Gamers Don't Get to Keep OnLive Purchases
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
On-Line services in gaming have always been a rip off.
I recently had to apply for refund from Xbox Live because they had been charging me for a game subscription I couldn't cancel, since the specific website was no longer in service and the customer service folks couldn't cut it off on their end. If I hadn't gotten all the money back I would have been severely pissed.
I recently had to apply for refund from Xbox Live because they had been charging me for a game subscription I couldn't cancel, since the specific website was no longer in service and the customer service folks couldn't cut it off on their end. If I hadn't gotten all the money back I would have been severely pissed.
Well, the thing is that as consumers we have no advocacy, and are a group of borderline addicts. We keep buying the products and supporting business models that are not in our best interests.
The gaming industry gains a lot of benefits from digital distribution, but those benefits come at our expense.
Speaking entirely for myself, I only buy things digitally if they are very inexpensive. I also have no intention of getting Onlive, because I think it's ridiculous to pay someone for the right to buy things from them. Yes I understand the concept, how their servers work, and the idea of "cloud based gaming", but when your considering that games are apparently selling for the same amount as a physical copy could be provided, it's utterly ridiculous.
Now if Onlive was to establish a trust fund to support it's servers indefinatly, remove the subscription fees entirely, and finance itself entirely through taking a percentage of the game sales (say the portion that would have been spent on packaging and distribution) I might be more receptive to the idea.
Truthfully it's stuff like Onlive that makes me think gamers need consumer advocacy groups to watchdog the industry, and pressure politicials to pay more attention to the industry's cartel-like behavior and such.
Among other things I feel that you should retain permanant, eternal, undisputed access to anything you purchuse. If you don't have a physical copy, then I feel that a provider should have to take action to ensure continued access to that product no matter what. I think any digital "liscence based" sale should be backed by a trust fund that exists to ensure the content remains availible perpetually.
The gaming industry gains a lot of benefits from digital distribution, but those benefits come at our expense.
Speaking entirely for myself, I only buy things digitally if they are very inexpensive. I also have no intention of getting Onlive, because I think it's ridiculous to pay someone for the right to buy things from them. Yes I understand the concept, how their servers work, and the idea of "cloud based gaming", but when your considering that games are apparently selling for the same amount as a physical copy could be provided, it's utterly ridiculous.
Now if Onlive was to establish a trust fund to support it's servers indefinatly, remove the subscription fees entirely, and finance itself entirely through taking a percentage of the game sales (say the portion that would have been spent on packaging and distribution) I might be more receptive to the idea.
Truthfully it's stuff like Onlive that makes me think gamers need consumer advocacy groups to watchdog the industry, and pressure politicials to pay more attention to the industry's cartel-like behavior and such.
Among other things I feel that you should retain permanant, eternal, undisputed access to anything you purchuse. If you don't have a physical copy, then I feel that a provider should have to take action to ensure continued access to that product no matter what. I think any digital "liscence based" sale should be backed by a trust fund that exists to ensure the content remains availible perpetually.
I've looked a lot into OnLive for a University project and I find it fascinating. I hope this isn't really an issue as it is a last resort.
That's actually a pretty good point, I mean honestly most of my games would probably be 'rented' on it but if I did buy a few games and then got banned for whatever reason or stopped using it for a year and I came back to find that you took away what i paid for even though I paid to have it permanently I'd be a little ticked off.
Overall my point is: you can't do that. If you decide that you can suddenly take away everything I paid for for little to no reason then you are a dickweed and should be castrated.
I understand that breaking the rules is wrong, but when I see the words "an account can be suspended by the user at any time and for any reason" I'm reminded of past experiences and more words: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I've dealt with dickweed GMs before and I'd love to not have any part of something where you pay someone and they decide that they don't like you anymore so you suddenly lose what you paid for.
Overall my point is: you can't do that. If you decide that you can suddenly take away everything I paid for for little to no reason then you are a dickweed and should be castrated.
I understand that breaking the rules is wrong, but when I see the words "an account can be suspended by the user at any time and for any reason" I'm reminded of past experiences and more words: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I've dealt with dickweed GMs before and I'd love to not have any part of something where you pay someone and they decide that they don't like you anymore so you suddenly lose what you paid for.
If I want to buy a game, I'll purchase one on Steam or my friendly neighborhood games outlet, where older games and used games cost less than $60. It sounds like unlimited access will cost $60 no matter the age of the game. If I want to rent a game, I'll go to a video store.
I heard about this shit when it first came out, and I must say that I'm very disappointed in the finished product.
I heard about this shit when it first came out, and I must say that I'm very disappointed in the finished product.
At least with steam you can have a local download of your files you could crack should your account get banned or valve go out of business.
And I wouldn't think it would fall entirely on valve as some games use steamworks as DRM.
Digital distribution subscriptions get complicated quickly...
But a service needs to give me something to have ownership and control over for me to be willing to use it. Disc, files, whatever.
And I wouldn't think it would fall entirely on valve as some games use steamworks as DRM.
Digital distribution subscriptions get complicated quickly...
But a service needs to give me something to have ownership and control over for me to be willing to use it. Disc, files, whatever.
They need to incorporate a monthly subscription fee, that covers unlimited time on any, and all games in their catalogue. Otherwise there is no incentive at all for me to use this system. I would be happy to pay $60 dollars a month if I could play all the latest titles, and an extensive back catalogue, as and when I wished, for as long as I liked. Otherwise it's cheaper to buy a used 360, and just buy games when they are $30 dollars used. I already have a back catalogue of games to be bought, so I have no need to buy a game at RRP.
The idea of the service? Fantastic. You rent time on a remote server.Jaredin said:
The concept of "You don't own anything"? Sucks to have every single right that you've ever had to property taken away from you.
I believe the complete and utter loss of property rights outweighs the service. By a vast, near-infinite amount.
I like that Valve has said all Steam-cloud-based DRM can be deactivated at a moment's notice, with a small set of updates.Togusa09 said:
Thankfully I never was in support of the OnLive anyway. Why would I want games that I "own" in the same sense that I "own" the movies in my Netflix instant queue. At least with movies I can kind of seeing it make sense, but with games, no I need to have a disc in my hand.
I thought i saw somthing on this watching INside Gaming a few months ago, but nonetheless this sucks eggs.
So don't buy into it. Simple really.
I pay my money to own something and it's not actually mine..?
Fuck that noise.
I pay my money to own something and it's not actually mine..?
Fuck that noise.
Even though I'm really interested in OnLive considering my PC is a netbook that already has plenty of trouble with 5-year old games on low quality, I really don't like losing everything I bought there vanishing after not using the service for a year.
This is also one of the main disadvantages I see in digital distribution or the required digital activation of your game: there is no guarantee you'll still be able to play these game in five, ten or twenty years.
This is also one of the main disadvantages I see in digital distribution or the required digital activation of your game: there is no guarantee you'll still be able to play these game in five, ten or twenty years.