A major part of the digital/physical debate that people forget

[binary solo]

VanceIX said:

binary solo said:

VanceIX said:

A lot of people say that the best reason to go physical is that you actually own the game. That's not true. You own the disc itself, but the game is licensed to you, just like digital games. Under the law, there is almost no difference in ownership.

That being said, no one is coming to take away your rights to play your discs. At the same time, however, that generally doesn't happen with digital games either unless you seriously fuck up.

I'm not saying that everyone should up and quit physical and buy digital only, just saying that the concept of "ownership" is really not that different between the two, as far as the law is concerned. 

It is not a major part of the debate, because the debate is principally around resale / lending / swapping and portability. The fact of owning a plastic disc a case and, if you're lucky an insert or game manual, and a licence rather than all of thosebthings plus owning an actual copy of the game is merely a technical legal distinction that has no bearing on what people do or can do with their licence.

We also don't own the movies we buy on DVD/vhs /blue ray, or the music we buy on CD, or the books we buy. In all cases we have know rights over that material except that which has been granted by the rights holder. But you don't ever hear people talking about owning a licence to read a book or watch a video. So in the end you're just talking semantics not practical realities.

But semantics is exactly what I'm discussing. Practical reality is a different matter altogether. In practical reality, people buy and trade physical games, and always have access to their digital games. In terms of pure semantics though, there is no legal ownership for physical games. In pure semantics, a company can take away your right to play the physical game just as easily as a digital. My point is, legal ownership is not a favorable point for phyysical games. You can make the case for convinence, which is a subjective point for both, but legal ownership is clear cut in this case.

As long as a game doesn't require an internet connection then actually no company can prevent you from playing your physical or digital copy of a game. And of course they can't legally invalidate your licence without cause. You still bought and own something which gives you legal protection as the consumer. The only way a company can legally revoke your licence to play the game is if they can demonstrate you have breached the Ts and Cs ofntheblicence or otherwise done something illegal. And in deed this would be possible if you legally owned the copy of the game, not just the licence. It is the sale and purchase contract which sets the conditions for use of the game, not the fact of whether you own a copy of the game or merely the licence to play the game.

But the fact remains the subject of this thread is not a major part of the physical vs digital debate. It's legal minutiae which has no bearing on what people actually care about in terms of their preference for physical copies.