It’s in the EULA for every piece of software,** including physical.**

Bolded for those that aren’t getting it.

Even if you buy a disc, that does not guarantee you can play the game in the future. Often games have to be authenticated on install, and if that authenticating server is no longer online, you can’t play the game–even if you have all the files required to play it.

Europe had a whole “Stop Killing Games” initiative that would require companies to unlock games they are no longer supporting, but that mysteriously vanished from the legislative docket after meetings with game companies that organizers weren’t invited to.

Stay mad, but you need to be mad at the right things.

Kind of funny how Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem and they’ll be here after it’s all done. You put that cartridge into your console, and you can play it. It may be version 1.0, but you can play it. And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them. It’ll cost $70 a decade from now, but it’ll run after you pay it lol

Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem

Because NES locked it down at propertiary carts and still do…

That drastically increases the cost of Ninetendo games, because Nintendo is the only one legally allowed to make the blank. Even gamecube used tiny discs.

If you wanted to sell a NES game, you had to buy X amount of blank copies from Nintendo, then pay Nintendo to put the code on the blank, then pay Nintendo a licensing cut to sell…

Like, it’s not like Nintendo had consumers best interest at heart, they just nickle and dime developers at every step, which is why Nintendo versions costs more.

Oh yeah, I never said they had good business practices. We’re well aware of that. But, at this point, holy fuck. All they have to do is exist while Sony and Microslop repeatedly blast themselves in the balls. Luigi wins by doing absolutely nothing.

Those are all publicly traded, Valve is privately owned.

So Valve is the only one who can legally say (in America): “We’ve made enough money”.

A publicly traded corporation has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns under any terms. They literally have to nickel and dime consumers after a certain point, because there’s no other way to make numbers go up after they reach market saturation.

Long term they just have to be satisfied with existing profits and that’s the one thing most corporations legally can’t do.

Chalk it up another reason to abolish the stock market.

nintendo.com/…/Nintendo-Switch-2-Game-Key-Cards-2…

Yeah, like I said,

And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them.

I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.

The difference is more that they’ll be bricks in 25 years or whenever Nintendo pulls the plug on the download servers.

I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.

Being able to sell/trade a specific copy of digital media kind of is the one functional use NFTs could be used for (if companies would be willing to treat digital media to be treated like physical media which they obviously like the current setup). Would also kind of need a universal industry blockchain (or some other ledger system) with better scam protections, and be used for the “new” sales for the trades and “used” sales. Which is way more effort than digital media companies would ever care to figure out (especially now) and were able to get away with not being required to treat digital like physical. And the major players don’t have to care about making their stuff DRM-free.

In the case of video media it is worse since there are so many set-top devices that don’t allow offline downloads like the mobile versions of the same apps (mostly since the boxes don’t have storage for it) or ability to use on a home media server (Plex/Jellyfin). So you may have a license to a movie/show but not have access to it if networks are down. And digital audio media has been reverting since a lot of new music can’t be purchased and only streamed. Which is sad since I had some early hope that the digital video stuff would follow how audio was working with a lot of DRM-free options Apple and Amazon managed to “legitimize”. I will give some level of credit to the UV/Movies Anywhere system that allows retaining a supported movie/show if you have accounts on multiple services and any one of them shuts down. But that still requires that stores/studios support it, AND that the core system isn’t the thing shutdown.

Nintendo is pushing for digital very aggressively in their marketing to gear people towards digital only.

Give them a generation or two more and you’ll have them doing the same shit Sony is doing now.

All the switch 2 physical games are empty, the games are all digitally downloaded

This is not true at all. Where… did you even hear this? Kind of reminds me of the nonsense that was being parroted a year ago.

I think a lot of the issue is when companies no longer respect their customers and abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers. Valve has the exact same agreement but (most) people don’t have an issue with it because they’re much better at ensuring you have access to the games you’ve bought for as long as possible.

abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers

A lot of it is widely outside of PlayStation or Valves hands…

The puclishers have the same deal with them, and developers have the same deal with the publishers.

If that wasn’t there at every link of the chain, then that next person no longer has to pay anyone earlier in the chain.

We kind of see the same with in-game music. That has to be licensed from the owner of the master, and possibly a couple more people. They don’t like doing licences in perpetuity out of principle. If the Beatles let a game use a song and that game eventually sells for 10¢ or free, then that’s a loss sale even 30 years from now in the way licensing works. So after 5-10 years, songs disappear.

Or like how it took Kevin Smith forever to get actual ownership of the movie Dogma due to Weinstein being involved and everyone else just wanting to bury what he’d touched.

EULA’s and ownership is a lot deeper than software. Like, you can sell a used game of monopoly, but buying a copy doesn’t mean you can make you’re own and sell, the physical material is just associated with the license for the intellectual property.

Like ship of thesus shit, if you start with a legit paid game of Monopoly, replace every single piece over 20 years, you can still sell it as a “used Monopoly game” because at some point you bought the license. If you made every piece the same way and then sold it, that’s not legal

It’s in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.

*laughs in open source*

The Service provides users of Ubuntu with a free subscription to use the Service on up to five physical Ubuntu systems with unlimited number of VMs or containers for the eligible Ubuntu LTS versions as designated by Canonical.

canonical.com/legal/ubuntu-pro/personal

Why would you assume to own software if you don’t even pay to use it?

You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes

To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.

You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes

To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.

You can, though? If you find someone stupid enough to buy it, that is.

All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.

All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.

So…

They have to change it to legally sell it?

Then they didn’t own it.

Although, I guess thanks for explaining what a “bullshit fork” is, I thought that wouldn’t need explaining on here to be honest

Here is an easier one with FOSS you could just do whatever you want on the repo. Which is not true as the maintainer manages it.

Not, that’d be a violation of GPL, MIT, etc.

That’s just Ubuntu Pro and it’s basically longer term kernel maintenance plus applies to the universe repo not just main. The only extra functionality is the ability to live patch the kernel. The base install works fine as is but some businesses require the extended support.

By all means, find me a single example of software you actually own…

Because that’s waaaaaaaaay fucking easier than me listing every open source eula one by one

Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.

They have a Terms of Service for the online services, which you can be banned from for misuse, but this does not prevent you from using the software. You can legally obtain it through any of the hundreds of mirrors, or even compile it from scratch.

terms.archlinux.org

Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.

Right, your link is about use of online services…

The following Terms of Service contain the rules for the use of the internet Platform Arch Linux, operated by the Arch Linux Team, accessible under the domain archlinux.org and various related subdomains (the “Platform”) and the respective Services, namely provision of the Arch Linux package platform, the forums, the wiki, the bug reporting tool and a reporting tool for security issues, Arch User Repository (AUR), Mailing Lists, IRC Channels, collaboration pads and the Bulletin Board System (the “Services”) of Arch Linux (“Arch Linux”, “we”) by you as a user (the “User”, “you”).

There’s no EULA, but after reading up on it, isn’t it even considered software?

Like, it seems to really just be a command line, that straps together a bunch of individual packages, which add up to a very very lightweight OS, and then even more can be added on.

Seems really cool, and I like the idea. But my understanding is the packages themselves have EULA’s on their own and function pretty autonomously.

I think thats going to the closest anyone gets tho, thanks for linking it.

All packages published to the arch linux repository are free software that can be built from source and have permissive licenses. Non-free software such as nvidia drivers and other things are distributed separately through the AUR, and aren’t managed by the Arch Linux team.

I would consider the collection of software provided to be no different than any other OS with optional packages. There are several forks of Arch Linux like EndeavourOS that have more complete defaults.

and have permissive licenses

…

That’s the difference you don’t see.

There’s not one license, there’s multiple. Which is a good system, but doesn’t mean there’s no EULA, it means there’s multiple.

A permissive license is a specific category of open source license. As I said, all official repository software is free and open source. If the terms of the license did not allow it to be freely distributed or was a revocable license, it would not be allowed in the arch repository.

Arch is not that lightweight.

If it wasn’t, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.

Because that’s what actually owning software means.

This. Is. A. FUCKING. Lie.

If I buy and own a physical copy of a book. I am not then entitled to set up a printing press and sell my own word-for-word copies of said book. Same applies to ownership of digital goods.

If I go to GOG and buy a DRM free game (aka I would then own that copy) I still wouldn’t have the legal right to distribute copies to other people.

That’s because copyright laws exist, and they apply to both situations I described. Shame on you for mindlessly repeating industry lies.

Never ever owned software. Even physical disks has something like buying this gives you a license to use this software. Great examples is movies. It gave you a license for private viewing only. Showing a movie you had a copy if to a group of people technically broke that.

You’re an idiot. You didn’t address anything I said

If it wasn’t, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.

Okay? Good. Fine.