No benefit? I only buy physical (when possible), because then the game is mine. You dont own digital only games, you just license them. I can give back, resell or lend my games and I get a feeling of ownership. I hate the direction the games industry is going.
They don’t. They clarify that owning a copy of the game does not confer copyright ownership, and they outline public performance rights, but it’s ownership over a physical object in the same way owning a lamp is, or perhaps more appropriately, the way in which owning a book is.
If you say that you “own a copy of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell,” no one crawls out of the work to argue IP and copyright law. Everyone understands what is meant.
That’s still the half the case on Switch. You can put the cart in and play without installing the game to system storage, but how big the patches are and how necessary they are varies.
A lot of the third-party compilations for Switch include one game and allow you to download the rest (Assassin’s Creed is one).
On the plus side, Nintendo is good about releasing revision cartridges with updates. I think that new copies of Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey have been fully patched for years.
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but I think the original comment was saying they like buying physical, transferable copies of games (ie. disks) because of the points they mentioned. The Starfield physical copy is pointless because you’re not getting a transferable copy, you’ll just get a single use code (which is the same as buying digital). The only reason people would want the Starfield physical copy is to have an item on their shelf.
You only ever own a license and possibly a medium, not the game. From the perspective of the law there is very little difference. Now, the terms of use of a particular DRM platform, this is a different matter.
No benefit? I only buy physical (when possible), because then the game is mine. You dont own digital only games, you just license them. I can give back, resell or lend my games and I get a feeling of ownership. I hate the direction the games industry is going.
EULAs say otherwise even in that case.
They don’t. They clarify that owning a copy of the game does not confer copyright ownership, and they outline public performance rights, but it’s ownership over a physical object in the same way owning a lamp is, or perhaps more appropriately, the way in which owning a book is.
If you say that you “own a copy of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell,” no one crawls out of the work to argue IP and copyright law. Everyone understands what is meant.
This is no different.
Given the wording of some EULAs that’s debatable. Not that those clauses would be enforceable if anyone actually tried, mind you.
But physical disks now won’t let you play unless you download 500GB worth of “updates”
I miss old physical games where you had the disk and that’s it
That’s still the half the case on Switch. You can put the cart in and play without installing the game to system storage, but how big the patches are and how necessary they are varies.
A lot of the third-party compilations for Switch include one game and allow you to download the rest (Assassin’s Creed is one).
On the plus side, Nintendo is good about releasing revision cartridges with updates. I think that new copies of Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey have been fully patched for years.
It’s a physical box that contains a download code. There’s no game inside. No disc, no cartridge, nothing that actually holds the product.
You’re not reselling that.
Thats exactly what bugs me.
Yes, but understand the exchange you’re having:
“Why sell a physical box if it contains no game? There’s no benefit to buying it!”
“No benefit? Buying physical means I own it!”
Does it not seem like you’re ignoring the actual issue being discussed?
No, they’re saying that what is being sold here is being falsely advertized as a physical copy of the game when it is not.
“Why sell a physical box if it contains no game?” Is about this “physical edition” that isn’t.
“Buying physical means I own it” is about actual physical editions that aren’t lies.
You’ve missed the point. The point was not that it was a fake physical box (we all get that), but rather why sell a fake physical box.
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but I think the original comment was saying they like buying physical, transferable copies of games (ie. disks) because of the points they mentioned. The Starfield physical copy is pointless because you’re not getting a transferable copy, you’ll just get a single use code (which is the same as buying digital). The only reason people would want the Starfield physical copy is to have an item on their shelf.
What? No, that’s wrong. You only ever purchase a license to play the game. The only thing you own is the package and the disc.
Also, you can just copy the files of the digital download.
You only ever own a license and possibly a medium, not the game. From the perspective of the law there is very little difference. Now, the terms of use of a particular DRM platform, this is a different matter.