Something something digital ownership

  • GreenAlex@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I don’t understand why a company would even want to use the music if it means they can only sell the game for so long. Obviously, it’s not the current reality, but I would outright refuse any deal that involves a limited amount of time to use material that goes into a video game, movie, any form of media except maybe live services that are constantly changing anyways (which is a separate issue).

    At the very least, people should be made aware of a game’s sale period, though I’m sure that’s kept under NDA.

    • Glide@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because capitalism is hilariously shortsighted. Line must go up.

      • beetus@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I mean the game came out in 2012. It’s not really that absurd to base ones licensing contracts for 14 years when the medium (games) generate the vast majority of their revenue in the first months.

        Most digital products have an end of life. I agree that the whole digital ownership part isn’t fair, but I don’t think a 14 year selling window due to licensing is the part to be mad at.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      It makes sense financially if the game is expected to have a big spike of sales initially, and after a while have very few sales, so the expected additional lifetime revenue is less than the cost difference between a temporary and perpetual license.