thinking about the way people see media as disposable and overlook anything that isn't "current"

I think this might actually be a kind of anti-intellectualism, or at least a kind of anti-conservation-of-media-ism?

the willingness to make excuses for shit like the way most games companies are with their games or, like, to pull an older example, the disney vault, is kinda horrific as someone who cares a lot about the preservation of work from mediums I care about?

like, I *like* nintendo games but I can't forgive them for their stance on the conservation of their own work.

and this shit with the all-digital stuff new consoles are pulling is EVEN MORE THIS, it's really disturbing to me, to see companies pushing to create an environment where it's impossible to actually own any of the media you're paying money for?

there's a hell of a lot of reasons to dislike the direction that the games industry has been going the last decade or so but this one is, to me, one of the most alarming?

like, consider the fact that the companies that own basically all media are making a concerted effort to make it impossible to actually retain access to that media, isn't that alarming, isn't that obviously kinda an issue?

like, that's what netflix is, that's what disney+ is, that's what gamepass is, that's what the removal of things like the nintendo eshop are, they're a way for companies to make it impossible for you to permanently own access to their output.

the work they own is more accessible than ever, but also, less possible to RETAIN access to than ever. I think this is actually a bad thing, pretty obviously?

if, say, disney+ or netflix or gamepass or PS+ shut down tomorrow, every single thing you got access to through those services would VANISH, and all the money you spent would just have been for, effectively, renting this shit?

now, the justifiability of that business model varies based on your position on rent-seeking as a business model but I, personally think renting stuff is pretty vile, actually?

like, yeah it costs less money to subscribe to these services than to buy those games individually, but those games don't stay with you if you stop paying, and there's, to me, a sort of manipulative element to this?

it is, to me, an inevitable followup to the way the games industry (and all media industries, to some degree) sell media.

consider, a few decades ago, games cost a flat price for everything there was to that game, and then, a decade or so ago, companies started telling you you had to pay more for everything.

then they told you that there were little tiny micropayments for bits and pieces of content that were free when I (and I think a lot of the people who might read this) were children.

these companies were inevitably going to search for new ways to wring more money out of each consumer, to find new ways to make you pay yet more.

despite the knowledge that we have that games are making more money than ever, these corporations tell you again and again these horrible anti-consumer practices are necessary to pay for development.

despite the fact that the people who actualy MAKE these games are abused and treated like shit, that they're paid minimum wage for hideous amounts of work (and overwork) while the people at the top are paid more and more and more with every year.

and that's what leads to this shit, to the media you engage with, the movies and tv shows you watch, the games you play being withheld from you, these services that let you have access to this stuff exactly as long as it's profitable, and not a moment longer.

it's companies trying to take every single cent they can from you, and from people like you, and looking for more and more ways to make you spend more and more, again and again.

for a long time I've posited that the next step beyond this kind of breaking down the amount you pay for an item into more and more payments so things become more expensive without SEEMING more expensive was switching from a purchase model to a rental model

and I think these all-digital consoles and the proliferation of digital storefronts for PC is a sort of stealth implementation of this model.

these are the wealthiest people on the world, trying to take your money again and again by tricking you into renting expensive things from them, that they will then take away and ask you to buy again for EVEN MORE MONEY.

and all of this is even more alarming as you see all the entertainment industries becoming more and more monopolized.

I think we should be not only worried, but actively alarmed at the direction these industries are going, I think we should be looking at the way things are headed and seeing a genuine threat to free expression and to the ability of people to archive and retain access to media.

I think we should ask why companies would do this, and understand that the only logical answer, is to take your money, and fuck you over.

and I think we should ask whether a system that allows this to happen is one that we can consider to be on the side of anyone but the rich ghouls who benefit from the rentalization of all commodities.

if you read all the way to the end of this weird ramble, I'd like to thank you for sticking through it, and I hope you got SOMETHING out of what I've been thinking about this endless nightmare.

sorry to continue this mess but there is actually a small addendum to this I'd like to add now.

"why would companies choose to do the rather large amount of work necessary to transition to a rental model instead of a purchase model" you might, theoretically, ask?

well there's actually a pretty straightforward reason for this. See, every market has something resembling a cap for the number of people with both the money and drive to purchase commodities from it.

which means the more people are engaged in purchasing from a market (or a company) regularly, the slower the amount of money that industry (or company) makes (per quarter or year) increases.

now in a world where all these corporations cared about was just making money, this would probably be fine for them, but that's the catch. See corporations don't ACTUALLY care about JUST making money.

they care about making MORE money then they did the last time they reported making money, and, in fact, if they're not doing that, it's counted as a failure by the people who invest in and fund these corporate entities.

this is true of pretty much all industries, which brings us back around to games. see, games hit the cap for the conventional "games fan" or "gamer" audience a pretty long time ago, it turns out.

this is what lead to the broadening of the appeal of games as a direct goal of companies. now, mind you, I actually think that's probably a good thing, but that's a bit off point.

when THAT cap got hit, companies started this process of adding more and more layers of monetization to their products, in an attempt to keep the amount of money they're making increasing without increasing the price of their products?

preorders, DLC, microtransactions, all of these various extra monetization vectors are effectively bullshit the industry has come up with to make not just ALL the money, but MORE than all the money, to borrow a turn of phrase.

and now, inevitably, they've decided they need to make even more, and that's where this change to the model comes in. see, they've hit a point where even the average consumer is starting to become wary of their extra monetization practices.

as people reading this are probably aware, next-gen console games are going to be selling for $70, the first increase in flat price in DECADES for console titles, and this is, again, an example of these companies attempting to game the market.

they're consistently making a profit as-is, they don't NEED this money for anything but bigger bonuses for their CEOs and investors, and they wont be using it for anything but that either, if history shows itself to be an accurate predictor of their behavior.

so why the rental model? the short reason is that it's genuinely the most profitable model there is. there's nothing that makes more money than asking people to buy the right to use something again and again instead of asking them to buy it once and keep it.

but this model is problematic when it comes to art and media. (and, honestly, it's problematic just in general) see, art that's not owned by anyone but the people who sell it can't be preserved by anyone but the people who sell it...

and corporations have no reason to preserve a product they can't sell to you again. often, if they DO preserve a product, they limit your access to it, and preserve it with the bare minimum of effort. look at nintendo's fairly unimpressive mario 3D re-release that just hit.

that game is expensive, only available in limited numbers for a limited time, and takes little to no effort to provide anything but a questionably emulated version of the original experience.

in many ways, it's the perfect example of the issue with letting corporations do their own archiving, and with a rental model (or a model that simulates renting like steam or an all-digital console) there's no other choice.

as I said earlier in this thread, I think this is an alarming direction for any industry to take, and as someone who cares a lot about both the preservation of media AND the history and future of games as a medium, this worries me deeply.