I tend to use the Monopoly analogy. I bought the Monopoly game, I own it now. I can change the rules, make up new rules, use the money for an entirely different purpose, etc.
The same is true of most single-player computer games. I have old CD's/DvD's of games, and I can still play them. I might have to keep an old computer around to play them on, but I "own" the game.
Online games, like MMO's, are different. They require a server providing a service. I don't own the server. If they take it down, the game is gone. So most online games specify that you are using a service for a fee. They can change, or take down the service at anytime, with the caveat that they might have to refund some of the money already paid for a service that they aren't going to provide.
So what irritates me the most are single-player games that still require you to be on the net and to sign on.
It's a trade-off. I personally like that I do not have to go buy physical copies and maintain them (i.e. keep backups in case the original goes poof). Compared to how things were with games, movies and music in the past, both for buying and renting, I like the way things are now way more.
I agree, I have probably 50-60 games on Steam. My only complaint there is that I used to travel a lot, and I wasn't able to play any of those games while I was in Paris.
Since I work in chip design, what happens if we decide not to build any more old chips? Are we supposed to make the design "open source"? We certainly can't be expected to keep making chips we designed 10 or 30 years ago.
Comments
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.