this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
489 points (98.2% liked)

Games

16812 readers
491 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
489
“if you can obtain a copy of a court order...we’ll do our best to make it happen" Unlike Steam, Good Old Games claims they are willing to transfer accounts to entitled parties after a user's death (x.com)
submitted 5 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zer0squar3d@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Microsoft, yes but they use the wording to buy windows license for example. Game companies still use wording "buy" game. Unless they change the purchase wording, I, as a consumer, am assuming I am buying a copy of the game I can play indefinitely while I own the game.

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Its in the standard terms of service now for the big AAA publishers.

[–] zer0squar3d@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I understand that point. However, the point I am making is (going to make as black and white as possible, oversimplifying it on purpose):

If you're selling a digital product (a non physical item), and use any of the following terms:

  • buy (ex. Buy now, buy today, etc)
  • purchase (ex. purchase now, purchase today, purchase to play, etc)
  • Own (ex. Own today, own and play today, etc)
  • Copy (ex. Get your copy today, your copy is waiting, we have your copy waiting, etc)

Then, I, as consumer of physical goods, being used to these types of wording meaning ownership of a copy without the ability of the manufacturer to come to my house and take the product away when they feel like or disable/remove songs, parts of movies or whatever by coming to my house and scratching off that part of the Blu-ray or DVD or whatever, should not be tricked into this by having to then read a 1000 word essay of legal speak saying you do not own what you are buying but are infact:

  • Renting
  • Licensing
  • Borrowing
  • Leasing

Said product, then that should violate some law about false advertising.

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yes. Absolutely.

However, no one has taken the companies that started doing that to task, and now even companies like John Deer have been pulling that shit.

Hell, Monsanto actually took farmers to court on that principle for growing crops that had been naturally cross pollinated with "their" GMO crops using that principle.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am stating what we have allowed the rich fucks to get away with.