Isn't that their main doorbuster? How can this be a good decision? I wonder if it's more anti-theft than lack of sale? Like it's been bean-counted that they'd save more money not ordering product, than product ordered-sold-shoplifted?
Unfortunately, digital sales are better for game companies in every way: no money spent on manufacturing and distribution, a wealth of data on consumer behavior because they know what every single person has bought and installed on their machine, and no used game market to compete with new sales.
The problem is most of that doesn't benefit the consumer in any way. I refuse to buy digital games, because you never truly own them.
Of course modern physical discs usually just direct you to download 100 GB of updates anyway, making me wonder if there's even a game on there. But that's a different problem.
I feel like I need to point out from a technical perspective, you absolutely can own digital media, it's just that people are rightly noticing almost all major studios now are in favour of making you rent your game.
You're absolutely right that is technically possible to create a digital copy that you truly own. Unfortunately the courts don't treat you as owning digital content, even if it was purported to be a purchase rather than a rental.
This should have been bright letter law: courts have always ruled the clauses buried in contracts are void when they contradict The up front language that a customer should be able to take at face value. Meaning, if Amazon says you are "buying" a digital copy of a movie, the universally accepted understanding is that that means it becomes yours in perpetuity and you are also free to resell it. If their licensing agreements with the studios don't allow them to sell something in this manner, then legally they shouldn't be allowed to purport that you can "buy" the film from them. To allow otherwise is to allow Amazon to commit fraud.
I suspect the same holds true for every other digital purchase: buried in the terms somewhere is a statement that you "own" your purchase only so long as the seller wants to maintain your access.
Isn't that their main doorbuster? How can this be a good decision? I wonder if it's more anti-theft than lack of sale? Like it's been bean-counted that they'd save more money not ordering product, than product ordered-sold-shoplifted?
Or, it's just one step closer to commie land.
Unfortunately, digital sales are better for game companies in every way: no money spent on manufacturing and distribution, a wealth of data on consumer behavior because they know what every single person has bought and installed on their machine, and no used game market to compete with new sales.
The problem is most of that doesn't benefit the consumer in any way. I refuse to buy digital games, because you never truly own them.
Of course modern physical discs usually just direct you to download 100 GB of updates anyway, making me wonder if there's even a game on there. But that's a different problem.
You're absolutely right that is technically possible to create a digital copy that you truly own. Unfortunately the courts don't treat you as owning digital content, even if it was purported to be a purchase rather than a rental.
In this CA case, the court ruled in favor of Amazon because buried in their terms of service it says you don't really own your purchase, even though the website clearly makes the distinction between buying and renting a movie and it doesn't say anywhere that anyone would actually read that "buy" means something other than its common usage: https://www.askthelawyers.com/read-article/lawsuit-confirms-that-customers-dont-own-movies-purchased-on-amazon-prime
This should have been bright letter law: courts have always ruled the clauses buried in contracts are void when they contradict The up front language that a customer should be able to take at face value. Meaning, if Amazon says you are "buying" a digital copy of a movie, the universally accepted understanding is that that means it becomes yours in perpetuity and you are also free to resell it. If their licensing agreements with the studios don't allow them to sell something in this manner, then legally they shouldn't be allowed to purport that you can "buy" the film from them. To allow otherwise is to allow Amazon to commit fraud.
I suspect the same holds true for every other digital purchase: buried in the terms somewhere is a statement that you "own" your purchase only so long as the seller wants to maintain your access.