Technology

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Klear@piefed.world 68 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I would be fine with digital only, but only if there was no DRM.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 months ago

And alternative stores with alternative servers so I don't have to buy a subscription for online capabilities and the ability to install whatever software I want... I guess a PC will do just fine.

parent

[–] conartistpanda@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

IDK, second market games are cool.

parent

[–] dangrousperson@feddit.org 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

I mean, yes that would be ideal, but its never going to happen, unfortunately. Even physical media has DRM and has had it for a long time now.

If it was possible to lend/borrow and resale digital media that would solve most of the problems. You could still have DRM that makes sure the game is only installed on a single console at a time and what not.

Another problem would also be that the servers could shut down which would mean you can't download the game indefinitely. But that is kind of already the case, even with physical media, as a lot of games already require Day 1 patches to be playable. So its a related and also important but somewhat separate issue. I hope Stop Killing Games is successful in that department.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de 3 points 2 months ago

The difference isn't digital vs physical. Either medium can have DRM. It's whether you own your copy or not.

Physical DRM like the classic dial-a-pirate is owned by you. You can choose to hand someone a copy of the game and the physical DRM, and they can play it. Nobody can take that right away from you.

Online DRM will always have the flaw of someone being able to take away your rights, for any reason. Thus, you don't own a copy of the game. Since digital games can't have physical DRM, the only way to truly own a digital copy of a game is DRM-free.