PhoenixWright: Indeed, where my frustration comes in is when I can obtain the very same product more conveniently in a better format with all of its extra content without paying a dime, I expect that if I pay anything more than nothing I get something to show for it.
Pheace: I do get this sentiment, but it seems to be holding on to the idea of a physical product, where in truth, you're getting 'The experience'. Just like you would when you go to a movie, or the theater. You pay for something, and you get it but you're not left with anything substantial to get your money back with.
I'm holding on to the sentiment of a physical product when I can physically handle something I paid money for. If I hand a clerk 60$ and he just waves air at me saying, "enjoy the experience," I won't be able to have that experience, because in that format it is tethered to the physical media. Which in theory I could enjoy up to, and only up to, the point that I destroy or sell that physical media. I can enjoy my chair in much the same way.
Movies are interesting because I can choose to rent, buy media, or buy digital. If I buy digital I'm expecting a certain transient quality to the item in the sake of convenience that I am not totally sure should be so transient. When I buy physical copy I expect to be able to handle it like a physical item. Thats part of why I bought it that way. As a customer I get to choose what level of purchase I want. Rentals cover most of those experiences and purchases cover investments. BTW its unfair to compare going to the theater to purchasing a game title. Its much more akin to buying a DVD.
We can redefine what buying a game means but then A) they need to reword the way the are selling the product to reflect what they are selling. and B) I am allowed to look at the product and say, "thats not something I want to pay money for." Which it is not. I just bought Assassins Creed on Amazon's DRM-Free sale. You know what? Doesn't run all that great and I dont have windows. But it was a good price and I have reasonable confidence that I will be able to fire it up at a later date without asking for permission. All efforts to self police result in the undermining of that fundamental security in a purchase. That is a personal requirement and given the amount of resistance to your theology I am willing to bet its not just me.
It is the fundamental job of a industry to provide a reason for consumers to give them their money. Acting as though industry has any right to be successful is backwards.
crazy_dave: That's blatantly false. In properly working capitalism, companies are barred from doing or committing certain actions that leverage their power over consumers beyond mere fraud. That's why we have consumer laws in the first place - it's why we have anti-monopolistic laws and financial regulations and all sorts of protections which say a company is not allowed to commit certain actions in order to balance the power between companies and consumers.
Pheace: So then you think Sony and Microsoft are about to break some of these laws? By changing their own consoles, in such a way, that games on it are linked to an account? Same as Steam and Battle.net, Greenmangaming and countless PC stores?
Which laws do you think will be brought up to prevent this same thing happening on their consoles?
I do think this is itching for lawsuits. They are going to be challenging many people's perception of what ownership means. People are not all going to know or understand why they cant sell a disc at a garage sale or why PS4 720 games are the only item in the world you cant buy at an antique mall. People will get burned then loud.
