/games/ - Games

Due to the stuff with Sony no longer doing physical games and revoking licenses for digital purchases, a lot of people have been touting the line "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing."

This is a pathetic and shameful capitulation to copyright, and I would just like to remind everyone what the correct stance is, and provide a helpful piece of media to gently correct people saying this stupid bullshit in the wild. Copying is NOT theft (putting aside when theft is justifiable anyway) - it is a completely different thing and we need to combat copyright brain worms.

>>47318
>What is to be done
Stop buying, try to convince the majority of people to stop buying. Money talks, bullshit walks. Failing that, piracy + reverse engineering. Learn it, teach it, spread it.
>>47319
>If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing
>copying is NOT theft
it's the unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property, to which you cannot attain legal authorization of reproduction, because it doesn't exist. This is how the companies see things; Copying isn't theft in the conventional sense - you're not stealing an object that is then removed from another person's possession; Instead, you're duplicating a product without permission, and such permission is never granted, even when you put forth the cash to own a digital copy of that product.

The real problem with "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing" is that there was never any assumption or transfer of ownership taking place at any point prior to, during, or after the point of sale. You were always purchasing a license, which itself is subject to various stipulations and can be revoked if you are found in violation of those stipulations. This has always been the case, but with older consoles that primarily relied on physical distribution, the feasibility of revoking such a licence was both cost prohibitive and much too troublesome a prospect to have any real teeth behind it. Now, with digital distribution, that is not the case.

Personally, I am of the opinion that people should advocate for the mandatory inclusion of a second hand marketplace on every digital platform, so that consumers can trade or sell games from their library with other users, with no fees, and in exchange for actual currency. If a digital platform doesn't facilitate this, then they should be subject to whatever sort of appropriate punishment you can envision. It's the cleanest way of dealing with inflated digital prices, as far as I can see. If everyone has the ability to buy on the used marketplace a version of the latest game, at a price point set by users, then that allows the consumer to directly influence the trajectory of prices over time.

Why buy Red Dead, Dark Souls, etc. at FULL FUCKING PRICE in the year 2026 when you can get it from someone who doesn't want it for less than the price of a large two topping pizza? It only makes sense.
>won't users just price discriminate as hard as the online platform itself?
Not if they don't get any sales, they won't. People will naturally undercut one another and a price point for every game under the sun will eventually be determined by the market itself. Plus, you could always make trades without the use of money, right?

Of course, this might come with problems of its own that I can't foresee, but it's one small step in the right direction because it gives more power to the consumer, and the removal of digital distribution is both a calculated money saving move by console manufacturers, but also a method by which they can gain greater control over the software they distribute.

further evidence that video games are closer to silicon valley bullshit than art. you always could buy physical movies, music and books!

also doing this when drives are more expensive than ever and only getting worse is absolutely bloody hilarious