Does paying for a ticket to go to an amusement park or the movies or whatever mean that you wasted money on nothing? Just because you don’t permanently own something doesn’t mean you paid for literally nothing. You paid for the experience. The good times you have over the years playing a game you loved.
I mean yeah, I’m sure losing everything when the servers shut down would fucking suck, but that doesn’t invalidate the time you’ve experienced up to that point.
I don’t have the money to throw at games like that, but I do understand it.
Ultimatelly it boils down to whether people have spent the money to have something or to use/enjoy something.
Which is probably why most people who disagree with selling of items, mounts, armor and so on, don’t find it problematic when what is being sold is access to game areas: the former are things (even if virtual) and people tend to treat them as something which they have, whilst the latter is just access to new experiences, like buying a ticket in a carnival to go on a Ferris Wheel, and is thus not something people tend to feel like they own it.
So yeah, the problem is the preying on people’s instincts around ownership versus mere rental - in their stores these things are invariably framed as being a purchase (buy! buy! buy!), not something you are purchasing temporary access to - on things whose mere existence depends on the whims of a company and which can be taken away at any time.
Mind you, in the Age Of Enshittification this kind of scam has extended to even hardware which is powered by software that requires access to 3rd party servers.
I don’t think the issue is the word “buy”, but rather clarity on what you’re buying. Amusement parks use the word buy, but I don’t think anybody is confused that what you’re buying isn’t the whole Ferris Wheel, it’s a ticket that gives you permission to ride the Ferris Wheel. Meanwhile games tell you you’re buying a mount, when what you’re actually buying is a license that gives you access to a mount.
Yeah, the word “buy” in this is just one element of a broader pattern, and whilst per-se it isn’t sufficient to distinguish between acquiring a thing or getting access to a thing, in these cases of mounts, armor and so on being sold in games, the entire framing wording and even store structure around it tends to lead people towards concluding that the meaning of it is for “acquiring a thing” not for “getting access to a thing”, especially because in the absence of domain specific clarification (an absence I believe is entirely purposeful) people who aren’t intellectual property lawyers and fully informed of the subject matter will tend to for virtual goods use the same logic to deduce the full meaning as they would for equivalent goods in other domains, specifically physical goods.
This is why also in the physical world legislation forces some kinds of business transactions with consumers to explicitly use the words “rental” or “lease” in order to make clear the nature of the transaction but might not have any such requirements for business to business transactions because businesses are assumed to have the capability to assess the full contract.
Does paying for a ticket to go to an amusement park or the movies or whatever mean that you wasted money on nothing? Just because you don’t permanently own something doesn’t mean you paid for literally nothing. You paid for the experience. The good times you have over the years playing a game you loved.
I mean yeah, I’m sure losing everything when the servers shut down would fucking suck, but that doesn’t invalidate the time you’ve experienced up to that point.
I don’t have the money to throw at games like that, but I do understand it.
Ultimatelly it boils down to whether people have spent the money to have something or to use/enjoy something.
Which is probably why most people who disagree with selling of items, mounts, armor and so on, don’t find it problematic when what is being sold is access to game areas: the former are things (even if virtual) and people tend to treat them as something which they have, whilst the latter is just access to new experiences, like buying a ticket in a carnival to go on a Ferris Wheel, and is thus not something people tend to feel like they own it.
So yeah, the problem is the preying on people’s instincts around ownership versus mere rental - in their stores these things are invariably framed as being a purchase (buy! buy! buy!), not something you are purchasing temporary access to - on things whose mere existence depends on the whims of a company and which can be taken away at any time.
Mind you, in the Age Of Enshittification this kind of scam has extended to even hardware which is powered by software that requires access to 3rd party servers.
I don’t think the issue is the word “buy”, but rather clarity on what you’re buying. Amusement parks use the word buy, but I don’t think anybody is confused that what you’re buying isn’t the whole Ferris Wheel, it’s a ticket that gives you permission to ride the Ferris Wheel. Meanwhile games tell you you’re buying a mount, when what you’re actually buying is a license that gives you access to a mount.
Yeah, the word “buy” in this is just one element of a broader pattern, and whilst per-se it isn’t sufficient to distinguish between acquiring a thing or getting access to a thing, in these cases of mounts, armor and so on being sold in games, the entire framing wording and even store structure around it tends to lead people towards concluding that the meaning of it is for “acquiring a thing” not for “getting access to a thing”, especially because in the absence of domain specific clarification (an absence I believe is entirely purposeful) people who aren’t intellectual property lawyers and fully informed of the subject matter will tend to for virtual goods use the same logic to deduce the full meaning as they would for equivalent goods in other domains, specifically physical goods.
This is why also in the physical world legislation forces some kinds of business transactions with consumers to explicitly use the words “rental” or “lease” in order to make clear the nature of the transaction but might not have any such requirements for business to business transactions because businesses are assumed to have the capability to assess the full contract.