Do we really own what's inside the cloud?

Default_picture
Thursday, July 21, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Eduardo Moutinho

As digital distribution becomes commonplace, the definition of content ownership gets murkier. Check out Lou's piece to see if he's down with the cloud.

We're all moving towards an age where online servers are handling our data and delivering our entertainment. This technology is typically referred to as the "cloud," and let me start by saying that the term is bogus, plain and simple.

The cloud was coined by people selling content-management solutions. They were trying to make something old sound like something new. Our Facebook photos, YouTube videos, and the words on this site are all floating blissfully somewhere -- along with just about every other element of our online world.

In gaming, digital-distribution platforms are storing our save points and profile settings on their own servers. Our data is available at all times, even when we lose the actual games linked to that information.

 

This ultimately benefits consumers, except when it comes to certain aspects. When I consider myself the owner of something, I assume to have full control over that item. It's mine, and I can affect it however I see fit. Steam will frequently refer to the titles I own or would like to own. The service, however, prefers to give me limited access. It would like for me to just play games through its interface. But what happens when I'm feeling a little adventurous? What happens to those reverse engineers who break things down into individual pieces, so they can put everything back together? Suddenly, their downloads don't belong to them anymore. If they attempt to make modifications, they risk being banned and losing their investments.

This is where the idea of ownership dies.

When we buy a slew of bargain releases from Steam during a summer sale, we end up paying for access, not ownership. It's like having a lifetime pass to a theme park. At the end of the day, we're not taking home a roller coaster or swinging ship. Everything stays in the park, and we need to come back if we want to go on another ride.

I understand that things like achievements keep people from having full rights to their purchases, but there are solutions that could address these issues. For instance, implementing a warranty-seal function could give people the option to decline achievements and support, basically unlocking a download. The title would still have limited compatibility within the specific platform. An idea like this is worth a thought.

I've bought 47 games on Steam. This shows that I'm content with the service. I just don't fully agree with the way it's advertised.

These games are not mine. They're only available to me.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (6)
5211_100857553261324_100000112393199_12455_5449490_n
July 16, 2011

Ironically, the argument can be made that, as long as videogames have been on the presses, you've been purchasing a license to use it and nothing more all along.  The downside for content producers has been, to this date, being unable to control what happens to the physical medium after purchase.  With internet being so widely inseminated and accessible now, you can believe they'll be looking to distribute their products as they see fit, wherever they can.

Not to say I much enjoy the idea of purchasing licenses myself, mind you.  My Steam collection is vast and was relatively cheap when placed next to MSRP, but I cringe everytime I think of the fact that, in fact, I own nothing, and at any time it can all be taken away from me.

Default_picture
July 17, 2011

Yeah, ultimately I have that same concern - I have a grand ol' collection of Steam games, but how many of those games, if any, do I really own, and to under what circumstances could they just be swept away from me?

Also, this whole idea of publisher keeping control over the consumer experience is pretty worrying. With the implementation of ideas such as Playstation Pass and UPass, you just know that they'll push control further than "preventing privacy," which is a fairly loaded excuse for it, anyway.

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
July 21, 2011

This reminds me of when I mused about OnLive and how frightening that service is. I can (to borrow your analogy,) go to that amusement park that is Steam anytime I want. OnLive requires me to have an Internet connection to even be able to access the games I "own," much less play them.

I like physical media. It gives me the freedom to play games on my terms.

Default_picture
July 21, 2011

I'm the same. If and when I can I'll opt for physical media, as I like the idea of a physical collection on my shelf, one that I have control over.

The OnLive service is Steam in overdrive. In that case I'm not even accessing the games, I'm accessing a glorified video stream of a server far away accessing the games. It's an interesting idea for those unwilling, or unable, to upgrade PCs, but, I agree, quite a frightening concept for the rest of us to get our head around.

Img_20100902_162803
July 22, 2011

Thats a great question no one has really addressed in the video games nor other cloud services field. Companies like Oracle, Salesforce, Cisco all rely on some type of cloud computing, but what happens if your business wants to switch services? What then?

Default_picture
July 24, 2011

Indeed. Investing in one cloud does not necessarily ensure trouble free migration (or "cloud-hopping") to other services. If anything I'm guessing you'd probably have to ask one cloud to transfer everything to the other cloud, and I'll bit they really try and sting you for some bucks in those instances.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.