| Jay520 said: I don't get the motive of this thread. Are you addressing people that think not fully owning games is okay? |
There will be people who will go and argue that not owning games is the right way to go in the future. The argument will be spun that having a license for permanent use of a game is the only way to fairly compensate developers of games. The concept of having a permanent license for use, where you can transfer it for a fee to someone else is now opposed to also, so the erosion is beginning. The industry is going to work real hard to make people get into a subscription model where they keep laying, and frame non-ownership as free. You see this now with people arguing with Playstation Plus that they get all these FREE games. And you see an annual subscription model with Call of Duty also, that EA also has come up with, with Playstation Plus. Throw in also the pass system they are implementing and the pieces are coming into place
What I lay out here is the upcoming push the videogame industry is going to spin on people, and get people to buy into. Slowly, bit by bit, this will happen. And yes, people will feel not having a lifetime license to a game, that you can transfer, is a good thing also, and also will say you need to keep paying to access it.
Also, it is important to note no one actually owns any software. What they own is a license for use. Companies can change that this license for use is limited, and require renewal after a period of time. The entire thing with jailbreaking the PS3 was connected to the concept of ownership. If you owned the system, and not licensed it, you could jailbreak it. Sony argued the license route with it, and your ability to do what you wanted with the system was limited.
