Poll: What are you really buying? An attempt to spark discussion about the games you buy and DRM

[Atmos Duality]

Legally, it's an open-and-shut case:
Current Intellectual Property and Copyright Laws say you own NOTHING but the medium the game came on.

In practice, "Possession is 9/10ths of the law". Even if the IP holder (usually the publisher) wanted to, if they can't take the game away from you without significant cost to their business (more than the game is worth), then it's essentially "yours".

The whole ordeal is further confused by how game companies have marketed most games AS PRODUCTS since the dawn of the gaming industry's existence.

DRM is nothing more than a means of controlling the legitimate customer; as it's been proven to do little to nothing to the pirates it's allegedly made to stop.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Sometimes it is a license, sometimes it is a product. It really depends on the game, sad to say. I would really like all games I purchase to be a product, not a license, but that is not where we seem to be going. And I don't like it.

 

[Gormech]

3rd option.

The single player should be mine to do with as I please, and fully encompassed on whatever physical item I bought to obtain it.

The multiplayer should be a license thing on any servers hosted by makers, due to the fact that they are using funds to keep them up. Private servers that emit their rules should also be allowed as well for the game to continue past regular server shutdown. I miss Demon's Souls.

It should be noted that single and multiplayer should remain separate to prevent exploits but always-online should never be required of a single player game.

 

[Mayhaps]

Most of the time you're simply buying the right to use something, but lately I've been getting a feeling that I'm simply renting it for the time they (the company) see fit.

 

[Snotnarok]

I've never really known any product you needed permission from the company to play, and while I see the reasons for D3 to be online only (less cheating, no way to edit characters/items) there really should be 1-4 slots for offline characters that are not playable online at all, ever. So there's no risk of loss there.

Because boy did I have lots of fun discovering I couldn't play for the 5th time yesterday! ...And that the website said the server status was up, despite 2 hours of downtime.

Edit: What am I buying? Child-like access to a game "May I play my game Blizzard?" Hmmm, no we're performing server maintenance for several hours. "Can I play it noooooow blizzard?" No, there's some things we're sorting out.

 

[malestrithe]

I expect a complete story that goes from point A to point B.
I expect to be able to play the game whenever I want to play it without being on the Internet to do so.


A complete story is not the same as a complete experience. I do not expect everything on the disc. A minor costume and an little adventure is not worth getting upset over.

There are exceptions. Having 14 characters on disc but locked is too far. That's 40 percent of the game's content and a great place to take a principled stand.

If you ask how far will it publisher's go, the answer is how far we will let them. Because Capcom backed away from on disc DLC because of the backlash, you can guess where the line on that issue is now.

Now that a lot of people are not using their Diablo III games one week after launch, Blizzard will be more hesitant to try always on single player DRM.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I'm buying an individual user license. People have brought this up before. If I buy a game and the server goes down through which I was authorized to download it, technically, I'm allowed to get it through "illegal" means. I'm sure the law doesn't see it that way, but I would bet the business does. They'd rather you not use their bandwidth if you can help it. In the case of brick and mortar retailers, you are buying a license AND a physical product, so you can't just snag a copy from Best Buy if you bought it online. Technically you bought a box, some paper, and a little circle of plastic. In the case of online passes, you also bought a license to use that product in that way.

 

[Paladin2905]

What we are buying: a license to run the game when the publisher feels like letting us do so.

What, in my opinion, we should be buying: A chunk of code that we can execute (or modify) at any time regardless of new conditions. Oh, and be able to sell it to someone else such that we no longer have it.

I have seriously disliked the concept of licensing in games for a long time because it fundamentally decreases the value of the game. So many of the games that I love I've modded, run on obsolete computers and thirty years after they were made, etc. The modern trend seems to be towards making both of those much harder, and it really disappoints me. The more features that the companies take out and more rights they restrict, the higher the actual cost of purchasing the game is. These days I might shell out the 60USD for a launch title once per year, I just feel like the real cost of so many of these games is far too high- and that all comes back to what you're buying.

It's like leasing a car, but at the sticker price in a lump sum...
Also you can't repair it yourself...
Also it might crash if lots of other people drive the same type of car...
Also the dealership might call in the lease at any time with little warning...
Also you can only drive it on dealer owned roads...

...i could do that all day.

 

[templar1138a]

I went with third option:

When one buys a book, they don't buy the story. They buy a wad of papers (or a digital file) that contains words that form a story. I have a similar view with games.

When I buy a game disc/Steam download, I'm not buying the rights to the game. I am buying the rights to access the game and play it. I'm well aware of the End User License Agreement (though I've never actually read one, the most important bits have been summarized).

That said, once I've paid for access to that game, I strongly feel I shouldn't have to pay for it again. After all, I bought the access; I didn't rent it. I own access. If I've lost the CD key (from games of yore), I seek out listings of all the CD keys for that game and try them all until I've found the right one. If I can't find one of the install discs, I look for an image to use in its place. One thing I love about Steam: Once you buy a game, you can download and install it on any machine any number of times no matter what because what you have purchased is access to the game and they let you have it.

Of course, there are some cases where I do need to buy a new copy, like that one time I didn't use my brain and attempted to move my Xbox while it was still running. I heard a terrible noise and found that the disc inside had gotten scratched. Yes, the thing is poorly built, and yes, I'd already paid for access to the game, but the fact that I couldn't access it then was purely my own damn fault and there was no way I was going to be able to play it without buying a new game. Besides, it was Dragon Age: Origins, and at the time I felt it was worth paying for a second time.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Point Taken. But now I ask you, from your own point of view, WHAT are you buying?

From my view, I am buying a Game.

By that I mean a piece of entertainment, as opposed to a piece of commercial software like Solidworks or Photoshop. It is not a service (ignoring MMOs for the moment), it is a disc with a piece of software on it for my enjoyment, there is no contract or agreed terms on how, when or what I do with it. I don't have the right to breach copyright law or sell it for commercial gain, but I have the right to pull that particular disc/download apart and do as I please with it. It sits in the same bracket as DVDs, music and even footballs, no laws against home editing.

What it is not (to me) is a commercial contract that the publisher/developer can take away at any time. Companies that do that, whether by always on DRM or subscriptions or Ninja-thief squads, will not be getting my money. I'm buying a toy, not entering a contract.

 

[Texas Joker 52]

Seeing as I do most, if not all, of my gaming on my 360, I usually end up buying the physical product, if there is one. Then, there's only several exceptions where I bought a digital copy.

Such as:

Psychonauts.

Halo.

The Dishwasher, and Dishwasher: Vampire Smile.

I MADE A GAME WITH ZOMBIES IN IT (Can't remember how exactly its spelled with its 1337speak and all, so forgive me for spelling it normally).

And Techno Kitten Adventure.

I don't count DLC since its essentially getting an expansion pack, or extra goodies for something you already have. But, everything else gaming wise, is a physical product.

 

[Calcium]

I'd say liscense, when you buy a game, you certainly don't own the code. That would suggest being able to copy/modify/sell it on. Even the developers that make your games don't own all the code; think about game engines. The developers don't always own the engine, they just liscense it to use in their product. If the developers don't own all that is in their game then the consumer that's playing it certainly doesn't.

 

[SoranMBane]

If I'm buying the game over a digital distribution service, such as Steam or PSN, for which I signed a user agreement detailing the exact terms of the transaction beforehand, I'm buying a license with all the restrictions that come with only holding a license. If I bought the game at a physical store or through a digital distribution service with no such user agreement, such as GOG, then it's a product with which I should be able to do whatever I please (so long as it doesn't involve outright copyright infringement) and play whenever I please.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

When I buy a game, CD, DVD or Blu-Ray Disc, I am buying the physical product. It's mine to own and use as much as I please and how I please. This is of course, under legal regulations. I can play my game on any PS3 at my home, listen to a CD on any CD player or in my own car, watch my DVDs and Blu-Rays on any compatible device (be it my computer or PS3). When I hear about "buying the license," it comes across as me owning the right to do with whatever I wish to do with the given property, not the physical copy that I payed for.

So, I pay for the right to own this disc full of content, not the content itself.

 

[Syntax Error]

Legally, it's an open-and-shut case:
Current Intellectual Property and Copyright Laws say you own NOTHING but the medium the game came on.

In practice, "Possession is 9/10ths of the law". Even if the IP holder (usually the publisher) wanted to, if they can't take the game away from you without significant cost to their business (more than the game is worth), then it's essentially "yours".

The whole ordeal is further confused by how game companies have marketed most games AS PRODUCTS since the dawn of the gaming industry's existence.

DRM is nothing more than a means of controlling the legitimate customer; as it's been proven to do little to nothing to the pirates it's allegedly made to stop.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. They are advertised as commodities, and should be treated as such. If so, then why are publishers so against the idea of USED GAMES? Using the (fast-becoming tired) car analogy: Once I bought and fully paid for my car, I can re-sell it so that it can benefit me rather than gather rust and stay useless. What makes games any different? Oh right! You actually bought licenses!

 

[Syntax Error]

snip

That's not a reason to be apathetic though. Yes, I'm not a lawyer, but I AM a consumer. It's a grey area and it's causing a lot of grief for both parties (the industry and its consumers). As I said, if games are advertised as commodities, it should be treated as such.

 

[Bostur]

I don't know what I'm buying, I would need a lawyer to answer that. But I hope I'm buying a product.

In practice what matters is whether the publisher can enforce their license or not. If they can't enforce their license through technical means, I'll do whatever I like, and if they can enforce it they will do whatever they like.