• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Fukuzatsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,321
Unfortunately, there is no requirement to show you a multi-page license agreement and make you scroll through it. Like it or not, you agreed to the license. You agree to licenses all day in far less interactive ways.

Okay, I know you've said that, but in this case where would I even go about finding it? If it's not on the box, in a manual, or even presented to me in a readable, obvious manner when the game begins, why would any court judge that I actually "agreed" to it? Just to take a step back from this, let me give an example:

I produce a brand of lemonade. On the bottle's label, I include text that gives me the right to enter your place of residence (whatever that may be), a term to which you consent upon buying a single bottle of said lemonade and is controlled entirely at my behest. It's written on the bottle next to the nutrition facts in a small font and legally accurate but otherwise unclear language.
Would this be enforceable on my part, or do you reckon somewhere along the way of me trying to enforce this someone might rule that no one would reasonably be expected to have actually agreed to this?

Or if this seems too implausible, let's say it's any terms whatsoever. My point is more that any binding agreement presented in such a manner strikes me (and I would imagine anyone else buying the product) as ridiculous.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
Okay, I know you've said that, but in this case where would I even go about finding it? If it's not on the box, in a manual, or even presented to me in a readable, obvious manner when the game begins, why would any court judge that I actually "agreed" to it? Just to take a step back from this, let me give an example:

I produce a brand of lemonade. One the bottle's label, I include text that gives me the right to enter your place of residence (whatever that may be), a term to which you consent upon buying a single bottle of said lemonade and is controlled entirely at my behest. It's written on the bottle next to the nutrition facts.
Would this be enforceable on my part, or do you reckon somewhere along the way of me trying to enforce this someone might rule that no one would reasonably be expected to have actually agreed to this?

I don't have a copy of Xenoblade 2 so I do not know where the EULA is displayed.

That is not a legally valid EULA for a number of reasons. The EULAs in question here are drafted by actual lawyers and not unreasonable.
 

goldenpp73

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
2,144
Okay, I know you've said that, but in this case where would I even go about finding it? If it's not on the box, in a manual, or even presented to me in a readable, obvious manner when the game begins, why would any court judge that I actually "agreed" to it? Just to take a step back from this, let me give an example:

I produce a brand of lemonade. On the bottle's label, I include text that gives me the right to enter your place of residence (whatever that may be), a term to which you consent upon buying a single bottle of said lemonade and is controlled entirely at my behest. It's written on the bottle next to the nutrition facts in a small font and legally accurate but otherwise unclear language.
Would this be enforceable on my part, or do you reckon somewhere along the way of me trying to enforce this someone might rule that no one would reasonably be expected to have actually agreed to this?

I think he's implying there is a blanket law that applies to the game you bought by default, basically you agreed to it by giving Walmart 60 bucks, which I think the court system would find amusing.
 

Fukuzatsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,321
The EULA the title ships with is what applies to that specific product.
So what is the threshold, legally for this to be reasonable? Just that an EULA exists somewhere? Why would I as a layman customer be expected to go seek out an EULA I don't even know exists (yet I've agreed to just by purchasing the product) in a sub-menu on the system?
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
So what is the threshold, legally for this to be reasonable? Just that an EULA exists somewhere? Why would I as a layman customer be expected to go seek out an EULA I don't even know exists (yet I've agreed to just by purchasing the product) in a sub-menu on the system?

The question you asked would take many weeks of legal education instruction from me to you for me to be able to answer in a way that would be useful for you. I don't know how to answer that question in a way that non-lawyers would be able to understand.
 

Fukuzatsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,321
I think he's implying there is a blanket law that applies to the game you bought by default, basically you agreed to it by giving Walmart 60 bucks, which I think the court system would find amusing.
Once again, I am not a lawyer, but the idea of enforcing an EULA that is in no way presented to the customer at the point of purchase (and I do mean that, I've looked all over the box and the receipt through Amazon, I couldn't even find the phrase "licence" on it) or even at startup, outside of something I have to actively seek out, strikes me as preposterous.
 

Fukuzatsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,321
The question you asked would take many weeks of legal education instruction from me to you for me to be able to answer in a way that would be useful for you. I don't know how to answer that question in a way that non-lawyers would be able to understand.

Well this is kind of my point, I'd say. Can an average customer be reasonably expected to have actually consented to this agreement that the rights holder is claiming they did in fact consent to? If the answer is no (either because the EULA is incredibly obtuse, hidden, etc.) then I just don't understand how anyone would uphold it in the event of enforcement.
 
Last edited:

goldenpp73

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
2,144
Once again, I am not a lawyer, but the idea of enforcing an EULA that is in no way presented to the customer at the point of purchase (and I do mean that, I've looked all over the box and the receipt through Amazon, I couldn't even find the phrase "licence" on it) or even at startup, outside of something I have to actively seek out, strikes me as preposterous.

Guy is just arguing vague semantics, he knows full well that any attempt to enforce such a thing would get the company laughed out of court, thus proving our licenses are safe (or at the very least, a lot safer) than the alternative.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
Well this is kind of my point, I'd say. Can an average be reasonably expected to have actually consented to this agreement that the rights holder is claiming they did in fact consent to? If the answer is no (either because the EULA is incredibly obtuse, hidden, etc.) then I just don't understand how anyone would uphold it in the event of enforcement.

The answer is yes.

Guy is just arguing vague semantics, he knows full well that any attempt to enforce such a thing would get the company laughed out of court, thus proving our licenses are safe (or at the very least, a lot safer) than the alternative.

Yeah, that is not what I believe. Do not prescribe to me what my beliefs are.
 

Ukumio

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,415
Australia
In 2017 I bought over 10 games. In 2018 I bought just 3. The reason it dropped so suddenly is because of Game Pass and Live service games (namely Destiny). Even if you add the cost of Game Pass to the three games I bought it still comes to a lot less than the previous year (and even this year so far).

I don't feel like I'm missing out on games despite buying less because I've got so many games to choose from thanks to Game Pass and because I've got a game I can keep coming back to.

People say subscriptions services like Game Pass and Live Service games are bad for the industry or even consumers but as of right now I don't see anything wrong. Hell, if Origin Access Premier was a thing I wouldn't have bought the Deluxe edition of Anthem and saved myself a lot of money. I don't actually care about owning games, just about playing them. First party subscription services like EA Access or the new Ubisoft one means most of their back catalogue are always there while ones that rely mostly on 3rd party games, like Game Pass, offer discounts on purchases meaning making the leap from not owning a game I want to play forever to one I own isn't that as much money.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
Okay, well, assuming that is the case, since you seem pretty firm on that, can you explain a bit as to why this is taken to be the case?
On its face, it sounds quite ridiculous, so I imagine there must be some reasoning behind it.

A wealth of court rulings on this subject. Lots and lots.
 

goldenpp73

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
2,144
In 2017 I bought over 10 games. In 2018 I bought just 3. The reason it dropped so suddenly is because of Game Pass and Live service games (namely Destiny). Even if you add the cost of Game Pass to the three games I bought it still comes to a lot less than the previous year (and even this year so far).

I don't feel like I'm missing out on games despite buying less because I've got so many games to choose from thanks to Game Pass and because I've got a game I can keep coming back to.

People say subscriptions services like Game Pass and Live Service games are bad for the industry or even consumers but as of right now I don't see anything wrong. Hell, if Origin Access Premier was a thing I wouldn't have bought the Deluxe edition of Anthem and saved myself a lot of money. I don't actually care about owning games, just about playing them. First party subscription services like EA Access or the new Ubisoft one means most of their back catalogue are always there while ones that rely mostly on 3rd party games, like Game Pass, offer discounts on purchases meaning making the leap from not owning a game I want to play forever to one I own isn't that as much money.

How compelling will gamepass be if every publisher begins to push their own sub and revokes those games? We have Netflix under fire right now.
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,713
Pretty sure you will have to pay for the game as well on stadia. Only some. Games will be 'free'. Won't be brand new ones like cyberpunk either.

And most people don't really buy consoles for one game.

I described Stadia as paying US$10 for 4k or free for 1080P + the US$60 for the game, the "+ US$60" applies for both pricing models. It can be 10 games bought within 5 month and the same example applies. You don't have to pay the up front cost for the console. If you finished the 10 games and are not interested in nothing new for a few months, you have the option of not paying the subscription fee and continue to play your 10 games in 1080p for free.
 

Ukumio

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,415
Australia
How compelling will gamepass be if every publisher begins to push their own sub and revokes those games? We have Netflix under fire right now.
The problem with Netflix isn't that it doesn't have stuff to watch, its that not everything is worth watching (which is why I'm not subscribed right now). That true now even for Game Pass, it has 200+ games but I daresay less than a quarter of those actually appeal to me. Doesn't mean its a bad service. Just like Netflix isn't a bad service, I've just watched everything I wanted to watch on there so I unsubbed. And I'd do the same to Game Pass except for one thing, well, two. Halo and Sea of Thieves. These two games offer replayability that will see me saying subbed possibly forever, and thats something Netflix just does not have. Once you've seen a show once, you won't watch it again, the really good shows like the Office get a yearly rewatch but more than 90% doesn't.

That's why you can't compare something like Game Pass to Netflix. Sure, there are parallels but much like Apple and Oranges, despite both being fruit, you can't compare them. So even if we had 5-10 subscription services like Game Pass (or much more likely, EA Access) there will still be reason enough to subscribe to at least one of them. Does it matter I can't play Halo or Battlefield on the same subscription? Absolutely not.

Also, we can't blame subscriptions for live service since a majority of the current live service games aren't part of a subscription. Honestly, I think its fairer to say that live service games are to blame for subscriptions, and if that's true then even better. If I have friends who want to play CoD then I can't play because I don't buy CoD but if Activision had a subscription service I could because I'm much more likely to drop $10-$15 on a game then I am $80-$100 (I live in Australia).

Games already leave Game Pass all the time, about 5-10 a month but if I want to keep playing them it then its much easier to justify because there's a 20% discount on everything on Game Pass. So not only has Game Pass introduced me to a game I probably wouldn't have played otherwise, if it ever leaves I save money on buying it.
 

goldenpp73

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
2,144
The problem with Netflix isn't that it doesn't have stuff to watch, its that not everything is worth watching (which is why I'm not subscribed right now). That true now even for Game Pass, it has 200+ games but I daresay less than a quarter of those actually appeal to me. Doesn't mean its a bad service. Just like Netflix isn't a bad service, I've just watched everything I wanted to watch on there so I unsubbed. And I'd do the same to Game Pass except for one thing, well, two. Halo and Sea of Thieves. These two games offer replayability that will see me saying subbed possibly forever, and thats something Netflix just does not have. Once you've seen a show once, you won't watch it again, the really good shows like the Office get a yearly rewatch but more than 90% doesn't.

That's why you can't compare something like Game Pass to Netflix. Sure, there are parallels but much like Apple and Oranges, despite both being fruit, you can't compare them. So even if we had 5-10 subscription services like Game Pass (or much more likely, EA Access) there will still be reason enough to subscribe to at least one of them. Does it matter I can't play Halo or Battlefield on the same subscription? Absolutely not.

Also, we can't blame subscriptions for live service since a majority of the current live service games aren't part of a subscription. Honestly, I think its fairer to say that live service games are to blame for subscriptions, and if that's true then even better. If I have friends who want to play CoD then I can't play because I don't buy CoD but if Activision had a subscription service I could because I'm much more likely to drop $10-$15 on a game then I am $80-$100 (I live in Australia).

Games already leave Game Pass all the time, about 5-10 a month but if I want to keep playing them it then its much easier to justify because there's a 20% discount on everything on Game Pass. So not only has Game Pass introduced me to a game I probably wouldn't have played otherwise, if it ever leaves I save money on buying it.

All of these services start this way to pave the way. Remember how much Netflix used to cost? People who think this is how it will stay are short sighted.
 

Ukumio

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,415
Australia
All of these services start this way to pave the way. Remember how much Netflix used to cost? People who think this is how it will stay are short sighted.
Netflix is still really affordable, at least in my area, and is on par with competing services available except for two (Prime is way lower and Foxtel is way higher). So, if you're saying that in 10 years from now Game Pass and other subscription services won't cost $5-$15 (the current range) then I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not expecting them to stay low forever, at the same time however, they will never be as high as buying a brand new game so therefore, if you're using it to play just 1-2 games on the service when you need to play those games then its immediately better than playing a game you have no real interest in besides playing for a month or less with friends.

Even on-going, the yearly cost is unlikely to rise above 3-4 AAA games for a whole year (because that would be a hard sell which is part of the reason why I've never paid for PS Now despite them offering game downloads for some titles) so as long as you play at least that many AAA games from the service than its paid for itself, hasn't it. Even if you only stick to the much cheaper indies that Game Pass is mostly full of, since they are normally shorter you're more than likely to go through quite a few of them and the service has paid for itself.

People argue that in order to justify subscription services cost, the life blood of every subscription service will be Live Service games or GaaS but the fact is, as I already said, this is the way the industry is already headed and most of them aren't even part of a subscription service.
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,973
It is wrong.

Firstly, what an EULA says, and what the law says, are not the same thing. Stop taking a company's word for what your rights are. Besides, those rights may vary by jurisdiction.

Secondly, and more importantly, are your rights in practice. Whatever you, or the EULA, might say about what you think the law is, some of those rights (or at least the ability to exercise them) are stripped from you in most digital forms, especially streaming.

Whether you care about consumer rights or not is up to you. But saying "it was always this way" is just gaslighting. Stop it.

If you think this is gaslighting, you can and should report the post. We take such matters seriously and the moderation team will have a look.

Until then, what I said is true. You implicitly agree to it by the terms of the license (using the software, opening the package, what have you). Of course that doesn't mean you don't have rights, or give up your rights as a citizen in your jurisdiction, just because you do the thing they say means you agree. I've made backup copies over the years when EULAs forbade it, because it was practical and made the durability of the media possible. (And when hard drives were first available for home pcs they didn't expect people to defrag and rebuild their drives, being limited to 5 installs of Print Shop before the disk was rendered worthless was a nightmare) I've also successfully fought to return opened disappointing games in the past, anyone who's played Willy Beamish before will understand.

So yes you have legal recourse as a consumer, and an EULA doesn't mean that's the end of the story.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
If you think this is gaslighting, you can and should report the post. We take such matters seriously and the moderation team will have a look.

Until then, what I said is true. You implicitly agree to it by the terms of the license (using the software, opening the package, what have you). Of course that doesn't mean you don't have rights, or give up your rights as a citizen in your jurisdiction, just because you do the thing they say means you agree. I've made backup copies over the years when EULAs forbade it, because it was practical and made the durability of the media possible. (And when hard drives were first available for home pcs they didn't expect people to defrag and rebuild their drives, being limited to 5 installs of Print Shop before the disk was rendered worthless was a nightmare) I've also successfully fought to return opened disappointing games in the past, anyone who's played Willy Beamish before will understand.

So yes you have legal recourse as a consumer, and an EULA doesn't mean that's the end of the story.

It was likely illegal for you to make the backup copies you've made, not that doing so is a serious thing worthy of condemnation.

It depends on what the EULA states, what the specific issue is, etc. Backup copies are not really within the parameters of the EULA as federal law takes precedence there, but 'we can revoke your license for any reason we so choose to' is within the companies rights & is not a new thing. :)
 
Last edited:

i-Jest

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,013
The most interesting part to me is the loss of cultural library - this has been an issue since the very early twentieth century though, when culture became less about personal expression and intellectual exchange and almost entirely about commodity.

Today, culture is entirely commodified - it's rare that anyone embarks on any kind of creative or expressive pursuit solely for the sake exploring expression or creativity.

People gotta make a living somehow, not that the change justifies the attitude shift.
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,973
It was likely illegal (and a violation of the software license) for you to make the backup copies you've made, not that doing so is a serious thing worth of condemnation.

It depends on what the EULA states, what the specific issue is, etc. Backup copies are not really within the parameters of the EULA as federal law takes precedence there, but 'we can revoke your license for any reason we so choose to' is within the companies rights & is in no way gaslighting.

Yeah. I get it though, that's kind of the point people are making, they want to retain the legal right to successfully use (and without secondary services like an on-line check-in), and transact the physical media they purchased. Digital, too - delisting has a double effect, with near-loss of durability and the instant vanishing of a transaction market.
 

MXT

Banned
May 13, 2019
646
Yeah. I get it though, that's kind of the point people are making, they want to retain the legal right to successfully use (and without secondary services like an on-line check-in), and transact the physical media they purchased. Digital, too - delisting has a double effect, with near-loss of durability and the instant vanishing of a transaction market.

Yeah, and that is a totally valid thing to say and I don't entirely disagree with those people. My issue is mostly limited to the 'I specifically want the easy ability to violate the EULA without worry of enforcement actions' people, which - as a lawyer - make me feel bleh.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
An on point episode. On fucking point.

Went off point several times.
Lumping Stadia and Xcloud in one bundle makes zero sense. Failing to acknowledge that at least for every other service apart from Stadia, subscription services and streaming are OPTIONAL ways of getting content and that retail or digital sales aren't going anywhere.

He also did that absolutely daft thing where he equates any desire for publishers to make more money as 'greedy' and 'money grubbing '. Disingenuous for him to keep pretending he doesn't know this is a business.


Largely the same old guff.
 

senj

Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,436
You have never "owned" games. Just the right to play them. Subscriptions/Streaming/etc don't change that.

Only difference is that you don't need to have physical media in order to prove your right to play.
If Microsoft gets bored of the console business in 3-5 years, they're not going to show up at your door and confiscate your Xbox and purchased games.

That's a pretty big difference between games you own and Stadia
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,713
If Microsoft gets bored of the console business in 3-5 years, they're not going to show up at your door and confiscate your Xbox and purchased games.

That's a pretty big difference between games you own and Stadia

Since we are getting into fantasy land/pretend scenarios. How about if you already have an update on your console that will lock the use of any physical game within a few years? I mean if we are going to pretend that all of the digital games/streaming services will some day disappear, we might as well indulge all of the other fantasy scenarios.
 

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
It's funny (not indefensible, but funny) how much trepidation there is about GOOGLE getting into the games industry. Like what do you think MS was in 2001? What do you think Sony was in 1994? Major tech companies entering the videogame market is more the rule than the exception.

I agree with Jim that much of the consumer climate for games relies on *trust*, which is generally unearned. But I don't think streaming represents a bigger threat to losing games than digital distribution did. The fact that you can only get PT on overpriced used PS4s effectively means it doesn't exist for fully legal players.

The way we're going to get PT and other lost games back is through copyright infringement. As Jim rightly points out, it has generally been "enthusiasts" who preserve games, not publishers. That will still be true in the streaming era.
 

spineduke

Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
8,754
I thought EULAs didn't hold up in the court of law? At least in the US? It's clear that the expert legal opinion on this is divided at the very least.
 

spineduke

Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
8,754
It's funny (not indefensible, but funny) how much trepidation there is about GOOGLE getting into the games industry. Like what do you think MS was in 2001? What do you think Sony was in 1994? Major tech companies entering the videogame market is more the rule than the exception.

I agree with Jim that much of the consumer climate for games relies on *trust*, which is generally unearned. But I don't think streaming represents a bigger threat to losing games than digital distribution did. The fact that you can only get PT on overpriced used PS4s effectively means it doesn't exist for fully legal players.

The way we're going to get PT and other lost games back is through copyright infringement. As Jim rightly points out, it has generally been "enthusiasts" who preserve games, not publishers. That will still be true in the streaming era.

There is no mechanism to 'preserve' games which use streaming tech - I don't see a positive moving forward in this regard.

(sorry for the dp)
 

Cyberclops

Member
Mar 15, 2019
1,444
The price of games on Stadia will make or break this service for me. If new AAA games are $60 I just don't see the point (for me personally).
 

Bold One

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
18,911
Give up ownership so you can play games on the platform-holder's terms isnt a great bargain imo. Removing the ever-decreasing hardware costs in exchange for any control of content you pay for makes exclusively streaming a nonstarter for me, and I would probably only embrace streaming as a supplement/compliment to the current local-rendering we do

Subscription models will leave you with nothing after you stop paying, meaning paying for years means zilch the minute you stop paying. Relying on the sunk-cost fallacy will only carry these services so far.
You won't be believe how many rights and freedoms people will happily surrender for just a little bit of convenience.
 

regenhuber

Member
Nov 4, 2017
5,214
Jim is right, as he is most of the time.
But compared to him, I have more faith in consumers voting with their wallets (and their angry social media accounts).

The blowback against Microsofts initial X1 reveal made them change course.
It's no coincidence that we've seen a renaissance of Nintendo and Japanese games in general this gen (hell, we've got a fully dubbed Yakuza game now), because people turn their backs at the Western AAA nickel & dime bullshit.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I welcome streaming & gamepasses as additional options on the market.
 

DangerMouse

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,402
He is right, if this keeps going the way it is video games are going to end up worse off than streaming tv/movies with two dozen different services.

Worse too it's no secret that game publishers would love to end ownership, both physical and "digital" in favor of subscriptions.
This right here.

These models are also terrible for game quality. They encourage quantity over quality, and encourage GaaS/bloated games over tight single player games. Notice how poor in quality MS and EA's output is these days.
Completely agree.
 
Last edited:

MonsterMech

Mambo Number PS5
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,409
If Microsoft gets bored of the console business in 3-5 years, they're not going to show up at your door and confiscate your Xbox and purchased games.

That's a pretty big difference between games you own and Stadia
People understand what they get with a subscription service.

It's disingenuous to lump streaming in with digital ownership.
 

Cpt-GargameL

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,024
People understand what they get with a subscription service.

It's disingenuous to lump streaming in with digital ownership.
.

Thank you for ripping the words out of my mouth.

Same thing can be said for Gamepass/Netflix, games/movies come and go on those services. Talking about the possibility of games being no longer accessible because of a license issue is a complete different topic considering WE KNOW what we're getting into with Stadia and any other potential stream only service.

Stadia is moving forward with cross-save with their games (excluding exclusives of course) so the way I see it is that Stadia will be used as an alternative to play these cross-save games and or for convenience.

All these debates, for the people debating, are you buying Stadia? Did you pre-order it? Or are you just debating for a product that's not going to affect you? Personally? I pre-ordered it and I'm looking forward to using it alongside my other gaming services/options.
 
Last edited:

MonsterMech

Mambo Number PS5
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,409
.

Thank you for ripping the words out of my mouth.

Same thing can be said for Gamepass/Netflix, games/movies come and go on those services. Talking about the possibility of games being no longer accessible because of a license issue is a complete different topic considering WE KNOW what we're getting into with Stadia and any other potential stream only service.

Stadia is moving forward with cross-save with their games (excluding exclusives of course) so the way I see it is that Stadia will be used as an alternative to play these cross-save games and or for convenience.

All these debates, for the people debating, are you buying Stadia? Did you pre-order it? Or are you just debating for a product that's not going to affect you? Personally? I pre-ordered it and I'm looking forward to using it alongside my other gaming services/options.
Yeah. The doom and gloom is ridiculous IMO. Different products for different peoples wants and needs are a good thing.

Data and power in the cloud will become as accessible as water in the near future. The idea that one of these companies are just gonna take your games is silly.

It's just like at X1 launch people were up in arms about a 24 hour check in, yet here we are and most of the most popular games are "always online" and I'd bet not one of the people who complained have gone a day without the internet since then.

So 10 years from now when streaming and digital games are more popular than physical, I will look back on these conversations and just shake my head.
 

freakybj

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,428
Streaming can be a good thing, but I think Jim's concerns are well founded and that publishers will abuse this distribution platform for extra profit while delivering little value to customers.

Another concern I have is that if everyone moves to a subscription model, then the overall quality of games will decline too. Games are already being sold day 1 as minimum viable products with roadmaps that promise improvements. With subscription models this practice will only get worse because they've already got your money up front.
 

Dunlop

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,479
.
All these debates, for the people debating, are you buying Stadia? Did you pre-order it? Or are you just debating for a product that's not going to affect you? Personally? I pre-ordered it and I'm looking forward to using it alongside my other gaming services/options.

Many of the "debating" in these Stadia threads are posters that have stated they will not purchase it and feel compelled to tell the world why. Hopefully this will be moderated when the platform actually launches so there can be real topics of conversation without people shitting up the threads.

Personally I am excited to see the possibilities, but I have always been like that for any new gaming technology (including Kinect). I have been purchasing consoles for decades and over time I care less about the first party exclusives and when that is off the table you realize that these boxes are 95%+ identical.

If Stadia let's me adequately game without the need of a new console (I stopped upgrading my PC for gaming years ago) then it is a bonus without any real risk. Once the new gen of consoles drop i price I might pick one up and by then there will be a much larger library of games to play.

Ordered a founder's pack on the day of the announcement
 

senj

Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,436
.

Thank you for ripping the words out of my mouth.

Same thing can be said for Gamepass/Netflix, games/movies come and go on those services.
What? It's completely different than any of those.

On Netflix you play $9.99 for access to a month of whatever movies happen to be there.

Stadia is as if you paid $19.99 to Netflix per movie you want to watch, but unlike any other movie sale on the Internet weren't allowed to download it. Also this hypothetical Netflix is run by a parent company that shuts a ton of products down suddenly in just a few years.

The value and risks look nothing whatsoever like any of the things you listed
 

senj

Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,436
Since we are getting into fantasy land/pretend scenarios. How about if you already have an update on your console that will lock the use of any physical game within a few years? I mean if we are going to pretend that all of the digital games/streaming services will some day disappear, we might as well indulge all of the other fantasy scenarios.
If you think "Google suddenly shutting a product down" is a "fantasy scenario", buddy I've got some bad news for you
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,713
If you think "Google suddenly shutting a product down" is a "fantasy scenario", buddy I've got some bad news for you

How about when they don't shutdown a service? You know that you can also give examples of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo shutting down a service, right? The point is that the service will survive or not based on how good it is, not because there is some random chance that they will close it.