The Pocket Gamer Report: Is Cloud Gaming the Future for Handhelds?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

ark123:

Heart of Darkness:

So that's what your comment referred to. You need to be more clear.

And no, you can't get your game taken away. You just lose the access to play on the VAC protected servers in TF2. You still have access to the game, and can still play in achievement servers and the ilk, but to have your game taken away? That's called stealing, and it's illegal.

Ownership doesn't necessarily mean that you can resell things. I own this hamburger, for instance, but that doesn't mean I can resell it to someone else once I'm done with it. I go into buying this hamburger knowing that it's for my consumption only, and the same is true of digitally distributed games.

And, just to mess with what I just said, I technically CAN sell my Steam account. Whether Valve doesn't like it or not is none of my business, and is now the other guy's problem.

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
End of the first part. You can't sell your steam account. Your hamburger argument is ludicrous for many and obvious reasons, so I won't even address it.

We pay for the right to use the content, you don't actually buy *the game* per se when you get it with Steam (which is why it's not stealing if they take your right to play it away). What you can or cannot do with it is explained in great detail in the link above. Go to Item 9 and read up on Limitation on Liability where they basically state that your "Valve dies, I get my software" argument is also just false.

You actually provided a piece of evidence to back your arguement...

+10 respect points...

ark123:

Yes, EA shutting down online servers is the exact same as Valve shutting down Steam. And they have no financial incentive to upkeep Steam's online servers.
Look, I'm not going to just come out and say it, but have you ever taken an IQ test?

Man, you really don't take kindly to people disagreeing with you. We're having a discussion here. There's no need to go around insulting another person's intelligence like that. My point is and always has been that as soon as a game stops making revenue, they really have no incentive to keep letting people play it. Period. If you don't own a hardcopy (or you need permission to play each time) and that happens, you're SOL. Period. You may be willing to overlook this because of the relative convenience that comes along with digital distribution, but I am not. I want what I paid for, not what I paid for as long the publishers feel like giving it to me.

In addition, I didn't say that Valve had no interest in keeping Steam going right now. I said that they don't have any incentive to keep it running indefinitely. Sure, Steam may be the "hot, new thing" right now, but it won't be forever. Eventually, something more cost-efficient will come along and publishers will abandon Steam to jump on that bandwagon, too. Sure, it's not guaranteed that Valve will go bankrupt or decide to take Steam servers down, but the simple fact is that those are possibilities and as long as those possibilities exist, there's the additional possibility that games that people have paid full price for can be taken away from them arbitrarily.

Now... you can keep arguing with me by saying, "Oh, that will never happen," and hey, you might be right. But my point in all this has never been that the servers will be taken down, but that they could go down. So if you're going to insist on insinuating that I'm somehow dumber than you are, at least take the time to actually read the substance of my posts and respond to the points that I actually made while you do it.

commasplice:

ark123:

Yes, EA shutting down online servers is the exact same as Valve shutting down Steam. And they have no financial incentive to upkeep Steam's online servers.
Look, I'm not going to just come out and say it, but have you ever taken an IQ test?

Man, you really don't take kindly to people disagreeing with you. We're having a discussion here. There's no need to go around insulting another person's intelligence like that. My point is and always has been that as soon as a game stops making revenue, they really have no incentive to keep letting people play it. Period. If you don't own a hardcopy (or you need permission to play each time) and that happens, you're SOL. Period. You may be willing to overlook this because of the relative convenience that comes along with digital distribution, but I am not. I want what I paid for, not what I paid for as long the publishers feel like giving it to me.

In addition, I didn't say that Valve had no interest in keeping Steam going right now. I said that they don't have any incentive to keep it running indefinitely. Sure, Steam may be the "hot, new thing" right now, but it won't be forever. Eventually, something more cost-efficient will come along and publishers will abandon Steam to jump on that bandwagon, too. Sure, it's not guaranteed that Valve will go bankrupt or decide to take Steam servers down, but the simple fact is that those are possibilities and as long as those possibilities exist, there's the additional possibility that games that people have paid full price for can be taken away from them arbitrarily.

Now... you can keep arguing with me by saying, "Oh, that will never happen," and hey, you might be right. But my point in all this has never been that the servers will be taken down, but that they could go down. So if you're going to insist on insinuating that I'm somehow dumber than you are, at least take the time to actually read the substance of my posts and respond to the points that I actually made while you do it.

I apologize for the rudeness, that was uncalled for.
Yes, theoretically Valve could go under and just drop Steam altogether, but I don't think that's going to happen in our lifetime (as I said before, they basically sell the right to play for a crapload of money with a clause that basically says "If we want we can just take it away"). Gamers are notoriously hateful when their own are harmed, so taking Steam down would destroy the company and probably most of the companies that employ the service (which is most of them).
Even if you don't want to concede that point, you have to agree that it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely that your DVD will get destroyed/stolen/scratched/just plain old than Steam servers shutting down.
This entire conversation is about one thing, though: the whole "owning" game thing is so overrated that most of us have given up on it entirely. If they could create a lag/downtime free server and sell you a gaming platform that could do ten times what the PS3 does for a tenth of the price (remember, you'd only pay for the controllers, the "receiver" and the right to play the games), it would completely crush every other platform. God knows I'm tired of my bluray/dvd shelves and would love to be able to just say "Fight Club, English subtitles" (in my fantasy it's also voice controlled. It's my dream, screw off).

ark123:

I apologize for the rudeness, that was uncalled for.
Yes, theoretically Valve could go under and just drop Steam altogether, but I don't think that's going to happen in our lifetime (as I said before, they basically sell the right to play for a crapload of money with a clause that basically says "If we want we can just take it away"). Gamers are notoriously hateful when their own are harmed, so taking Steam down would destroy the company and probably most of the companies that employ the service (which is most of them).
Even if you don't want to concede that point, you have to agree that it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely that your DVD will get destroyed/stolen/scratched/just plain old than Steam servers shutting down.
This entire conversation is about one thing, though: the whole "owning" game thing is so overrated that most of us have given up on it entirely. If they could create a lag/downtime free server and sell you a gaming platform that could do ten times what the PS3 does for a tenth of the price (remember, you'd only pay for the controllers, the "receiver" and the right to play the games), it would completely crush every other platform. God knows I'm tired of my bluray/dvd shelves and would love to be able to just say "Fight Club, English subtitles" (in my fantasy it's also voice controlled. It's my dream, screw off).

I do think it's unlikely that the servers would come down for whatever reason and I agree that digital distribution is much more convenient, but I just can't overlook not being able to actually own things I've paid full price for. I don't like the added leverage that the publishers get by holding my stuff hostage and I certainly don't like needing to get permission to play my own games each time I run them. It doesn't really matter to me how powerful a game system is, I'm not going to "buy" it if I don't actually "own" it. If I'm going to pay for a service or privilege, that's one thing. I'll pay $5 to watch Fight Club on demand or something, but I'm not going to drop $20 on it so that I can "own" it, but still have it taken away from me because some mod somewhere decided to suspend my account for my liberal use of the word "cuntwaffle" on his forums. Maybe if they sold the digital copies of games for less than $60, I'd be willing to overlook the "ownership" thing, but my income is not so disposable that I'm willing to even risk spending that much money without getting what I paid for.

Well, technically, as mentioned before in this thread, you don't actually own the games in DVD/Bluray that you have in your house either. That's why you can't copy and distribute them. I'm pretty sure I could easily find a User Agreement for use of physical media on both xbox and ps3, but yes, there's less of a chance of it getting just taken away (though they can still easily ban you from online play, but thats beside the point).
Steam games only cost the same as physical media for the first few months when a game is released. I picked up Psychonaults (another game I'd never get to play without Steam) yesterday for two bucks. I'm sure that's the way it's going to be - physical media 50 bucks, electronic distribution half as much or something like that. Like pay-per-view Vs buying a bluray. It just makes sense.
Either way, even if the actual games cost the same, rest assured that the actual console would never be as costly as a PS3. NEVER. And anyway, would't this be pretty much Netflix with games? You get a movie to use when you want, for a monthly subscription? Even if you're against it, Netflix doesn't seem to be on their way to bankruptcy anytime soon. I think most people are fine with it.

By the way, you talked about games that you can't play because you can't find anymore. Here's something to think about: There's no reason why they couldn't just have every platform available for the same console, in a cloud. The servers could run emulators. I'm sure you could get every say, Sega game from Sega, so *in theory* you could possibly get the chance to play any game in the planet from the same videogame.
Interesting idea, no? Thats only one possibility. Since you don't need to spend the money on making millions of consoles, you can make one uber server capable of things a single console would never be.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here