The linked GamesRadar article has way more substance than the Forbes article, which says a lot of nothing wrapped around one quote from the GamesRadar article.
> That ruling cites the belief of the Entertainment Software Association and other industry lobby groups that "there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes." … this also ignores the fact that libraries already lend out digital versions of more traditional media like books and movies to everyday people for what can only be described as recreational purposes.
Exactly. What makes videogames different than books, music, and videos?
The terms under which libraries lend out e-content are awful: e-content expires after either a given number of lends, a period of time, or whichever comes sooner, while a well-maintained library book can last for decades, and it tends to be more expensive than its analog counterpart (eg: an e-book for may cost more than its heavy-duty library-style-binding hardcover).
That said, the key difference is that book publishers decided to offer e-content under an explicit license, while game publishers have not.
We’ve had over a decade to prove that AAA games are not viable in a business sense. The budgets and returns are not sustainable. However, to get these massive budgets off the ground, the industry effectively eliminated mid-tier games.
The linked GamesRadar article has way more substance than the Forbes article, which says a lot of nothing wrapped around one quote from the GamesRadar article.
https://www.gamesradar.com/games/publishers-are-absolutely-t...
Post for that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42259133
Comments moved thither. Thanks!
Probably because Forbes is basically an SEO company now.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41590466
Could this be linked to instead?
Wow gamesradar is an ad-infested cesspool
But here’s the meaty bit:
> That ruling cites the belief of the Entertainment Software Association and other industry lobby groups that "there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes." … this also ignores the fact that libraries already lend out digital versions of more traditional media like books and movies to everyday people for what can only be described as recreational purposes.
Exactly. What makes videogames different than books, music, and videos?
The terms under which libraries lend out e-content are awful: e-content expires after either a given number of lends, a period of time, or whichever comes sooner, while a well-maintained library book can last for decades, and it tends to be more expensive than its analog counterpart (eg: an e-book for may cost more than its heavy-duty library-style-binding hardcover).
That said, the key difference is that book publishers decided to offer e-content under an explicit license, while game publishers have not.
The other bit I found shocking:
We’ve had over a decade to prove that AAA games are not viable in a business sense. The budgets and returns are not sustainable. However, to get these massive budgets off the ground, the industry effectively eliminated mid-tier games.
if they ban recreational use, would I need a prescription for medicinal use?