Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 01:06:48 JST forrest

   netflix is publishing single-player games that require a subscription to play, with no option to own a physical (or digital) copy; this is a massive leap toward exactly what the gaming community has been doom posting about for over a decade. it's really no surprise, as this is a natural continuation of models like GamePass/PSPlus, which provide "free" games as long as the subscription is active. the gaming-industrial complex sneaked this on us under the guise of "but it's a good deal!"

   • Embed this notice
     NaClKnight (naclknight@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 01:06:45 JST NaClKnight

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird @buru5 As part of the "(or others)"

     Because the churning torment nexus that is capitalism requires innovation in separating people from their money, and most recently that's meant selling access, not content. They want to sell the bare acceptable level of entertainment for maximum cost.

     Owning, and thus revisiting, media is a way out of that cycle. I am no at the whim of another service price hike to Spotify if all my music is on my PC.

     Same for gaming to me

   • Embed this notice
     pon (spinning_bird@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 01:06:46 JST pon

     in reply to

     @buru5 It would be a 180 for Netflix to suddenly let us own something. The way I see it, they give access to a handful of games as a "bonus"?

     But probably more controversial: Why do you (or others) have this strong need to own media things? What's so bad about not owning the things you consume?

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 01:06:47 JST forrest

     in reply to

     and now they're taking the next step in their literally-you-will-own-nothing business strategy. what can we do? stop giving them money. we are at a turning point; if Netflix is successful with this model, other major gaming publishers will adopt the model and then we'll truly find ourselves in the apocalyptic gaming wasteland that SlayerFan87 soothsayed about on GameFAQs back in 2006. imagine current state of television/movies, all the streaming services you need, now imagine that with games.

   • Embed this notice
     NaClKnight (naclknight@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:06 JST NaClKnight

     in reply to

     • Jake in the desert
     • pon

     @jake4480 @buru5 @spinning_bird As a PC GamePass subscriber, it does allow you to buy is games for keepsies as well, and at a 20% discount so long as it's still available on the monthly sub side as well.

     I've definitely bought a few games from Gamepass to keep playing them after they left the subscription service.

     That may or may not make me part of the problem. Not yet decided.

   • Embed this notice
     Jake in the desert (jake4480@c.im)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:07 JST Jake in the desert

     in reply to

     • pon

     @buru5 @spinning_bird all this reminds me of the demos on a DS or 3DS - beyond even stopping at a level or two like most demos, you have a limited number of times you can try it before I assume the software locks up? Never used all the tries, although some games I'm probably close.

     I'm a physical game guy when possible but the industry has been going more and more digital only and yeah, now this. Subscription stuff.

     I've tried out GamePass a couple times when it was SUPER cheap and then I try like 20 or 30 games hahaha. But would I pay for it monthly regularly? Nah. I wanna have the game free and clear in ONE way or another. Takes me FOREVER sometimes to get through certain games.

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:08 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird i don't see your two points as mutually exclusive. i can both accept that things don't last while trying to preserve those things; the latter does not undermine the former, in my opinion.

   • Embed this notice
     pon (spinning_bird@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:09 JST pon

     in reply to

     @buru5 a bit of both 1 and 2.
     I mean, we must somehow accept that our youth, our health, friends and loved ones can and will all be gone, and appreciate it all while it’s there, and hopefully preserve some memories (which you won’t notice disappear).
     So why not start by accepting when a video game suddenly becomes unavailable?

     I realize it’s a strange take.

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:10 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird i think number 1 leads to some poor outcomes for humanity downstream, but I also think we should live in the moment. number 2, on the other hand, is sappy and subjective but there's no reason we can't simultaneously live in the moment, let things go, and strive to support practices that preserve art (if not for ourselves personally then for others). this does not mean we should revel in our ancient plastic, which is taking it way too far (and is omega cringe).

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:11 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird

     1) life is ultimately meaningless therefore we can run this back to everything else and should just let stuff go. who cares about art, video games or otherwise. live in the moment.

     2) life is meaningless but people clearly believe their life has meaning so it seems that we make our own meaning; therefore, we should consider this moldability of meaning when deciding to let things go. does it benefit us to preserve art, for example? (which I believe yes, which i covered already)

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:12 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird i see your point, and what you say does resonate with me. i, personally, have an aversion to collecting old plastic, and see it as a bit too greedy and consumerist; in fact, i criticize this behavior severely in several OCG essays (the Romancing SaGa one especially iirc) and i also agree with the view that things are ephemeral, especially physical media. it's a nihilistic perspective that can be taken two different ways:

   • Embed this notice
     pon (spinning_bird@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:13 JST pon

     in reply to

     @buru5 Well, yes, I agree.
     Just not super strongly, and I feel like a lot of people feel very strongly about this. (Maybe not you specifically, it's more the general sentiment of many people I read here on Mastodon) That's why I was wondering.

     Also, something more personal, which I find hard to put into words... something about memories, and letting go.
     Like, I think people should learn to better accept how everything's ephemeral or something. I don't know...

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:14 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird

     having open access to the game and being able to reproduce the game lends itself to increased preservation of the game in question unbeholden to some corporate interest that may or may not choose to preserve the game. i would prefer to arm individuals with the power to preserve rather than leave it in the hands of corporations.

   • Embed this notice
     pon (spinning_bird@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:15 JST pon

     in reply to

     @buru5 Of course the artist can preserve it. In the case of an individual, it's up to them.
     And if it's a company, they will probably do so based on popularity (which the goal was to achieve in the first place, unlike maybe someone's personal project.)
     Maybe someone's personal project will gain popularity 50 years later, like van Gogh's work. If they chose to preserve it and make it available.

     But all that is not dependent on whether we, as consumers, own the games, right?

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:16 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird sadly, i can't solve the problems that may extend from here. what should the criteria be, for example? well, i don't think there should be any; if the artist wants to preserve the work, it ought to be preserved. maybe if the work was created solely to line some dude's pocket, it shouldn't be preserved? even then, i would say it should be preserved. how do we get all the space to preserve this stuff? idk.

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:17 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird there's a level of idealism at play here, which is the basis of all progress (i think?)

     ideally, i don't think there should be a selection process; nor do i think that "how popular" or "how much money" something makes should be the selection criteria if there happens to be one (which is, like you said, how it is now). you could say that individuals vote with their wallet, but i think our wallets are heavily manipulated by corporate interests so it's not a fair election.

   • Embed this notice
     pon (spinning_bird@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:18 JST pon

     in reply to

     @buru5 Ok but, even so, there is inevitably a selection process taking place, right?
     And we're talking about "art products" here. A popular product will be preserved either way, capitalism sees to it.

     If anything, I'd say we need to come up with good laws that protect those things that have stood the test of time?

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:19 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird you don't have to defend the suffering piece, obviously we both agree on that point; the comparison was to show how the logic does not follow. in short, i think art preservation is necessary for some complicated historical reasons (understanding the past, continuing to build on the past, etc.) and for the fact that art improves overall well-being for society as a whole -- this is why i believe we ought to strive to preserve art.

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:20 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird much art has been lost, but this does not mean we should be OK with art being lost. we ought to preserve art and support initiatives/programs that promote this goal. much like there is much suffering in the world, we still ought to support things that prevent that suffering; not resign ourselves because suffering still exists.

   • Embed this notice
     pon (spinning_bird@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:21 JST pon

     in reply to

     @buru5 of course it's better to have something for unlimited instead of limited time. And, since the status quo for games was the former* for so long, people hate to see it change?

     But as for preservation, for example MMOs simply can't be preserved, because the game code is only a shadow of what the game is near its peak player count.

     But I also keep thinking: There has been so much art lost over the centuries, and soooo much gets produced these days. Do we really need to preserve it all?

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:22 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird expanding on "you're paying for the access, not to keep" bit -- if this model is successful enough, there's no reason publishers would not go for this model en masse, as it would be more lucrative in the long-term (no need to press physical copies, no need to give out digital copies that can be easily reproduced; means they can sell the game again in the future as a "RETRO CLASSIC!" etc.)

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:23 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird

     Netflix could make the argument that "you're paying for the access, not to keep" and that's a fine argument, but that's also not a service i'm interested in.

     there's also a bigger conversation here about game preservation as a whole, or even further: the preservation of art. i don't see how Cozy Grove 2 can be truly preserved if it's behind lock and key with the initials NF on them. i've had this concern about MMOs as well, and as such am a huge proponent of private servers.

   • Embed this notice
     forrest (buru5@mstdn.games)'s status on Monday, 01-Jul-2024 02:32:25 JST forrest

     in reply to

     • pon

     @spinning_bird

     i don't have a *need* to own computer games; however, if i'm paying for something like a video game, i would like to be able to continue using that something without a big corporation between me and that something (within reason). mostly because this autonomously ensures that i can use that something in the future if i desire.