why is everyone so pissed at Ubisoft, they just say what’s practise for years now! And sometimes counter Ubisoft by quoting Gabe Newell, what the fuck? He made not owning games popular!
There’s a big difference between having to pay a monthly subscription to play a game and just having to use steam to launch it after a one time payment.
Steam can just bar you from playing those games though if they so choose. The only thing preventing that is Gabe. But that guy will have to retire some day.
You do not own shit on Steam.
I know what you mean, but you still don’t own the game, you have permission to play it, at least as long as the platform lets you or it closes. For now it’s all good, but when the time comes people will loose accounts worth thousands of bucks.
Copyright itself was never ownership to begin with, and ideas were never property. Copyright is nothing more than a means an end, with the end being to enrich the Public Domain. It exists for the express purpose “to Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts” and nothing else.
This is the moral basis for the Copyright Clause, in Thomas Jefferson’s own words:
It has been pretended by some (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions; & not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. but while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural, and even an hereditary right to inventions. it is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. by an universal law indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property, for the moment, of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation the property goes with it. stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property. society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility. but this may, or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Holy shit, mic drop.
Also, is that Jefferson’s original capitalization? I never would have figured him for the type to think he’s too cool for normal capitalization rules.
Also, is that Jefferson’s original capitalization? I never would have figured him for the type to think he’s too cool for normal capitalization rules.
Here’s a picture of it (the first page, anyway, which isn’t the same as the part I quoted). It appears that he, indeed, wasn’t in the habit of capitalizing the first word of sentences. 'Course, it was so long ago that I’m not sure if it really was a normal rule at the time (especially for handwritten correspondence, as opposed to typeset publications).
Yeah, I know things like capitalization and punctuation were a lot more idiosyncratic at the time, but I can’t recall ever seeing that particular quirk before in historical writing.
I like game pass as an option for playing games that I don’t want to spend $60 on. But I also want the option to own it forever.
Subscription models are great when they’re not trying to fuck you. There are upsides and downsides, but if you have options between subscribing with a one-click unsub or buying games and you choose subscribe, it might just be for good reason.
I got Game Pass because I wasn’t sure I’d like Starfield. I now have 20 games installed (including Starfield) and just pause game pass when work is too busy for me to get value out of it. I’m at about $70 total spend. Yeah that’s more than starfield, but I’ve enjoyed close to $500 in games, some of which I either wouldn’t have bought and love or WOULD have bought and am glad I didn’t.
But if somebody makes you pay $20/mo for Dildo Simulator, and colors and sizes are paid DLC, then they’re just trying to fuck you.
If purchase isn’t ownership,
Then it’s for communusm
Ubisoft needs to “get comfortable” with gamers not giving them any money.
Eh… piracy wasn’t theft even before this, because you’re not taking it away from someone else.
Software piracy isn’t theft because you’re not taking anything away from someone else.
That said, this meme makes no sense. You don’t own a car you rent. The car can still be stolen.
But not from the person renting it.
Sure? Stealing from a rental car company is still theft. If software piracy was theft, making that software a rental instead of a purchase doesn’t change that fact. You would still be stealing something.
Knowledge theft just can’t be compared with object theft like that. If you had a device that could perfectly replicate a car just by sitting in it, that would be closer.
Alternatively, car companies that can grenade your car’s engine if you drive somewhere they don’t like, or otherwise prevent you from using the car, while still asking for $50k+.
None of that has to do with the definitional distinction the meme is making. I’ve already said it’s not actual theft, my problem is that the argument presented is bad. Even if a customer transaction does not confer ownership, it is possible to steal the thing transacted upon. So piracy WOULD still be theft, if it was theft in the first place. The argument doesn’t work, unrelated to whether or not I agree with the conclusion.
Alternatively, car companies that can grenade your car’s engine if you drive somewhere they don’t like, or otherwise prevent you from using the car, while still asking for $50k+.
Any car that exists can be stolen. That describes a car I wouldn’t want to buy or rent, it does not describe a car which could be taken without that taking being theft.
A device that destroys itself when stolen can’t be stolen successfully. The metaphor still fails somewhat as making a new car isn’t free.
I think I see your point though; theft isn’t defined by ownership, so ownership status is not a case for theft (although they do tend to be caused by the same things). “If the plane wasn’t flying, then I didn’t crash”; crashing is not defined by flight worthiness, or even being in the air.
The logic of the idiom is in the simile though, “buying ≠ owning” has the same logical flaw; there are lots of things we buy that can’t be owned, chiefly services. Yet the expectation of the saying is that buying to own is not owning. Perhaps more explicit would be “If not giving what was payed for isn’t stealing, then taking what should be given isn’t stealing either”, or “If you take our right to own, we’ll take your right to own”.
Like most sayings, being snappy is more useful that being correct, but there’s also an important meaning there if we take the snap out of it.
You pay for it, sure, but I’m not sure you “purchase” a rental car. Imho there sould be a legistlation that says you can’t use wording like “buy” or “purchase” for digital media that you don’t own. Like “buy license” or “start rental”… IDK
Shouts at Ubisoft exec: “Then I’ll just pirate all your games! Fuck you, Ubisoft!”
Looks like late stage capitalism is taking away people’s right to personal property.
Yes please ubisoft make another generic assassin’s creed game that is like all the others and charge me for it on a subscription based model.
This simulation of a simulation of a game is as important as office365 with teams at least.
I think they have a solid business case there, congrats ubi.
I can’t wait to find towers to unlock the map collectathon.
I still really want to play Black Flag, ngl. I think I have a weakness for sea songs. Maybe I should play more Sea of Thieves instead.
Wtf is a director of subscriptions
A representation of everything that’s wrong with the modern tech industry…
Can someone explain the logic behind this? Other than “they say that, so we get to say this!”
If you purchase it and they can still take it away from you at will, it isn’t something that can be owned. If it isn’t something that can be owned, piracy isn’t stealing because for it to be stealing somebody would have to own it.
That only applies to products though.
Getting a taxi and then running off without paying is still stealing, even though there’s no theft of an actual product involved. There have always been legal ramifications for theft of services, and this is no different.
For the record I’m not shilling for Ubisoft here. They can eat a bag of dicks. I just think the point the meme is making is based on a false premise.
My original quote was in reference to a company who broke their customers’ lifetime licenses to force them into a subscription model.
This is the video.
The original context of this quote. Which has suspiciously been removed, is in reference to subscription models taking off.
The original quote is more along the line of “a subscription model isn’t feasible unless gamers get used to the idea of not owning their games”
So really any line of logic is flawed because it misrepresents the original comment.
No it’s not. I’m the guy who started this quote and it was on a Louis Rossmann video about a company who broke their customers’ lifetime licenses to make them switch to their subscription model.
This is the video: https://youtu.be/tkmOddW1vu8?si=jAqmaOjzwYvdgYap
I’m technol33t.
I’m talking about the Ubisoft quote.
Never was
I mean Ubisoft doesn’t make good games who gives a shit.
If I had a penny for every time I saw this quote decontextualised. I’d have enough to buy a Ubisoft game.
Which is kinda sad that it’s been that often.
Listen, I’m super smart and I definitely know what the right context is, but could you explain it for our dumber friends here?
The exec said that in order for subscription gaming to be profitable, then customers would have to be okay with not owning their games. It was posed more of a hypothetical instead of a sinister plan. Now would they prefer subscription model? Absolutely. Do they expect it to work rn? The exec doesn’t think so.
Too bad you won’t own it after buying it!
Thank you Valve
