Still watching as the video was just posted but as a Professional Game Dev myself I completely agree that if you purchase a game (license or not) you should always retain the option to play that game. This is why I always buy physical media. We are gamers and there is no telling when that retro craving will hit us. I often go back and put a Mario cartridge into my super famicom and enjoy the nostalgia. I may feel the same about certain PS5 games or switch games many years from now.
You can still play that game digitally or physical copy of that game. They however can delist the game from their servers and people cannot purchase it. Physical copies on new or retro systems have a layer of protection being able to play that game even if it's no longer in circulation Thats the only difference i see. Obviously you would need to buy the system or game again if its degraded overtime. While digitally you would only need to redownload it if it's available
Good luck without the patches to fix the game and dlc or cartridges without the complete game on it. That is the difference with retro games. And btw I am glad you are proud to be a game dev but it looks a bit sad if you speak as " a professional game dev" on YT like that makes your opinion worth more Get of your high horse. But because you are one you should know his bit about delisting games was just not true. People who bought the game can still download a delisted game.
Nah the "confused" people are the hoarders who have walls full of video games....they should have an adult read the instruction book to them OR they should read it themselves.... Its not rocket science and its not hard....Since the dawn of software YOU DO NOT OWN IT PERIOD!!!! Its a FACT...Sorry not sorry that FACTS don't care about your feelings. You own the medium on which the software coms on, you DO NOT own the software FACT!!!!! Im so over hearing people cry about P.T. PLAYABLE TEASER the interactive medium that was used to announce Silent Hills. it wasn't a game it wasn't a demo, it was an interactive PLAYABLE TEASER announcment....ALL of the digitally purchased games are still accessible to the people who purchased them, you can delete and redownload them ANYTIME you wish. Im so sick of grifters crying about delisted games, when the delisting only stops new purchases...NOBODY cares if someone 20 years later someone decides they wanted to buy something that is no longer available...EVERYONE who purchased ANY games digitally still are able to download and play ANYTIME they wish. You DO NOT lose access to play the game if you already owned it Im not a hoarder who sits in a room full of toys and cardboard so I give ZERO shits if a game I bought 20 years ago might not work anymore.
No infact it's the people who own physical copies that were confused. Wood already explained you only own the plastic, paper and disc (not the data on the disc) You are still purchasing a license
Here's a personal example of this. A while ago I wanted to play 'Dungeon Traveler 2', an anime dungeon crawler I bought digitally on the Vita ages ago for about 15$. I go to download it from the Vita store (which is still up and running) only to find that not only has it been delisted but you can't even redownload it even if you bought it previously (most games you can). So Sony just took my 15$ and I have nothing to show for it.
Isn't Sony only responsibile for hosting the games availability to download. I'm sure its the company's responsibility to ensure its availability. However if the company no longer exists and was only a digital release then there's not much anyone can do. They probably had no intention of releasing a box product either way
Is a supermarket responsible for expired food sold to a shopper or the farmer that grew it? It is absolutely Sonys responsibility for selling somebody elses product made elsewhere to consumers.
@bailey64 but if you bought it physically, you could put the cartridge in the console and play it regardless if it were delisted or not. That's why physical media is superior, and they want to get rid of it, so you don't own anything you purchased.
@@gamingtechandbeyond It doesn't matter about it being delisted. You can still play it if you already purchased it. All it does is so that new people cannot purchase it
The most horrible thing I've seen is A company delist a game, taking it away from the buyer. Days before releasing the remastered of the game. Which the original owners have to buy again.
are you sure they had to buy it again? Usually the people who already bought it get to keep the OG version of the game, it just gets delisted in the store so nobody can buy it anymore, but I see people panic and get confused every time it happens thinking that the game they already bought is gonna stop working.
No he does not understand what delisting means. It is like taking a game from a physical store. And like that store they don’t take away the game from people who bought it. Just preventing people to buy it.
You know what would be perfect for a physical game collector? I know digital is the future, but as a collector, what I wish for is that every single-player game releases a physical version at the end, with each final patch, like a "Game of the Year" version. I’ve always thought this would be the future for collectors-something like Limited Run Games, but where all companies recognize that physical games will become collector’s items. The idea is to remove the “update” or day-one patch, or the massive installation files you need to download before even playing the game you purchased on disc. Jet Set Radio and Crazy Taxi will soon be delisted on Steam, and it's a shame (*they’ll still be available to download, yes... if you’ve already purchased the game). But I wish there was a way to make every digital game you own available on disc for any console. Imagine being able to say, “Hey, I love this digital game! I’m going to buy the disc version for PS5, Xbox, or Nintendo,” directly from the same store where you purchased it digitally.
I feel like Wood explained it fine yesterday. Most of the comments he responded to today were discussed in the previous video, and I understood what he meant just fine. I feel like the comments he replied to today were either people trying to hard to be pedantic or people who watched the first 3 minutes, commented, and then left without finishing the video.
this whole subject is such an interesting exercise. It made me think of boardgames (or whatever other kinds of physical games) and if we're assuming games are games, then the whole transaction process should be the same of have a very specific rule for " different" games. If I buy Monopoly, I can do whatever I want with it. I can play the game, I can give it to my friend, I can burn the money in it. But for some reason, companies have decided you're not allowed to do anything with your video game. Can't back it up, can't assume I'll be able to play it in 10 years (even though I keep the console and a copy of the game functioning). So the games we " buy" are just... very long movie tickets? Game tickets that I'll play until someone else decides I can't? If that's the case, shouldn't there be an expiration date? And with that, an assurance (or insurance?) that I WILL be able to play for a definite period of time (no matter if the company goes under, the game is pulled, etc). If companies are taking apart the meaning of what we're " buying" then let's just pick apart the whole process and make it fair.
Man, it’s crazy to think that one day, maybe in 50 or 100 years some of the games we play nowadays and think are brand new may one day be displayed in museums next to Pong and other older games. So interesting to think about
I can understand delisting it from sales but removing it from your library is not ok. I have games in both PS and Steam that are no longer for sale but I can still install and play them. I can also understand that online features might not be available forever, keeping servers online is costly.
Pc game wiki has a listing of over 2000 games that have been delisted from steam completely. Curious if anyone owns any of the aforementioned titles and can confirm that they can in fact still be played.
That is the problem with this discussion. Games on Steam don’t disappear. They get delisted and you can’t buy them anymore (like when they take the game out of the store with physical games) but when you own them you can still download and play them. The crew is a different thing because the servers are offline and it is online only. Doesn’t matter if you have a digital or physical version of The Crew Btw I have almost 2000 Steam games and not one is gone from my library
Maybe this can explain it a little easier for some people and this is how I understand it: I think to "dumb it down" by saying that you only buy to have "Limited Access" to a game rather than saying buying a license since buying a license can be vague for some people to understand.
Isnt the Crew 2 not an issue of consumer licensing though? They turned off required online servers. That wouldn't get resolved in any way by making it clearer you're buying a license. Physical would NOT fix the Crew, being locked out. Any single player, zero lonline component, games should NEVER get taken away from consumers.
I believe this Licensing thing came about because IP holders realized that if they didn't say you only license a game what's to stop someone from buying and "ownin"g their game, changing/modding it, and then selling it as their own "new" product. At least, that's what makes it makes sense to me.
Yes that's correct. That's why Nintendo will sue and stop anyone from attempting to use loopholes or other means to own their IP. Imagine what someone with the means would do to Mario if they somehow acquired rights or (part) ownership to the data/code
I’m honestly confused about how so many people are misunderstanding this issue. Back in the cartridge and CD eras-let's use the GameCube as an example-you’d buy a game, pop it into your console, and as long as both were in good condition, you could play it whenever you wanted. It felt like you truly owned the game. Nowadays, many cartridges or CDs don’t even contain the full game and require updates, making it easier for developers to restrict access to something you thought was yours. This is why we now talk about 'licensing' games instead of owning them. Because of this shift, I think subscription services like Xbox Game Pass, Google Play Pass, or Netflix Games are a good thing. Since we’re just licensing anyway, these services offer access to tons of games for a low monthly price, making the trade-off much more worthwhile.
the thing about subscription base services is that, game catalogs often gets replaced or disappear after a period of time. And more so than not, u are also pressed on time to complete said games because it could either disappear in the catalog or because its been almost a month and u havent been able to play the game yet 😂😂
Thing is, even back in the cartridge days you still didn't "own" the game, but the limited ability for anyone to do anything to that product you took possession of with the game data felt like true ownership. Now in the era of Wifi enabled smart devices and day-one patches it's much more easy for someone to reach into you back pocket and take your wallet from a thousand miles away.
What they're doing isn't necessarily a win for consumers. It's giving companies an out when they decide to remove things from your library by saying, "hey, we told you weren't buying it, so you gotta shut up. You knew what you were getting into." The real consumer friendly thing would be to say that if something is becoming unavailable to play through regular means, your license would give you the ability to find alternative means of playing the game. Kind of like how if you want to play a single player disc based game, you can always pop that in and play it and if your console breaks, you can always get another, or if your disc gets scratched you can find a replacement. With digital, if they take it out of your library, you have no means of accessing that data that you paid for legally. Also, the whole, you still don't own the game if you buy the disc thing is a different conversation then the digital ownership thing. Sure it's technically true, but unless Ubisofr or EA or whoever is gonna send their ninjas to my house to steal the discs from me, I will still have access to the games. There are a handful of digital online only games, but the vast majority of games can play perfectly well, never getting patched or connecting online.
Isn't a library just showing you the game you purchased or a game to buy. Delisting it isn't uninstalling it from your actual system I don't own a steam account so maybe that's what you are referring to. I know if you lose your access you can't play anything until you have access to your account
@axelfond8317 People aren't worried about games being delisted necessarily as that can be inevitable. The problem that Ubisoft for example is facing is that not only did they delist it from being sold in their stores, but they actually removed it from people's libraries.
@@TheInfiniteDraw Removed what from peoples library? Crew 2? If it's online only you still can't play the game on a disc. There's no server to host it. They can't be held accountable if it costs them to host the game when virtually no one is playing it to justify its prolonged life It requires online systems in order for it to function. If it was single player with multiplayer features, it wouldn't be a problem. The game would still be available It seems to be that the legal dispute is not informing consumers.
@axelfond8317 Except that's exactly the problem and why they're getting sued. The lawsuit states that if a game that people have paid for becomes inaccessible due to any reason, such as the publisher or developer no longer hosting servers, then they should allow people who want to, to host their own servers and keep the game alive. There are already other Ubisoft racing games where customers host their own servers like Trackmania. Instead, they plucked the game from people's libraries. You have to be less okay with developers having carte blanche to screwing you over.
I remember when Dark Spore shut down and just days after the servers shut down I saw a whole shelf of Dark Spore on sale in my local Walmart... I feel bad for anyone who bought one only to find out that the game was completely unplayable. (The game could not be played offline.)
I think people are missing the bigger issue here. It's not just about games being delisted but more about companies revoking licenses. What happened with The Crew should be worrying because people who bought the game, even as a physical edition can't play it at all. More and more companies are making games all online and even making you need a connection to play things that should be offline modes. The more This goes on, the more the possibility of this happening to other games. Not only that but the majority of games are becoming digital and not having physical releases. This is why companies like Microsoft is pushing hard for game streaming. They don't want you to be able to own the game physically or even download it. They don't want you to be able to play the old versions of games. They want you to always have to buy the new thing. People need to open their eyes and see a lot of the bs corporations are doing.
It's kinda more complicated than that. The crew is online only, which means it needs a server to host it Companies are required to give you enough time to prepare when they will switch off their servers.
I think the digital vs physical debate comes down to personality differences in the end, or how you value video games (or art in general) in the context of your life and experiences. For me the difference between buying a physical game and a digital one is enormous. Same with movies, books and music. It's basically like owning a physical painting/art piece compared to "owning" a NFT. I guess a lot of people don't see it that way and only see games as a recreational pastime that doesn't really stay with them any longer than the brief moment of entertainment they provided, while for me they are invaluable experiences that stay with me and inspire me for the rest of my life (the really good ones that is). The knowledge of having that experience printed onto a physical disc/cartridge, available to revisit whenever without worrying about servers/online stores shutting down or a hard drive crashing, is very comforting.
I wish that California law was everywhere, imagine how much money people have dumped into Fortnite there’s no way a game with that many licenses is surviving another 5 years
Honestly, that law isn't going to change much. Yes, the storefronts will be required to inform the customer that they are buying the license. However, creating that transparency is all that it's doing. These companies aren't going to change their practices in selling the game instead of the license because people will continue to be the license just as they are today. No changes will be made until buying habits change.
You made yourself perfectly clear, some people just don't understand the concept, because we've been doing this for so long that the reality doesn't make sense to some people when stated in clear words. The whole "You'll own nothing and like it" thing? It technically already happened in terms of entertainment media. Most people have no understanding of what their rights are as a consumer of this content and how fragile they are. Preservation of content is why things like the Library of Congress exists that attempts to collect every printed book or various Motion Picture associations that collect and preserve films so that they can be shared with people decades from now. Your media can vanish regardless of what you do about it. DRM free is the closest thing we have to ownership of games because you can access it as long as you have the files, much like some physical media. Sure once that media is broken you lose access, but like most physical media it's still a target to aim for to protect your investment as opposed to some bytes in a cloud somewhere that will vanish one day because some corporate douche bag decides to flip a switch and make a grab for your wallet again, or worse they simply take it and never offer you the option to "re-buy" it later, assuming you don't really care about forking over your hard earned cash a second, third, or fourth time for something you purchased once before and suddenly don't have anymore through no fault of your own. And they can take that through any number of methods because of a legal loop hole that you fall for every time you slap down that cash that you worked for, and scrimped, and saved to be able to spend for a momentary bit of joy, thinking it's "yours."
They can do that with current gen systems and all games now require additional data before playing which means they need an Internet connection. Doesn't matter if it's physical or digital
It's funny that even if you're a 'physical gamer' you STILL need to rely on digital when backing up your games. I mean what ARE games, but digital software on rom chips or physical media anyway. but... yeah, just ironic. I think the real question isn't of physical vs. digital, but OWNERSHIP. In an optimal future we'd just pay for the permission to download roms directly from the source IE GamePass.... except one where you keep the game you download. But again, as you say and elude to, the thing is OFFICIAL servers LEGALLY can't sell unlicensed games so as games age and licenses expire it runs into issues. Also if Valve ever goes under poof, there goes all your Steam games!
I disagree that anything about Game Pass is optimal, but it's accurate to say the if Valve suddenly implodes for some reason (no corporation can last forever especially ones that rely on a single person like Gabe to greenlight something,) your steam purchases are null and void. At one time I did have the hope that Gabe might secretly have an emergency code that unlocks all the games in your library and lets you play them without having to connect to steam ever again, but it was a young, naive hope. The reality is that it'll fall to hackers to drop patches that would unlock your games... Considering they already do it.
I get it. I saw a few videos where someone had a physical copy of a game for PC that actually connects to the internet though the games does local play ONLY. Once the game connected online it disabled his PC from playing the game. The developer placed a callback code in the game that requires it to connect in the background for registration and validation. Even though the game/software was originally owned by the consumer, who had the original purchase recipe of said game. The game itself was now voided/blocked and then made completely useless!
In my country if you "buy" something, you "trade in your money for ownership and possession" (literally what buying is here). It is as simple as that. You buy a disk, it's yours, including the data on it. You do not buy the rights of that intellectual property like "mario" and have full rights to own or posses mario and do whatever you want with mario. That's the only thing. If you are told otherwise in my country, that's just wrong. It is consumer protection and arranged by law.
The data on the disc is the IP. By that wording people could hack that data and use it and sell it through the disc, legally. That's why licenses are needed. It is to prevent a company from losing their IP legally by claiming ownership of that data on the disc Licenses prevent that by giving the consumer the rights to use something under strict condition, thus the company still retains full ownership of their property
For now. The moment they shut down the stores for that content they're gone. With enough complaining they might keep it up for another 5-10 years after the system's end of life and maybe if you're _really_ lucky they might transfer that license to the PS6, but eventually it will go poof into thin air and some day when you want to play it again and your harddrive conked out, or your system broke and you need to buy a new or used one so you can play your old games again because you feel nostalgic, that file won't be there to download.
The biggest problem I have with social media on a whole is that it makes it more clear that a growing amount of people don't care about an issue unless it DIRECTLY affects them. That comment the completely disregards the "10 year old" game being delisted is a prime example and it sickens me how empathy-less some people can be.
The whole issue is that, you pay 60$ for a game, thats only playable online. When a company forces you to play on their servers, and shut down their servers without patching it to allow you to play on your own servers or offline, you no longer have a game to play at all. The crew is not playable in any capacity even offline. And this also happens alot. Games getting delisted and removed sucks, but its also understandable as long as you, the person that bought it, can still play it.
10:58 - This is an issue already with physical and digital games, I remember when companies started adding checking the licence online as a piracy counter measure and how everyone was up in arms because it meant that if they didn't have internet for whatever reason they couldn't play games, then again when it became the norm for always online games. So maybe the games would work if you had them backed up but soooo many companies require an online check to see if you can play that copy of the game in the age of internet just being a thing that always exists for the majority of the world.
It is not only physical video game that is coming to an end, due to current Corporate/business trends, but also physical money/paper money which is very much encouraged by many international private banks and maybe even by Government Banks (Central Bank that regulate) all over the world. Maybe by 2040 many physical tangible things that we buy and use will be normally sold only in the digital format. From music streaming, tv/movie video streaming to digital currency. As the people in the World Economic Forum always say, "You'll own nothing and be happy." That in the future, buying a physical version of those media will be very expensive from special stores or even auction houses.
This all depends on how you look at games I guess. If you see them as more of an “experience” than owning some data, then I guess you’ll be fine. Personally, I tend to leave most of my games alone after finishing them.
This is very similar in Architecture. When clients hire us to design their house, they are paying for the license or right to build that house one time but the design belongs to the designer (Architect). They do not own any of the design they are paying, just the right.
I agree with you that video games are art. I feel like the fact that we don't know how long video games will last on their licenses is similar to Banksy's art on the coastlines that eventually wash away. I like owning what I buy, but with the insane amounts of storage in games and the rise of digital gaming it's just not feasible. I think that is just something gamers are going to have to put up with. The main takeaway is make the most of what you've got while you still got it. times change and things come and go.
You should've used music as an example. If you buy a musicians CD , you don't own those songs. That's why you can't use copyright music in videos with a song you paid for when buying the CD or digitally.
The only company I can think of which isn't stingy when it comes licenses is GoG as their games are DRM free so you can easily do whatever you want with it. Like they said you can download the game and even if it ends up removed from the store they obviously can't take it away from you. And if I remember correctly they talked about giving freedom to the consumer. Maybe I'm wrong though but that's just what I heard.
It's true, it is as much freedom as owning a cartridge or physical disc. In the end you are the one that has to take care of that media to have access to it again later, but understand that it's _still_ a license. They're trusting you to keep it backed up for yourself how ever you see fit so that you can access it anytime you want should something happen to GoG and creates a situation where you can't download it from them anymore, and that you wont distribute that DRM free game to a dozen other people, but at the end of the day that file still isn't yours.
the only reason i switched to buying digital only is cause i kept losing my games as the cartridges got smaller and smaller (even when I did my best to keep putting them back in the same spot) and it upsets me when I can’t find my games. It also makes it easier to switch games I’m playing and not have to hunt down the physicals.
I think there's only two things that are important here. 1. If any given company doesn't want to make physical copies & just go digital only. It's the consumer to decide if they want to purchase there product digital only 2. Delisting. That's going to happen either way, right? Unless you go on eBay and pay a hiked price for the same game you had purchased a decade ago. Again, that's a consumers choice. If it's digital, no repayment required. You just redownload the same game again Companies or platforms won't just delist games unless there are reasons to do so. Usually and often of the time it's due to a low number of people either playing or not paying. If the companies that create the systems and decide to only go digital only then that's usually the sign of the times. People aren't buying enough physical product therefore why keep a dying dinosaur on the shelf
Who thinks that when you buy a game you own the rights to that game? When I a copy of Mario I don't suddenly think I own Mario and can just start doing whatever I want with the property, it's owned by nintendo obviously.
So funny thing about nintendo switch memory, if you ever move the sd card to another switch, doesn't matter if your account is on it or not, the system will prompt you to force a format on the sd card. It's an anti piracy move so they don't have to go through what the PSP did.
That reminds me of steam, when i tried to move the folder the games got instaled from hdd to ssd it could not work and If i tried to move to games -> steam playing the games on steam that i saved could not work. I moved from an old PC to something more recent with ssd and i found that odd 😂
In your last video, I was personally reminded of the fact that we don’t really own the games. Realistically, why would we? Companies spend millions of dollars (if not more)to make these games, the idea that we would ever truly own them (like they would be ours) is wild when I think about it. I still prefer physical games since it gives me that sense of security that at least the license is in a cartridge/disc that no one is taking unless the Nintendo ninjas or Sony samurais decide to come to my house.
I understood everything from the last video, my question is where do we go from here. If we accept the fact that we can never own the game, just the "license" to play it. What can we do to improve the trust in the dev. Team to not pull the license? Maybe making the license cheaper in case this does happen, we won't feel like we'd been stolen from... games are getting more and more expensive as time goes on and I can see the apprehension of raising the price of something you can never really own...
You still own the right to play the game. If its online only that's a different matter. They can only delist them but they cant uninstall data from your physical system
10:21 that kind of goes back to the PT situation where eventually it got to a point where if your console was connected to the internet and they saw you had it downloaded to your PlayStation it would delete it automatically without giving you a choice.
I don't think Nintendo requires online connection to verify the license after download as long as it is the primary switch on your account. But I am not sure. I know for a fact Xbox 💯 requires a connection to their servers to verify the license for any digital games because I had that issue with Hogwarts. I pre ordered it digitally, and then had massive issues with the xbox series x where it kept failing randomly to stay connected to the servers / internet. I couldn't play the game offline at all, even though it is a single player game. So... yeah. Not sure if that is an issue with physical on their system, but it does anger me.
2:00 anyone that’s not an idiot should care about corporations screwing us over‼️ Need a “Federal Digital Consumer Protection Act” We buy it / We own it, should be able to buy digital games at resellers keeping the market competitive, should also be able to trade & sell digital games same as physical
I believe that you explained yourself very well. A lot of people just don't understand about licensing. People still have the mindset that we own games but we don't. We all sign the User Agreement but never read the fine print. People just need to wake up and realize the truth. Read the EULA before scrolling down and pressing "I Agree".
Yeah even people who buy physical products believe they own the game They don't. As wood stated. They just own a disc and some plastic, with paper inside
The problem is according to the EULA you don't own _anything_ with a digital copy. The way you're stating it is how it should be, but that's not the way it is in practice. The only thing you own is the contractual opportunity to play content that belongs to another entity until such time as they say you no longer can. If you have the devices that plays it, if they don't send a kill code that removes it from your device, if they don't outright remove the ability to access that content from your account, you can continue to play, but if they do, you have no say in it.
He's saying the same with physical copies. Which to many people seems no different since with most games they can't just simply remove access whenever they want They don't care if they don't *own* the data, the disc has the data, and they own that. So what's really different
@@brendancurry9808 That's the impression that people are under, but just because you have the game disc or the cartridge, it doesnt imply ownership of that game. It's an _illusion_ of ownership, you can sell the disc or cart, but you're also selling any right to still play that game if you had say a back up of it. In this modern age of gaming if Microsoft said "Hey, that copy of Halo or Forza for the 360 you have on your desk? We don't want you to play it anymore," they can simply send a kill command to your system th enext time you log on and it's done. Want it back, it'll take a class action suit and a judge that's consumer rights friendly.
Forcing publishers to have a disclaimer stating that you are just licensing the game doesn't change anything, you still don't own the game and it can be taken away from you at any moment.
@pepekube removing it from the store so if you don't have it installed and try to download it you can't or simply shutting down the servers for an online only game. My question is why do corporate chills exist? Are you getting paid or you just like sucking the cock of billionaires?
@@zDToddyOK I'm glad you actually answered it yourself and hopefully you do understand the basic differences between pure online and locally stored offline games. Any game that you buy (digitally or physically) and you CAN play offline, can NOT be taken away from you, end of story, so please stop generalizing and spreading misleading information. Any game that only exists online or requires online connection will never be yours, but I would assume that even all the lazy gamers who don't even read the basic terms and conditions understand that and if they don't then we probably have a much bigger problem here. And no, it's not the "evil corporations" who are to blame.
I’ll be honest I’m just now learning this. Is this true for every physical game I own or just certain ones? I play ps5 and switch and get physical 90% of the time.
I completely agree with the animal crossing thing i would be upset as well, and so many video games are indeed art It's so sad but interesting at the same time to think about what people will think of video games in two hundred years from now so i really liked you bringing up that point. Amazing video as always. Love ya.😜❤️
Some people just put comments without watching the video as well, so yeah, they will miss the point. Edit: also, in terms of licenses, this does not only apply in video games, these were also applied in music and home video. The physical thing that you own is just a license for you to watch that movie or show. It didn't blow up back then because people just weren't aware of it.
As for me im probably 1 of the very last few casual gamers that still exist and because of that i don't have the need or want to invest heavily in video games or to even invest in digital games. Im perfectly content with playing my single player offline games and im more than willing to get rid of my video game collection if both Playstation and Nintendo decide to take away physical games licenses.
I never signed or even had to agree with an EULA for Atari or NES games when they were released. EULAs were a thing but everyone understood that when Mario appeared in a game that doesn’t mean that I own him and can use him in any way that I see fit, which naturally made a distinction between owning the cartridge and owning that content on the cartridge. It t is called copyright law.
Hey Wood! I truly do appreciate you answering my question about having my games downloaded to an SD card. I really was just curious about if my games are safe because that is the entire reason why I have the biggest SD card for my switch and your further explanation helped put me at ease...love this new channel and all your videos in general.
Something i think needs clarifying based on your view in this video... Delisting is not the same as losing access to a game. Its also not the same as how we all buy licenses to games and not actually to own the software itself. No one is suing companies for delisting products, thats entirely within their rights. Its really no different to a company cancelling the sale of a physical product in a store. Companies recall products all the time for various reasons. Its not a problem that can be solved because delisting occurs when licenses expire, and in many cases businesses wont license for longer than a set amount of time. Delisting is often the result of licenses between companies expiring,. Thats not the same as the license you buy for the game as a consumer. e.g. Delisting Scot Pilgrim has nothing to do with consumer having bought the game. Its a licensing problem, but not in regards to consumers having bought a license. Any company should clearly have the right to remove content from purchase. For preservation there should be methods to go play that gane in some form, but preservation has never meant "Game is always accessible to all". As for Animal Crossing, that really has nothing to do with licensingof any kind either. The person who bought all that content still owns all that content. Its not healthy to say "ph this other guys gets all this stuff now that I had to wor for" thats the same flawed logic as paying of student loans or anu social changes that benefit newer generations. Ultimayely Nintendo could have just switched the pricing in that game and not delisted it between that change. But they likely had to due to app store requirements. Saying you would wait ten years instead is a What If scanario, the game could have never been made cheap or free to play in that time. And 10 years is a long time, The alternative is the game isnt making any more money and they just have to remove it from sale.
Copyright violations are legally distinct from theft. The propaganda that piracy is theft is false. It is illegal but it is not theft. Theft requires someone else is being denied their property. If the license could be stolen it would be illegal for the companies in question to revoke our licenses. So buying is not owning and piracy is not stealing is factually and legally correct in this case.
The thing that sucks with most physical copies that are disk, is the factor that yes, they can very easily get scratched, even if you take care of them.
Blue rays are sturdier, ps2 and ps1 very very easily scratchable. Also if you take care of them its very easy to not scratch it. However the disks arent forever, by the nature of physics and time disks become unplayable in 200 years. Long enough for you to play them for the rest of your life but not enough for longevity, hence I hope once im gone someone will back up all my shit.
@randomenvelope oh I have always taken amazing care of my disks, but I have had systems and cd players get stuck and just scratch the everloving piss out of disks
I was wondering, if "buying" a game, is actually buying a license, should there not be some sort of agreement of how long you are going to be able to use the license? Are we looking at a future where playing a game is going to be subscription based? That would atleast eliminate the uncertainty of games being playable in a year or not. Just a thought.
You were perfectly clear in the 1st video. The last physical game I bought was Zelda botw. Now I have an Xbox SX and PS5. Only reason I don't buy physical is because digital allows my son and I to both play the game on different consoles without having to buy 2 copies. The only thing I don't understand fully is if I'm paying for a licence why that licence doesn't cover all the machines the game can be played on.
Regarding the Pocket Camp situation I was at first a little jelly but as an early adopter of the game who has spent some money not tons I’m significantly happier that it’s $10 more to keep it forever and transfer the save data rather than have it fully offline and not having the option to play it at all going forward like they didn’t just discontinue the game and remove it from the App Store. I mean we’re Nintendo fans we expect this lol.
I buy physical games where I can because I’m alway afraid somewhere so how I’ll lose my digital games. I find it really sad that some people just don’t consider video games “art”enough to be saved. Or they’re already deciding the practice of digital and not owning your game is the normal so what’s the big deal. I can still pull out all my PS1 games and play them whenever I want, but it won’t be that way for games I’ve purchased digitally. With store fronts closing for older systems it’s already hard enough to access some old games. Luckily most still let you redownload games you’ve already bought, but for how long will they continue to give users that option? The Crew didn’t even give people the option to play the single player part of game that these people bought.
In general, depending on the licensing with said developer, it (the game or software) be it digital or physical could be removed or blocked from sever connectivity to prevent the software/game from being playable. Nothing the consumer done wrong. Their system wasn’t hacked as a preventative measure. Just a planned or legal decision to end their licensing of use/access to prevent playability.
I don't see how people didn't understand the first video. I feel like I just watched the same video twice, as I heard you say exact the same things. 😅 I hope this one clears something up for the those who didn't fully understand the first one.
Something like the Animal Crossing online happened from one of the hit games of 2016~2017. What is that game, you ask? Its Persona 5. The base game of Persona 5 had over 30 dollars worth of DLC. If anyone wanted to buy some or all the DLC, they would either buy the DLC separate or pay for the Ultimate Edition, either case is going to cost someone more than 30$ aside from the base game price. Then Persona 5 Royal came out, and all the previous DLC is now free for the Royal version, but then it adds its own set of DLC that costs 30$ more than that base game. Same as before. When the PS5, Xbox, PC, and Steam finally got their Persona 5 Royal ports, all those DLC were fully included. As someone who bought both ultimate editions with the physical version because of my love of Persona 5/Royal, I really felt gutted when everyone now can get all the DLC of both versions fully included in the Royal port or even for free on Gamepass. Probably would have never bought them if I knew what were to come later. I always buy the DLC of games if I love them after finishing them, but it still feels like being gutted a bit.
In the other video, i said that buying drm free you were owning the copy of the software. That doesn mean still that you own the trademarks or intelectual property meaning that you have limitations to what you can do with it, and i think its safe to assume everyone knows that? Lol i hope so...
There was a game that came out in August for PS5 called Concord. That game only lasted a couple of weeks. Even if you have the physical disc, you can no longer play it. How bad would that be?
Imagine all this with other services. You buy a couch or something else, what if one day that company comes into your home and either takes a pice of it away or all of it and say sorry you paid for a license to use this couch or blender but you can buy the same way just with a new box. What if someone breaks into your home, when you tell the police and insurance company what was stolen you don’t see them saying well technically you paid for licenses to use all the stuff you stole so what the took you don’t get any compensation, no they ask what of yours did they steal? When you buy something, that is the money you earned with the time you put in working, does not mean these companies are entitled to say no sorry your money is ours. All one has to do with bad business practices is to not buy from that company, yes I understand people will, but they think their audience has no control or say in what they do well I am sure millions of people not buying your product would, not buying your stocks, not investing, companies forget without continuous consumers then company wouldn’t be around! This is just a ramble, to each their own opinion, still want happy gaming for everyone!
In the end. Physical is the best way to always have access to your games. Yes there are methods to make your digital library accessible for years to come. But if you take care of your Physical media no ones kicking in your door and taking it1
What happens when a game is no longer supported, you have the physical disc but never put it in your console until after it stopped being supported? Could you still play it? Don't games get downloaded even if you have it physically?
Even disc now a days are scams too, the disc only contains parts of the game and for no reason other than greed because some of them has day one patches like what the hell is that? Instead of putting on the patch before they pushed the game they rather sell you an incomplete game and just fix it later WTH
Wood, one thing you clearly missed - physical games nowadays come with code in the box - means you need to download the whole game and very less part of the game is on the cartridge. How about that, fisical gamer?
The only thing we don't own when buying games is the copyright/trademarks of that game. Everything else we do own, that's like saying that you buy a Ninja blender which means you do own the blender, just not the Ninja Brand Trademark. Not the best comparison but it still works with the logic.
@@markl1109 But why would it matter? You buy these games to play and to store somewhere. I don't see any reason to make a point about not owning the code of the game unless you need it for modding purposes, I understand and agree on his part that these things we buy shouldn't be taken away or stop working because of the developers issues with them but if they never did it in the first place then why complain about something that you know you would not own EVERYTHING with the game like the copyright or what you said with the game code.
@@sumg8694 if they decide to remove a game you can loose access and have nothing you can legally do because you own a license not the game... That why it matters
There is a diffrence between a licence you can play for years and a licence thats even shorter then renting a game for an hour we do not want our games to be ticking timebombs we want security when we pay that companies do not steal back what we legaly payed for that i argue is stealing from us without refunding the game to us
That doesn't prevent them being restricted. And again, if you buy any game that needs a server to host it's files, eventually that game will be shut down. Live service games.
@axelfond8317 That's true, but I am mainly talking about single player games that do not require an internet connection and can be downloaded from the disc/cartridge.
@@willob98 Single players don't require an online connection even with digital. They just pop up a warning that this game uses an online connection to update achievements etc. Otherwise if no one cares about that they can just play offline. It still doesn't fix the issue that either physical or digital both mediums require extra data to be downloaded with an online connection. Otherwise you'll be playing with bugs or broken content and in some aspects the game will not run without the patch
I have no other comment than to mention that I felt seen that you brought up the HalfMoon Transformer games. I have kept my Xbox 360 solely to play those games. I wish that we’d get this studio back.
Even if you have a disc game it can still need updates and if they take it online there is still the possibility that it could be unplayable later if it needs an update to play. But still prefer to buy physical over digital and still will.
honestly in defense on the pirating games things. I would say if you paid for the license to play the game and they take away the game from a store or whatever it maybe, then you torrent the game. you saved your game you technically didn't steal.
This reminds me of so many times the company "Jagex" created games and removed after a year every single time. About owning the game if the game dont work offline then pirating is the best way we could play said games forever. I only paid for membership on games that i could play for many years and never for steam. What i have on steam is games they gave free at some point and even If i cant play most of the games i have the avantage of never spending any money.
Still watching as the video was just posted but as a Professional Game Dev myself I completely agree that if you purchase a game (license or not) you should always retain the option to play that game. This is why I always buy physical media. We are gamers and there is no telling when that retro craving will hit us. I often go back and put a Mario cartridge into my super famicom and enjoy the nostalgia. I may feel the same about certain PS5 games or switch games many years from now.
So true
YOU WORK FOR POKEMON?????
You can still play that game digitally or physical copy of that game. They however can delist the game from their servers and people cannot purchase it. Physical copies on new or retro systems have a layer of protection being able to play that game even if it's no longer in circulation
Thats the only difference i see. Obviously you would need to buy the system or game again if its degraded overtime. While digitally you would only need to redownload it if it's available
@@nitebiter I did yes.
Good luck without the patches to fix the game and dlc or cartridges without the complete game on it. That is the difference with retro games.
And btw I am glad you are proud to be a game dev but it looks a bit sad if you speak as " a professional game dev" on YT like that makes your opinion worth more Get of your high horse.
But because you are one you should know his bit about delisting games was just not true. People who bought the game can still download a delisted game.
Honestly, you were very clear in that video. I think people were just a bit confused bc it's a new concept to them
Intresting build mate, estrogen in your cornflakes?
Nah the "confused" people are the hoarders who have walls full of video games....they should have an adult read the instruction book to them OR they should read it themselves....
Its not rocket science and its not hard....Since the dawn of software YOU DO NOT OWN IT PERIOD!!!! Its a FACT...Sorry not sorry that FACTS don't care about your feelings. You own the medium on which the software coms on, you DO NOT own the software FACT!!!!!
Im so over hearing people cry about P.T. PLAYABLE TEASER the interactive medium that was used to announce Silent Hills. it wasn't a game it wasn't a demo, it was an interactive PLAYABLE TEASER announcment....ALL of the digitally purchased games are still accessible to the people who purchased them, you can delete and redownload them ANYTIME you wish.
Im so sick of grifters crying about delisted games, when the delisting only stops new purchases...NOBODY cares if someone 20 years later someone decides they wanted to buy something that is no longer available...EVERYONE who purchased ANY games digitally still are able to download and play ANYTIME they wish. You DO NOT lose access to play the game if you already owned it
Im not a hoarder who sits in a room full of toys and cardboard so I give ZERO shits if a game I bought 20 years ago might not work anymore.
They probably never had physical software. Therefore, they have no understanding of that method of purchasing.
Especially for people who have used to or grown up with only digital media and not with concrete and physical stand-alone media.
No infact it's the people who own physical copies that were confused. Wood already explained you only own the plastic, paper and disc (not the data on the disc)
You are still purchasing a license
Here's a personal example of this. A while ago I wanted to play 'Dungeon Traveler 2', an anime dungeon crawler I bought digitally on the Vita ages ago for about 15$. I go to download it from the Vita store (which is still up and running) only to find that not only has it been delisted but you can't even redownload it even if you bought it previously (most games you can). So Sony just took my 15$ and I have nothing to show for it.
Isn't Sony only responsibile for hosting the games availability to download. I'm sure its the company's responsibility to ensure its availability. However if the company no longer exists and was only a digital release then there's not much anyone can do. They probably had no intention of releasing a box product either way
Is a supermarket responsible for expired food sold to a shopper or the farmer that grew it? It is absolutely Sonys responsibility for selling somebody elses product made elsewhere to consumers.
@bailey64 but if you bought it physically, you could put the cartridge in the console and play it regardless if it were delisted or not. That's why physical media is superior, and they want to get rid of it, so you don't own anything you purchased.
@@gamingtechandbeyond It doesn't matter about it being delisted. You can still play it if you already purchased it. All it does is so that new people cannot purchase it
@axelfond8317 not if they remove it from the server or if the server shuts down.
The most horrible thing I've seen is
A company delist a game, taking it away from the buyer. Days before releasing the remastered of the game.
Which the original owners have to buy again.
are you sure they had to buy it again? Usually the people who already bought it get to keep the OG version of the game, it just gets delisted in the store so nobody can buy it anymore, but I see people panic and get confused every time it happens thinking that the game they already bought is gonna stop working.
Yhea, you were very clear. I feel people comment very easily these day. But it's a nice idea to "re-react" tbh!
"They can be stolen"
My house can be lit on fire, guess I should live outside. Some of these responses man.....
Stolen by a criminal is one thing, stolen by the company you bought the game from is completely different.
Did you offend people who bought digital only systems?
🙊
Judging from the comment threads of the last video, yeah, seems like fragile people desperately trying to justify their purchases
No he does not understand what delisting means. It is like taking a game from a physical store. And like that store they don’t take away the game from people who bought it. Just preventing people to buy it.
@@Bambeakz I'd guess 9 times out of 10 you'd be correct, there are always outliers, but those are rare
Also people thinking they own physical games they bought not understanding they still bought just a license to play that game.
You know what would be perfect for a physical game collector? I know digital is the future, but as a collector, what I wish for is that every single-player game releases a physical version at the end, with each final patch, like a "Game of the Year" version. I’ve always thought this would be the future for collectors-something like Limited Run Games, but where all companies recognize that physical games will become collector’s items. The idea is to remove the “update” or day-one patch, or the massive installation files you need to download before even playing the game you purchased on disc.
Jet Set Radio and Crazy Taxi will soon be delisted on Steam, and it's a shame (*they’ll still be available to download, yes... if you’ve already purchased the game). But I wish there was a way to make every digital game you own available on disc for any console. Imagine being able to say, “Hey, I love this digital game! I’m going to buy the disc version for PS5, Xbox, or Nintendo,” directly from the same store where you purchased it digitally.
I feel like Wood explained it fine yesterday. Most of the comments he responded to today were discussed in the previous video, and I understood what he meant just fine. I feel like the comments he replied to today were either people trying to hard to be pedantic or people who watched the first 3 minutes, commented, and then left without finishing the video.
this whole subject is such an interesting exercise. It made me think of boardgames (or whatever other kinds of physical games) and if we're assuming games are games, then the whole transaction process should be the same of have a very specific rule for " different" games. If I buy Monopoly, I can do whatever I want with it. I can play the game, I can give it to my friend, I can burn the money in it. But for some reason, companies have decided you're not allowed to do anything with your video game. Can't back it up, can't assume I'll be able to play it in 10 years (even though I keep the console and a copy of the game functioning). So the games we " buy" are just... very long movie tickets? Game tickets that I'll play until someone else decides I can't? If that's the case, shouldn't there be an expiration date? And with that, an assurance (or insurance?) that I WILL be able to play for a definite period of time (no matter if the company goes under, the game is pulled, etc). If companies are taking apart the meaning of what we're " buying" then let's just pick apart the whole process and make it fair.
For someone who addresses his own anxiety problems and depression problems
You seem to do a great job giving us those
Man, it’s crazy to think that one day, maybe in 50 or 100 years some of the games we play nowadays and think are brand new may one day be displayed in museums next to Pong and other older games. So interesting to think about
I can understand delisting it from sales but removing it from your library is not ok. I have games in both PS and Steam that are no longer for sale but I can still install and play them. I can also understand that online features might not be available forever, keeping servers online is costly.
I agree I don't know how all of it works but if you bought it you should always have it.
This 100x
Pc game wiki has a listing of over 2000 games that have been delisted from steam completely. Curious if anyone owns any of the aforementioned titles and can confirm that they can in fact still be played.
@ I had a quick check and the game Grid is listed as unavailable on all stores, I can still install it on Steam although unavailable for sale.
That is the problem with this discussion. Games on Steam don’t disappear. They get delisted and you can’t buy them anymore (like when they take the game out of the store with physical games) but when you own them you can still download and play them.
The crew is a different thing because the servers are offline and it is online only. Doesn’t matter if you have a digital or physical version of The Crew
Btw I have almost 2000 Steam games and not one is gone from my library
I cant believe you had to make this video. You were perfectly clear. Some people need to use their brain. Fr
Maybe this can explain it a little easier for some people and this is how I understand it: I think to "dumb it down" by saying that you only buy to have "Limited Access" to a game rather than saying buying a license since buying a license can be vague for some people to understand.
Isnt the Crew 2 not an issue of consumer licensing though? They turned off required online servers. That wouldn't get resolved in any way by making it clearer you're buying a license. Physical would NOT fix the Crew, being locked out.
Any single player, zero lonline component, games should NEVER get taken away from consumers.
I believe this Licensing thing came about because IP holders realized that if they didn't say you only license a game what's to stop someone from buying and "ownin"g their game, changing/modding it, and then selling it as their own "new" product.
At least, that's what makes it makes sense to me.
Yes that's correct. That's why Nintendo will sue and stop anyone from attempting to use loopholes or other means to own their IP. Imagine what someone with the means would do to Mario if they somehow acquired rights or (part) ownership to the data/code
I’m honestly confused about how so many people are misunderstanding this issue. Back in the cartridge and CD eras-let's use the GameCube as an example-you’d buy a game, pop it into your console, and as long as both were in good condition, you could play it whenever you wanted. It felt like you truly owned the game.
Nowadays, many cartridges or CDs don’t even contain the full game and require updates, making it easier for developers to restrict access to something you thought was yours. This is why we now talk about 'licensing' games instead of owning them.
Because of this shift, I think subscription services like Xbox Game Pass, Google Play Pass, or Netflix Games are a good thing. Since we’re just licensing anyway, these services offer access to tons of games for a low monthly price, making the trade-off much more worthwhile.
the thing about subscription base services is that, game catalogs often gets replaced or disappear after a period of time. And more so than not, u are also pressed on time to complete said games because it could either disappear in the catalog or because its been almost a month and u havent been able to play the game yet 😂😂
Thing is, even back in the cartridge days you still didn't "own" the game, but the limited ability for anyone to do anything to that product you took possession of with the game data felt like true ownership. Now in the era of Wifi enabled smart devices and day-one patches it's much more easy for someone to reach into you back pocket and take your wallet from a thousand miles away.
What they're doing isn't necessarily a win for consumers. It's giving companies an out when they decide to remove things from your library by saying, "hey, we told you weren't buying it, so you gotta shut up. You knew what you were getting into."
The real consumer friendly thing would be to say that if something is becoming unavailable to play through regular means, your license would give you the ability to find alternative means of playing the game. Kind of like how if you want to play a single player disc based game, you can always pop that in and play it and if your console breaks, you can always get another, or if your disc gets scratched you can find a replacement. With digital, if they take it out of your library, you have no means of accessing that data that you paid for legally.
Also, the whole, you still don't own the game if you buy the disc thing is a different conversation then the digital ownership thing. Sure it's technically true, but unless Ubisofr or EA or whoever is gonna send their ninjas to my house to steal the discs from me, I will still have access to the games. There are a handful of digital online only games, but the vast majority of games can play perfectly well, never getting patched or connecting online.
You said it perfectly 👌.
Isn't a library just showing you the game you purchased or a game to buy. Delisting it isn't uninstalling it from your actual system
I don't own a steam account so maybe that's what you are referring to. I know if you lose your access you can't play anything until you have access to your account
@axelfond8317 People aren't worried about games being delisted necessarily as that can be inevitable. The problem that Ubisoft for example is facing is that not only did they delist it from being sold in their stores, but they actually removed it from people's libraries.
@@TheInfiniteDraw Removed what from peoples library? Crew 2? If it's online only you still can't play the game on a disc. There's no server to host it. They can't be held accountable if it costs them to host the game when virtually no one is playing it to justify its prolonged life
It requires online systems in order for it to function. If it was single player with multiplayer features, it wouldn't be a problem. The game would still be available
It seems to be that the legal dispute is not informing consumers.
@axelfond8317 Except that's exactly the problem and why they're getting sued. The lawsuit states that if a game that people have paid for becomes inaccessible due to any reason, such as the publisher or developer no longer hosting servers, then they should allow people who want to, to host their own servers and keep the game alive. There are already other Ubisoft racing games where customers host their own servers like Trackmania. Instead, they plucked the game from people's libraries. You have to be less okay with developers having carte blanche to screwing you over.
I remember when Dark Spore shut down and just days after the servers shut down I saw a whole shelf of Dark Spore on sale in my local Walmart... I feel bad for anyone who bought one only to find out that the game was completely unplayable. (The game could not be played offline.)
I think people are missing the bigger issue here. It's not just about games being delisted but more about companies revoking licenses. What happened with The Crew should be worrying because people who bought the game, even as a physical edition can't play it at all. More and more companies are making games all online and even making you need a connection to play things that should be offline modes. The more This goes on, the more the possibility of this happening to other games. Not only that but the majority of games are becoming digital and not having physical releases. This is why companies like Microsoft is pushing hard for game streaming. They don't want you to be able to own the game physically or even download it. They don't want you to be able to play the old versions of games. They want you to always have to buy the new thing. People need to open their eyes and see a lot of the bs corporations are doing.
It's kinda more complicated than that. The crew is online only, which means it needs a server to host it
Companies are required to give you enough time to prepare when they will switch off their servers.
I think the digital vs physical debate comes down to personality differences in the end, or how you value video games (or art in general) in the context of your life and experiences. For me the difference between buying a physical game and a digital one is enormous. Same with movies, books and music. It's basically like owning a physical painting/art piece compared to "owning" a NFT. I guess a lot of people don't see it that way and only see games as a recreational pastime that doesn't really stay with them any longer than the brief moment of entertainment they provided, while for me they are invaluable experiences that stay with me and inspire me for the rest of my life (the really good ones that is). The knowledge of having that experience printed onto a physical disc/cartridge, available to revisit whenever without worrying about servers/online stores shutting down or a hard drive crashing, is very comforting.
I wish that California law was everywhere, imagine how much money people have dumped into Fortnite there’s no way a game with that many licenses is surviving another 5 years
Honestly, that law isn't going to change much. Yes, the storefronts will be required to inform the customer that they are buying the license. However, creating that transparency is all that it's doing. These companies aren't going to change their practices in selling the game instead of the license because people will continue to be the license just as they are today. No changes will be made until buying habits change.
@@MrKilliganThen do u have alternative solution to it?
@@kysierkevin about mid way thru this gen I decided I would just buy physical when I can, of course that doesn't help much on ps5.
I think you’re forgetting how big Fortnite is lol
It’s also almost 8 years old.
I believe this was sarcasm 😂
You made yourself perfectly clear, some people just don't understand the concept, because we've been doing this for so long that the reality doesn't make sense to some people when stated in clear words. The whole "You'll own nothing and like it" thing? It technically already happened in terms of entertainment media. Most people have no understanding of what their rights are as a consumer of this content and how fragile they are.
Preservation of content is why things like the Library of Congress exists that attempts to collect every printed book or various Motion Picture associations that collect and preserve films so that they can be shared with people decades from now. Your media can vanish regardless of what you do about it.
DRM free is the closest thing we have to ownership of games because you can access it as long as you have the files, much like some physical media. Sure once that media is broken you lose access, but like most physical media it's still a target to aim for to protect your investment as opposed to some bytes in a cloud somewhere that will vanish one day because some corporate douche bag decides to flip a switch and make a grab for your wallet again, or worse they simply take it and never offer you the option to "re-buy" it later, assuming you don't really care about forking over your hard earned cash a second, third, or fourth time for something you purchased once before and suddenly don't have anymore through no fault of your own. And they can take that through any number of methods because of a legal loop hole that you fall for every time you slap down that cash that you worked for, and scrimped, and saved to be able to spend for a momentary bit of joy, thinking it's "yours."
They can do that with current gen systems and all games now require additional data before playing which means they need an Internet connection. Doesn't matter if it's physical or digital
@axelfond8317 Exactly. That's one of the issues people aren't getting.
Those Transformers games are actually really fun. And yeah, they should be preserved.
This ties in really well to how our society is getting further away from true ownership, which is really unfortunate.
It's funny that even if you're a 'physical gamer' you STILL need to rely on digital when backing up your games. I mean what ARE games, but digital software on rom chips or physical media anyway. but... yeah, just ironic. I think the real question isn't of physical vs. digital, but OWNERSHIP. In an optimal future we'd just pay for the permission to download roms directly from the source IE GamePass.... except one where you keep the game you download. But again, as you say and elude to, the thing is OFFICIAL servers LEGALLY can't sell unlicensed games so as games age and licenses expire it runs into issues. Also if Valve ever goes under poof, there goes all your Steam games!
I disagree that anything about Game Pass is optimal, but it's accurate to say the if Valve suddenly implodes for some reason (no corporation can last forever especially ones that rely on a single person like Gabe to greenlight something,) your steam purchases are null and void. At one time I did have the hope that Gabe might secretly have an emergency code that unlocks all the games in your library and lets you play them without having to connect to steam ever again, but it was a young, naive hope. The reality is that it'll fall to hackers to drop patches that would unlock your games... Considering they already do it.
I get it. I saw a few videos where someone had a physical copy of a game for PC that actually connects to the internet though the games does local play ONLY.
Once the game connected online it disabled his PC from playing the game.
The developer placed a callback code in the game that requires it to connect in the background for registration and validation.
Even though the game/software was originally owned by the consumer, who had the original purchase recipe of said game.
The game itself was now voided/blocked and then made completely useless!
+1 I hear the same issue back then from a friend
In my country if you "buy" something, you "trade in your money for ownership and possession" (literally what buying is here). It is as simple as that. You buy a disk, it's yours, including the data on it. You do not buy the rights of that intellectual property like "mario" and have full rights to own or posses mario and do whatever you want with mario. That's the only thing.
If you are told otherwise in my country, that's just wrong. It is consumer protection and arranged by law.
The data on the disc is the IP. By that wording people could hack that data and use it and sell it through the disc, legally. That's why licenses are needed. It is to prevent a company from losing their IP legally by claiming ownership of that data on the disc
Licenses prevent that by giving the consumer the rights to use something under strict condition, thus the company still retains full ownership of their property
if you bought the Deadpool digital version of the game you can still download it with your license . for now on PS4 and PS5
For now. The moment they shut down the stores for that content they're gone. With enough complaining they might keep it up for another 5-10 years after the system's end of life and maybe if you're _really_ lucky they might transfer that license to the PS6, but eventually it will go poof into thin air and some day when you want to play it again and your harddrive conked out, or your system broke and you need to buy a new or used one so you can play your old games again because you feel nostalgic, that file won't be there to download.
The biggest problem I have with social media on a whole is that it makes it more clear that a growing amount of people don't care about an issue unless it DIRECTLY affects them. That comment the completely disregards the "10 year old" game being delisted is a prime example and it sickens me how empathy-less some people can be.
The whole issue is that, you pay 60$ for a game, thats only playable online. When a company forces you to play on their servers, and shut down their servers without patching it to allow you to play on your own servers or offline, you no longer have a game to play at all. The crew is not playable in any capacity even offline. And this also happens alot. Games getting delisted and removed sucks, but its also understandable as long as you, the person that bought it, can still play it.
10:58 - This is an issue already with physical and digital games, I remember when companies started adding checking the licence online as a piracy counter measure and how everyone was up in arms because it meant that if they didn't have internet for whatever reason they couldn't play games, then again when it became the norm for always online games.
So maybe the games would work if you had them backed up but soooo many companies require an online check to see if you can play that copy of the game in the age of internet just being a thing that always exists for the majority of the world.
It is not only physical video game that is coming to an end, due to current Corporate/business trends, but also physical money/paper money which is very much encouraged by many international private banks and maybe even by Government Banks (Central Bank that regulate) all over the world.
Maybe by 2040 many physical tangible things that we buy and use will be normally sold only in the digital format. From music streaming, tv/movie video streaming to digital currency. As the people in the World Economic Forum always say, "You'll own nothing and be happy." That in the future, buying a physical version of those media will be very expensive from special stores or even auction houses.
This all depends on how you look at games I guess. If you see them as more of an “experience” than owning some data, then I guess you’ll be fine. Personally, I tend to leave most of my games alone after finishing them.
Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse being delisted from PS3 was one of the most bitter experiences for me 😅
This is very similar in Architecture. When clients hire us to design their house, they are paying for the license or right to build that house one time but the design belongs to the designer (Architect). They do not own any of the design they are paying, just the right.
I agree with you that video games are art. I feel like the fact that we don't know how long video games will last on their licenses is similar to Banksy's art on the coastlines that eventually wash away. I like owning what I buy, but with the insane amounts of storage in games and the rise of digital gaming it's just not feasible. I think that is just something gamers are going to have to put up with. The main takeaway is make the most of what you've got while you still got it. times change and things come and go.
You should've used music as an example. If you buy a musicians CD , you don't own those songs. That's why you can't use copyright music in videos with a song you paid for when buying the CD or digitally.
Dang, people are really dense these days..... Your video was very clear.
There’s a reasons why pirates exist. I challenge everyone to play the Deadpool game, today.
The only company I can think of which isn't stingy when it comes licenses is GoG as their games are DRM free so you can easily do whatever you want with it. Like they said you can download the game and even if it ends up removed from the store they obviously can't take it away from you. And if I remember correctly they talked about giving freedom to the consumer. Maybe I'm wrong though but that's just what I heard.
It's true, it is as much freedom as owning a cartridge or physical disc. In the end you are the one that has to take care of that media to have access to it again later, but understand that it's _still_ a license. They're trusting you to keep it backed up for yourself how ever you see fit so that you can access it anytime you want should something happen to GoG and creates a situation where you can't download it from them anymore, and that you wont distribute that DRM free game to a dozen other people, but at the end of the day that file still isn't yours.
the only reason i switched to buying digital only is cause i kept losing my games as the cartridges got smaller and smaller (even when I did my best to keep putting them back in the same spot) and it upsets me when I can’t find my games. It also makes it easier to switch games I’m playing and not have to hunt down the physicals.
Well that's pretty much a you problem.
I think there's only two things that are important here.
1. If any given company doesn't want to make physical copies & just go digital only. It's the consumer to decide if they want to purchase there product digital only
2. Delisting. That's going to happen either way, right? Unless you go on eBay and pay a hiked price for the same game you had purchased a decade ago. Again, that's a consumers choice. If it's digital, no repayment required. You just redownload the same game again
Companies or platforms won't just delist games unless there are reasons to do so. Usually and often of the time it's due to a low number of people either playing or not paying.
If the companies that create the systems and decide to only go digital only then that's usually the sign of the times. People aren't buying enough physical product therefore why keep a dying dinosaur on the shelf
A dumb uneeded response 😂😂😂@hyperfusiongear9050
Who thinks that when you buy a game you own the rights to that game? When I a copy of Mario I don't suddenly think I own Mario and can just start doing whatever I want with the property, it's owned by nintendo obviously.
I think that's just the digital gamers crying in anger that they don't own any of their games lol
How old are you in the future it's going to be real different for ya.
So funny thing about nintendo switch memory, if you ever move the sd card to another switch, doesn't matter if your account is on it or not, the system will prompt you to force a format on the sd card. It's an anti piracy move so they don't have to go through what the PSP did.
That reminds me of steam, when i tried to move the folder the games got instaled from hdd to ssd it could not work and If i tried to move to games -> steam playing the games on steam that i saved could not work. I moved from an old PC to something more recent with ssd and i found that odd 😂
In your last video, I was personally reminded of the fact that we don’t really own the games. Realistically, why would we? Companies spend millions of dollars (if not more)to make these games, the idea that we would ever truly own them (like they would be ours) is wild when I think about it. I still prefer physical games since it gives me that sense of security that at least the license is in a cartridge/disc that no one is taking unless the Nintendo ninjas or Sony samurais decide to come to my house.
I understood everything from the last video, my question is where do we go from here. If we accept the fact that we can never own the game, just the "license" to play it. What can we do to improve the trust in the dev. Team to not pull the license? Maybe making the license cheaper in case this does happen, we won't feel like we'd been stolen from... games are getting more and more expensive as time goes on and I can see the apprehension of raising the price of something you can never really own...
make it cheaper
You still own the right to play the game. If its online only that's a different matter.
They can only delist them but they cant uninstall data from your physical system
@@axelfond8317 Yes They can. Look up "Concord Deleted" and you'll see.
10:21 that kind of goes back to the PT situation where eventually it got to a point where if your console was connected to the internet and they saw you had it downloaded to your PlayStation it would delete it automatically without giving you a choice.
Wow. I am actually here on time. Cool. You are doing just fine. Keep doing what you do.
Long live physical media.
I don't think Nintendo requires online connection to verify the license after download as long as it is the primary switch on your account. But I am not sure.
I know for a fact Xbox 💯 requires a connection to their servers to verify the license for any digital games because I had that issue with Hogwarts. I pre ordered it digitally, and then had massive issues with the xbox series x where it kept failing randomly to stay connected to the servers / internet. I couldn't play the game offline at all, even though it is a single player game. So... yeah. Not sure if that is an issue with physical on their system, but it does anger me.
This video was a great way to make yourself clear about your points and handle the criticism in a non negative attitude
Your video was clear. I’m confused by their confusion.
2:00 anyone that’s not an idiot should care about corporations screwing us over‼️ Need a “Federal Digital Consumer Protection Act” We buy it / We own it, should be able to buy digital games at resellers keeping the market competitive, should also be able to trade & sell digital games same as physical
I believe that you explained yourself very well. A lot of people just don't understand about licensing. People still have the mindset that we own games but we don't. We all sign the User Agreement but never read the fine print. People just need to wake up and realize the truth. Read the EULA before scrolling down and pressing "I Agree".
Yeah even people who buy physical products believe they own the game
They don't. As wood stated. They just own a disc and some plastic, with paper inside
Question on the first point wood- if a game is taken down and relisted, I bet people who bought it before would need to re pay for the relist
No one is saying that owning a game means they own the IP
we own the game, not the IP
we own a legal copy of their IP
The problem is according to the EULA you don't own _anything_ with a digital copy. The way you're stating it is how it should be, but that's not the way it is in practice. The only thing you own is the contractual opportunity to play content that belongs to another entity until such time as they say you no longer can. If you have the devices that plays it, if they don't send a kill code that removes it from your device, if they don't outright remove the ability to access that content from your account, you can continue to play, but if they do, you have no say in it.
He's saying the same with physical copies. Which to many people seems no different since with most games they can't just simply remove access whenever they want
They don't care if they don't *own* the data, the disc has the data, and they own that. So what's really different
@@brendancurry9808 That's the impression that people are under, but just because you have the game disc or the cartridge, it doesnt imply ownership of that game. It's an _illusion_ of ownership, you can sell the disc or cart, but you're also selling any right to still play that game if you had say a back up of it. In this modern age of gaming if Microsoft said "Hey, that copy of Halo or Forza for the 360 you have on your desk? We don't want you to play it anymore," they can simply send a kill command to your system th enext time you log on and it's done. Want it back, it'll take a class action suit and a judge that's consumer rights friendly.
Forcing publishers to have a disclaimer stating that you are just licensing the game doesn't change anything, you still don't own the game and it can be taken away from you at any moment.
How can it be taken away? Give me one valid example.
@pepekube removing it from the store so if you don't have it installed and try to download it you can't or simply shutting down the servers for an online only game.
My question is why do corporate chills exist? Are you getting paid or you just like sucking the cock of billionaires?
@@zDToddyOK I'm glad you actually answered it yourself and hopefully you do understand the basic differences between pure online and locally stored offline games. Any game that you buy (digitally or physically) and you CAN play offline, can NOT be taken away from you, end of story, so please stop generalizing and spreading misleading information. Any game that only exists online or requires online connection will never be yours, but I would assume that even all the lazy gamers who don't even read the basic terms and conditions understand that and if they don't then we probably have a much bigger problem here. And no, it's not the "evil corporations" who are to blame.
I hate the idea that u don't own the game
I’ll be honest I’m just now learning this. Is this true for every physical game I own or just certain ones? I play ps5 and switch and get physical 90% of the time.
I completely agree with the animal crossing thing i would be upset as well, and so many video games are indeed art
It's so sad but interesting at the same time to think about what people will think of video games in two hundred years from now so i really liked you bringing up that point. Amazing video as always. Love ya.😜❤️
Some people just put comments without watching the video as well, so yeah, they will miss the point.
Edit: also, in terms of licenses, this does not only apply in video games, these were also applied in music and home video. The physical thing that you own is just a license for you to watch that movie or show. It didn't blow up back then because people just weren't aware of it.
Last i check i don't need internet to play games
As for me im probably 1 of the very last few casual gamers that still exist and because of that i don't have the need or want to invest heavily in video games or to even invest in digital games. Im perfectly content with playing my single player offline games and im more than willing to get rid of my video game collection if both Playstation and Nintendo decide to take away physical games licenses.
GTA and EA situation with Steam is ridiculous with this anti cheat as well
I never signed or even had to agree with an EULA for Atari or NES games when they were released. EULAs were a thing but everyone understood that when Mario appeared in a game that doesn’t mean that I own him and can use him in any way that I see fit, which naturally made a distinction between owning the cartridge and owning that content on the cartridge. It t is called copyright law.
Wood you were absolutely clear, I appreciate you clarified things but I feel like some of these comments didn't watch the video entirely or something
Yes cos some people still don't understand that just because they bought a boxed physical copy of a game, they still don't own the data on it.
I love the existential spin to this one 😆
I think u were very clear on the original video, people just rush to misinterpret things or dont actually listen...
Hey Wood! I truly do appreciate you answering my question about having my games downloaded to an SD card. I really was just curious about if my games are safe because that is the entire reason why I have the biggest SD card for my switch and your further explanation helped put me at ease...love this new channel and all your videos in general.
Something i think needs clarifying based on your view in this video... Delisting is not the same as losing access to a game. Its also not the same as how we all buy licenses to games and not actually to own the software itself.
No one is suing companies for delisting products, thats entirely within their rights. Its really no different to a company cancelling the sale of a physical product in a store. Companies recall products all the time for various reasons. Its not a problem that can be solved because delisting occurs when licenses expire, and in many cases businesses wont license for longer than a set amount of time.
Delisting is often the result of licenses between companies expiring,. Thats not the same as the license you buy for the game as a consumer.
e.g. Delisting Scot Pilgrim has nothing to do with consumer having bought the game. Its a licensing problem, but not in regards to consumers having bought a license. Any company should clearly have the right to remove content from purchase. For preservation there should be methods to go play that gane in some form, but preservation has never meant "Game is always accessible to all".
As for Animal Crossing, that really has nothing to do with licensingof any kind either. The person who bought all that content still owns all that content. Its not healthy to say "ph this other guys gets all this stuff now that I had to wor for" thats the same flawed logic as paying of student loans or anu social changes that benefit newer generations. Ultimayely Nintendo could have just switched the pricing in that game and not delisted it between that change. But they likely had to due to app store requirements. Saying you would wait ten years instead is a What If scanario, the game could have never been made cheap or free to play in that time. And 10 years is a long time, The alternative is the game isnt making any more money and they just have to remove it from sale.
Loving me some reactions to reactions so I can react to how you react. Keep them coming ❤
I just love the way you react to the reactions. 😂
Copyright violations are legally distinct from theft. The propaganda that piracy is theft is false. It is illegal but it is not theft. Theft requires someone else is being denied their property. If the license could be stolen it would be illegal for the companies in question to revoke our licenses. So buying is not owning and piracy is not stealing is factually and legally correct in this case.
Strange thought isn’t even digital games physical as they will be stored in a server or some form of hardware somewhere on the planet?!? 🤯
The thing that sucks with most physical copies that are disk, is the factor that yes, they can very easily get scratched, even if you take care of them.
Blue rays are sturdier, ps2 and ps1 very very easily scratchable.
Also if you take care of them its very easy to not scratch it.
However the disks arent forever, by the nature of physics and time disks become unplayable in 200 years.
Long enough for you to play them for the rest of your life but not enough for longevity, hence I hope once im gone someone will back up all my shit.
@randomenvelope oh I have always taken amazing care of my disks, but I have had systems and cd players get stuck and just scratch the everloving piss out of disks
My TP Hd and xenoblade x CD actually has bit of disc rot now.
@@goldmemberpb pretty sure expiration date of that is like 200 years.
Tho maybe you scratched them or have them in a binder.
I was wondering, if "buying" a game, is actually buying a license, should there not be some sort of agreement of how long you are going to be able to use the license? Are we looking at a future where playing a game is going to be subscription based? That would atleast eliminate the uncertainty of games being playable in a year or not. Just a thought.
You were perfectly clear in the 1st video. The last physical game I bought was Zelda botw. Now I have an Xbox SX and PS5. Only reason I don't buy physical is because digital allows my son and I to both play the game on different consoles without having to buy 2 copies. The only thing I don't understand fully is if I'm paying for a licence why that licence doesn't cover all the machines the game can be played on.
Regarding the Pocket Camp situation I was at first a little jelly but as an early adopter of the game who has spent some money not tons I’m significantly happier that it’s $10 more to keep it forever and transfer the save data rather than have it fully offline and not having the option to play it at all going forward like they didn’t just discontinue the game and remove it from the App Store. I mean we’re Nintendo fans we expect this lol.
Those commenters are not held accountable for their misunderstanding. Just keep posting videos, plenty of us understood what you meant.
I buy physical games where I can because I’m alway afraid somewhere so how I’ll lose my digital games. I find it really sad that some people just don’t consider video games “art”enough to be saved. Or they’re already deciding the practice of digital and not owning your game is the normal so what’s the big deal. I can still pull out all my PS1 games and play them whenever I want, but it won’t be that way for games I’ve purchased digitally. With store fronts closing for older systems it’s already hard enough to access some old games. Luckily most still let you redownload games you’ve already bought, but for how long will they continue to give users that option? The Crew didn’t even give people the option to play the single player part of game that these people bought.
In general, depending on the licensing with said developer, it (the game or software) be it digital or physical could be removed or blocked from sever connectivity to prevent the software/game from being playable.
Nothing the consumer done wrong. Their system wasn’t hacked as a preventative measure. Just a planned or legal decision to end their licensing of use/access to prevent playability.
I don't see how people didn't understand the first video. I feel like I just watched the same video twice, as I heard you say exact the same things. 😅
I hope this one clears something up for the those who didn't fully understand the first one.
My first time learning you had this channel. Very entertaining. Subscribed.
Something like the Animal Crossing online happened from one of the hit games of 2016~2017. What is that game, you ask? Its Persona 5. The base game of Persona 5 had over 30 dollars worth of DLC. If anyone wanted to buy some or all the DLC, they would either buy the DLC separate or pay for the Ultimate Edition, either case is going to cost someone more than 30$ aside from the base game price. Then Persona 5 Royal came out, and all the previous DLC is now free for the Royal version, but then it adds its own set of DLC that costs 30$ more than that base game. Same as before. When the PS5, Xbox, PC, and Steam finally got their Persona 5 Royal ports, all those DLC were fully included. As someone who bought both ultimate editions with the physical version because of my love of Persona 5/Royal, I really felt gutted when everyone now can get all the DLC of both versions fully included in the Royal port or even for free on Gamepass. Probably would have never bought them if I knew what were to come later. I always buy the DLC of games if I love them after finishing them, but it still feels like being gutted a bit.
In the other video, i said that buying drm free you were owning the copy of the software. That doesn mean still that you own the trademarks or intelectual property meaning that you have limitations to what you can do with it, and i think its safe to assume everyone knows that? Lol i hope so...
There was a game that came out in August for PS5 called Concord. That game only lasted a couple of weeks. Even if you have the physical disc, you can no longer play it. How bad would that be?
Way worse compared to what jagex did with any game they released and removed after a year.
Imagine all this with other services. You buy a couch or something else, what if one day that company comes into your home and either takes a pice of it away or all of it and say sorry you paid for a license to use this couch or blender but you can buy the same way just with a new box. What if someone breaks into your home, when you tell the police and insurance company what was stolen you don’t see them saying well technically you paid for licenses to use all the stuff you stole so what the took you don’t get any compensation, no they ask what of yours did they steal? When you buy something, that is the money you earned with the time you put in working, does not mean these companies are entitled to say no sorry your money is ours. All one has to do with bad business practices is to not buy from that company, yes I understand people will, but they think their audience has no control or say in what they do well I am sure millions of people not buying your product would, not buying your stocks, not investing, companies forget without continuous consumers then company wouldn’t be around! This is just a ramble, to each their own opinion, still want happy gaming for everyone!
If they stop or remove the game, they should make an internet free downloadable version.
I usually do micro transactions just to see the What IF ? The curiosity just to see if it makes a difference pay to play vs free to play....lol.
In the end. Physical is the best way to always have access to your games. Yes there are methods to make your digital library accessible for years to come. But if you take care of your Physical media no ones kicking in your door and taking it1
What happens when a game is no longer supported, you have the physical disc but never put it in your console until after it stopped being supported? Could you still play it? Don't games get downloaded even if you have it physically?
Even disc now a days are scams too, the disc only contains parts of the game and for no reason other than greed because some of them has day one patches like what the hell is that? Instead of putting on the patch before they pushed the game they rather sell you an incomplete game and just fix it later WTH
Wood, one thing you clearly missed - physical games nowadays come with code in the box - means you need to download the whole game and very less part of the game is on the cartridge. How about that, fisical gamer?
The only thing we don't own when buying games is the copyright/trademarks of that game. Everything else we do own, that's like saying that you buy a Ninja blender which means you do own the blender, just not the Ninja Brand Trademark. Not the best comparison but it still works with the logic.
You also don't own the game code or any rights to the code... That's the whole point he's trying to make...
@@markl1109 But why would it matter? You buy these games to play and to store somewhere. I don't see any reason to make a point about not owning the code of the game unless you need it for modding purposes, I understand and agree on his part that these things we buy shouldn't be taken away or stop working because of the developers issues with them but if they never did it in the first place then why complain about something that you know you would not own EVERYTHING with the game like the copyright or what you said with the game code.
@@sumg8694 if they decide to remove a game you can loose access and have nothing you can legally do because you own a license not the game... That why it matters
@@markl1109 Owning copies of a game is a thing, also them removing the game you rightfully paid for is illegal (digital or not).
There is a diffrence between a licence you can play for years and a licence thats even shorter then renting a game for an hour we do not want our games to be ticking timebombs we want security when we pay that companies do not steal back what we legaly payed for that i argue is stealing from us without refunding the game to us
I agree with your last video, I buy all my games physically (if possible) to avoid losing access to my games in the future.
That doesn't prevent them being restricted. And again, if you buy any game that needs a server to host it's files, eventually that game will be shut down. Live service games.
@axelfond8317 That's true, but I am mainly talking about single player games that do not require an internet connection and can be downloaded from the disc/cartridge.
@@willob98 Single players don't require an online connection even with digital. They just pop up a warning that this game uses an online connection to update achievements etc. Otherwise if no one cares about that they can just play offline.
It still doesn't fix the issue that either physical or digital both mediums require extra data to be downloaded with an online connection. Otherwise you'll be playing with bugs or broken content and in some aspects the game will not run without the patch
I have no other comment than to mention that I felt seen that you brought up the HalfMoon Transformer games. I have kept my Xbox 360 solely to play those games. I wish that we’d get this studio back.
Even if you have a disc game it can still need updates and if they take it online there is still the possibility that it could be unplayable later if it needs an update to play. But still prefer to buy physical over digital and still will.
honestly in defense on the pirating games things. I would say if you paid for the license to play the game and they take away the game from a store or whatever it maybe, then you torrent the game. you saved your game you technically didn't steal.
This reminds me of so many times the company "Jagex" created games and removed after a year every single time.
About owning the game if the game dont work offline then pirating is the best way we could play said games forever.
I only paid for membership on games that i could play for many years and never for steam. What i have on steam is games they gave free at some point and even If i cant play most of the games i have the avantage of never spending any money.
You made perfect sense to me with what you were saying the first video.
Basically licensing games is a big "F You" for future generations who will try to play these games