In the Netflix scenario, you know that you are purchasing a subscription service that lets you access content owned/distributed/licensed by Netflix. They aren't advertising that you can own Stranger Things, for example. They advertise that you can watch Stranger Things on-demand. I don't know of anyone who has purchased a Netflix subscription and thought that they own copies of everything on Netflix.
In the game scenario, you believe that you are purchasing the game. That's how they market it. The expectation is that once you've made that transaction, you now own that copy of that game to do with as you more or less please. Play it offline, run a local server, put it away and pick it up 10 years from now and still be able to play it, etc.
It's increasingly apparent that in many cases, even when you buy something from a game store (MS, Sony, etc.) that you aren't actually purchasing the game, you're purchasing the rights to access it through a particular service. But that's not how the advertise it. And no, I don't think burying this fact behind a few thousand words of legalese is really addressing the issue at all.
If you don't understand why that distinction might upset people, I don't know what to say.
> Play it offline, run a local server, put it away and pick it up 10 years from now and still be able to play it, etc.
While it's sad, this hasn't been true the last 10-15 years.
They don't claim you own a game after you buy it, that would be false advertising. Hence why they could change his gaming experience in such a disruptive way.
> If you don't understand why that distinction might upset people, I don't know what to say.
I tried clarifying, hopefully you understand what I mean now.
Minecraft sells you the game - even right now, their site says "Get Minecraft" - in fact, it defaulted to Japanese for me where it says "MINECRAFTを購入" which is an even more unambiguous "BUY MINECRAFT".
It is like the difference between buying a e-book on Amazon and having it removed remotely, versus a book being removed from Kindle Unlimited. You have to be willfully obtuse to not understand why people might have different expectation for the two types of transactions, legalese in be damned.
> I do not believe in "renting" games; if I purchase something, it's mine
He does not believe in renting games, so I'm trying to find out of he rents movies or series. If yes, why the different approach?
Willfully obtuse... Oh please, some of you should try reading what I write and take the context into account instead.
The guy doesn't like being ripped off. He rents what is marketed as rent-able, and wants what is marketed as something you buy to be actually so.
Its a very basic concept, there is no "different approach here".
There isn't anything wrong with not wanting to be ripped off.
Hey that's what I'm thinking, so why don't you get what I mean ;).
> You are not entitled to subsequent updates or upgrades.
Then those should be truly optional and the store page should visibly state this limitation while keeping the purchased version accessible.
“When you purchase Minecraft you do so as is, be it in the early stages of development or already fully released. Subsequent updates are only an added bonus and not a guarantee, as icing on a cake. Purchases during the development of the game are discounted and include the full game upon release.”
and
“When you purchase a game from us, you fill in your personal/company details. You agree that we store and use your information in our organization to complete the agreement towards you. You have the right, according to the law Personuppgiftslagen (PUL) in Sweden to know about the information registered about you. If it is wrong, insufficient or irrelevant you have the right to make sure that it gets corrected or removed.”
But the rest of your comment stands.
Buying games like Minecraft has always been marketed and communicated as a purchase, just like you'd permanently buy a physical product. Now publishers are slowly attempting to effectively steal or lock away those products after we paid for them. Those two things in combination are not okay, publishers should either be honest or keep their word.
At least the EU seems to - slowly - fight such antipatterns that everyone knows only exist to mislead consumers.