Yeah, if only.

> Just think about the complexity of localization and how many IFs you had to write to solve different language versions, etc. in the old PHP code. A lot of that complexity can simply disappear.

IFs! Oh no! Throwing all of this into a non-deterministic and expensive black box is making it less complex, you say?

I do this with docker. Insane that the default is to recursively ship all of PWD.

I even take issue with "Purchase license". Shouldn't it be "Lease License"? Purchase implies that it can't be revoked, no?

Nah. Licenses can be revoked. When I buy a hunting license I don't get it forever

You don’t buy a hunting license though. You pay a fee and the government issues you a license.

That feels like a distinction without a difference. On the other hand, "buy" vs "buy license" is actually a meaningful difference.

They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it says it on the button doesn’t really help, because no reasonable person thinks that a “purchased” license can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. Why doesn’t anybody think that? Because “owning” a license implies you actually control it. But a license you can’t control at all means you own NOTHING! Not even a license. So “buy license" miscommunicates in the same way as “buy.”

Then maybe is should be forced to say: “Buy revocable license” and require the user to answer randomized multiple choice questions regarding the terms of the license that act in opposition to the purchaser. Collect metrics on wrong answers and if greater than say, 15% of people can’t determine what they are actually handing over money for, fine and require additional clarity.

Or, just flip the tables and say the historical meaning of buy implies transfer of ownership in exchange for some trade. Since the seller no longer owns the items that was sold in the transaction, they have no additional rights that are covered by other areas of the law (such as copyright). First sale applies and if the seller doesn’t provide a mechanism to facilitate that sale, the buyer is free to exercise that right in whatever way they see fit.

Licenses are commonly understood to have variable duration, as specified by the license.

I get that people want to be able to purchase games forever, but this linguistic argument seems tortured concern trolling. maybe Im wrong, but are there even people confused by what they are getting when they pay for a modern online game? It seems like the bigger issues is people know, but dont like those terms.

There is some string of terms that accurately describes the state of current game sales. Even if it is used, most of the people upset by the issue will not be happy.

I'd be very surprised if the average buyer of Call of Shooty was aware that their game could be taken away from them (for reasons (or lack thereof) other than maybe getting their account banned for cheating).

I'd also be fairly surprised if that average buyer cared all that much. For many the life cycle of any random game is short enough that it doesn't matter whether or not it gets revoked, just so long as that's far enough into the future (and Sony probably knows that). So long as the average buyer doesn't have to think about it, since any revocation is so far into the future as to probably not matter, the average buyer won't care.

There's some media attention from the people who do care and want Sony et al. to do better, but they alone don't have the power to fight back against Sony, since even though the rest of the market might even agree that the current situation is bad, it's very difficult to mobilise people into actually doing anything (and what are you even supposed to to beyond 'voting with your wallet'?).

I think the average buyer of a online multiplayer game is loosely aware that the company could stop hosting it. Probably less aware that their single player content could disappear.

I personally think it is hard to mobilize people because the overwhelming majority simply dont care. If they did, yes, they could vote with their wallets. Nobody will die without Call of Shooty 10.

We are in this weird twilight zone where some people say they dont like products, but keep buying them.

Whether or not people understand it (I’m guess most don’t), we’ve lost something and been handed an inferior alternative with significant disadvantages. I have CDs from the 80s that still work. Plenty of games on disc and cart that still work.

Is not having to get up to change a disc worth giving up libraries, resale, lending, and not having stuff taken away at the whim of the publisher?

Revocable is an obscure word to normal people. It should say temporary.

temporary implies it is temporal -- there is a time limit.

revokable means that it's fine until the evil megacorp says it isn't.

to steal from an earlier thread -- my hunting license is temporary: I know it is only good for this year. No ambiguity there, no surprises, and everyone agreed on this upfront.

It’s only temporary if they revoke it.

And the license is not perpetual. It can expire or be revoked.

Are you suggesting that "Purchase license" is somehow unclear and "Pay a fee and we will issue you a license" is clearer?

What kind of logic is this?

99.99% of people say "buy" a hunting license and 0% are confused about the duration.

But licenses in general you don't just "buy", you "earn" them somehow, then also usually you pay a price for it too, but it's typically about knowing about some rules and/or norms.

Software licenses are bought all the time.

Sure, but that's a very different type of license compared to a hunting license, driver license or similar stuff, you know, the context.

And the initial comment that started this was that "Purchase license" in reference to this... software license... wasn't clear. Arguing about whether you buy a hunting license or that it's not a perfect analogy seems pedantic and irrelevant.

> Arguing about whether you buy a hunting license or that it's not a perfect analogy seems pedantic and irrelevant

It's a completely different thing, it's like comparing buying a "license" (ticket) to ride a roller coaster and taking a driving license, they're obviously different things, not exactly pedantic, imo.

Yeah. But we're talking about software licenses here. It was more weird hunting and drivers licenses ever got brought up.

> It was more weird hunting and drivers licenses ever got brought up

Agreed! :)

True, but you do get it under clear terms, for a duration that is both obvious and well established.

Right but when you buy it, they tell you how long it is valid for.

With video games it is often for some unknown amount of time, and of course they don't tell you that.

Depends on the details of the license, no?

A lease is a license/document/interest/contract/deed granting use rights. So lease license is not meaningful.

I do this at work with the comments in my code. No one's ever noticed <thumbs-down-emoji>

Yes, the AllTrails app does this. You can't send a route to your Garmin watch or whatever in the app, you must do it in the browser version.

And since having the app installed at all sort of hijacks AllTrails links, you really don't even want it installed at all. Yet you constantly are told to install the app...drives me up the wall.

Can we stop consolidating everything under a handful of massive companies?

This will get a lot worse before it will get better. All the hyperscalers will inevitably drift towards total vertical integration.

Let's hope they never reach the "owning a private military" stage.

Aw man, you did the hard part and then had an AI do the easy part. But it's also the part that makes the first impression on everyone.

They weren't even complex or convoluted. It was just a quiet, "Fuck you, you didn't think to try picking that item an hour ago so now you have to restart."