Should XBLA games be counted into your total games owned number?

[PDorr3]

Today I took on the task of counting how many total unique games I have over all of my systems which I had not done in a couple of years (I have 941 of what I found) but I was wondering if you people think that downloaded games that you pay for on the Xbox live arcade should be factored into someones total gamecount? I mean sure you dont physicaly own a copy of the games, however you pay to own the virtual game.

For example, I dont own it but the downloadable ps3 game Warhawk, if you bought that and owned say ridge racer 7 and heavenly sword, would you say you own 3 ps3 games or 2?

[Chuplayer]

If you paid for the full version, then yes. If you only played the demo, then no. I especially hate how XBLA demos show up as played games in your 360 played games list. It's so annoying. Regular demos don't do that.

[Mr Mort]

I guess I might just be old-fashioned, but downloading a game does not count in my opinion. Having the actual cart/disc/whatever means being able to take it and use it on any console, without any kind of restrictions placed on its use. Besides, if you count downloaded games as actual games, the lines between downloaded games and ROMs start to blur somewhat, and I don't care what anyone says, you don't own squat if all you have is a ROM of a game.

[blissfulnoise]

For all intents and purposes, yes. Just like downloading a game from Steam or even Direct2Drive. You have purchased the game, it is now part of your collection.

I hate all the dumb epeen numbers crap, but with SO many games now available for XBLA, VC, and even PSN, there is a worth to tracking them in your inventory. Especially for insurance purposes.

[Kid Ice]

I would say no. I consider XBLA games a rental.

[retroman]

no i dont think so..

[gepeto]

I say no because once the console dies or is replaced it is a pain in the butt to get the games back

[Red Warrior]

I say yes. I never used to count downloaded games from XBLA or the Virtual Console, but after spending so much money on them, I believe I have the right to count them. It makes little sense to me that a 99 cent Atari 2600 cartridge counts as a game in your collection, but a $10 XBLA game doesn't?! It's absurd.

I now count every downloaded game I pay for... because, virtual or not, I OWN it. It's mine to play anytime I want. And besides, we might as well get used to the idea of counting virtual games... cuz we all know that's where the video game industry is headed. Someday, carts and discs will be a thing of the past. So what will we do then... just not keep track of all the games we've downloaded and PAID for? Makes no sense. You pay for it, you own it.... simple as that.

And no, I'm not happy about downloading ROMS instead of purchasing physical copies on carts and discs, but I still believe that's what we're gonna be doing in 10 years or so. :(

[zektor]

Well, to be correct, you do NOT own the downloaded titles. You only own a license to play them...on THAT machine. To me, it is more of a rental than an ownage in that respect. You cannot "take" the game over to a friends house and play it there. You cannot use them on that other Xbox (or Wii) console in the bedroom. You really do not "own" the game.

When I had the Wii (sold it off not too long ago) I downloaded/purchased a slew of VC games. When my Wii started acting up and actually died on me (only a few weeks after purchase!) I contacted Nintendo and was told that I had to first send back my unit so that they can transfer the licenses to a new console. The tech made it absolutely clear that I did not own these games (after I got frustrated that they just couldn't send me a console first via advanced replacement) and that all I owned was a license to play them. He said that if my machine ever died again in the future, I would have to inquire with them about another transfer.

That is just bull. I can BUY and OWN any of these titles, and most of the time for dollars less than a virtual title.

And that is just what I did. I guess you can count the titles as ones you are able to play, but not as ones that you "own" in that respect.

[jcalder8]

I would say no. I consider XBLA games a rental.
Why do you consider it a rental?

IMO it counts as an actual game. I have payed for it and it's a complete game

[boatofcar]

Why do you consider it a rental?

IMO it counts as an actual game. I have payed for it and it's a complete game

Reading is fundamental.


Well, to be correct, you do NOT own the downloaded titles. You only own a license to play them...on THAT machine. To me, it is more of a rental than an ownage in that respect. You cannot "take" the game over to a friends house and play it there. You cannot use them on that other Xbox (or Wii) console in the bedroom. You really do not "own" the game.

[jcalder8]

Reading is fundamental.
You're right it is.

I didn't quote zektor I quoted Kid Ice.

And the reasons that zektor uses don't work because everything he says you can't do with a virtual game you can do with a rental.

[Red Warrior]

The tech made it absolutely clear that I did not own these games (after I got frustrated that they just couldn't send me a console first via advanced replacement) and that all I owned was a license to play them.

Well that can be said about any game really... physical or virtual. They're all just licensed copies of copyrighted material. When we buy a cartridge or disc, we're paying for the right to play that ROM... just as we are when we pay for a Virtual Console ROM. We don't technically "own" the game sure, but, to me, that's as good as owning it. If I can play it anytime I want after I purchase something... be it a license or the game itself... I'm counting it as something I own. If Nintendo or Microsoft don't like that, then they can go suck a lemon.

I see what you're saying tho. I'm just a simple-minded individual trying to avoid getting too technical.

[Anthony1]

no, you're leasing the game. You don't actually own it. Ownership means that you can do whatever you want with the item. You can re-sell it to somebody else, you can trade it in for store credit, you can give it as a gift, etc, etc. You are simply leasing the game for an extended period of time.

[smork]

They are only rentals, as I don't own a physical copy of the game. Long term rentals, yes, but still rentals.

If I can't keep it forever and play it on whatever system I want then it's a rental, and not a part of my collection.

[Rick 2007]

To truly own a game You should have everything,,,,, Meaning Disk, Instructions,
and packaging.

[PDorr3]

To truly own a game You should have everything,,,,, Meaning Disk, Instructions,
and packaging.

Well I dont know if that can be entirely true...

After reading the posts here though I have now been convinced that downloaded "paid for" games should not be included in a collection list/number.

[Stark]

Do you have a physical copy of the game or no? If I come over to your house and count your games then you say oh wait let me log into X-box so you can count these- I'd laugh in your face.

[zemmix]

If you can count these downloads then whats to stop you from also counting the rom collection thats on your hardrive? Eventually these systems will no longer be supported and will die then where will that leave you? If we're lucky, Nintendo and MS will allow us to port all the VC/XBLA titles we've paid the lease for to their next systems but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Oobgarm]

Well, to be correct, you do NOT own the downloaded titles. You only own a license to play them...on THAT machine. To me, it is more of a rental than an ownage in that respect. You cannot "take" the game over to a friends house and play it there. You cannot use them on that other Xbox (or Wii) console in the bedroom. You really do not "own" the game.

This is absolutely solid gold. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. It's more like a lease than a rental, I think-you've given someone money for use of a certain good or product, yet you never physically own the item. You've paid for the right to use it.

That fact considered, I say they don't count for the official total of games owned.

[jajaja]

I would say no. If i had an 360 with 5 retail games and 10 XBLA games, i would said i had 5 games. I would probly mention that i had the 10 XBLA games, but i wouldnt say i had 15 PS3 games.

I saw Warhawk was mentioned above. This game is also possible to buy as retail so i would count this. But small games that are downloadable only, i wouldnt count those.

[RevQuixo]

By the same logic would ROMs on a PC hard drive count tren? Sure they would be "stolen goods", but based on the criteria of a *game*, they would count too.

I'm firmly in the "no" category here.

[heybtbm]

I count XBLA and PSN titles as part of my total "collection". I paid for them...the end. I can follow the logic behind the "leasing" analogy mentioned in this thread. Regardless, I still consider these types of games as my property. The fact that I can't sell them is worth mentioning, but not enough to disqualify them from being part of my gaming library.

[Daria]

What if you use a pay to download ROM service? Do those games suddenly count towards your library while ROMs another gamer has downloaded by illegal means don't?

[boatofcar]

You're right it is.

I didn't quote zektor I quoted Kid Ice.

And the reasons that zektor uses don't work because everything he says you can't do with a virtual game you can do with a rental.

So? Zektor still answered your question. XBLA games are just like legally downloaded music. You don't have the right to resell them, only to play them.

[blissfulnoise]

The ROMs issue is a red herring. These are legally purchased games, exactly the same as you would at a store. There's no man in a trench coat offering the products from the back of a van. These are completely legal offerings from an official product catalog that are designed to work exclusively on the system you're downloading them from.

The issue here is two fold:

1) Licensing / Use.
2) Definition of ownership regarding physical media verses software and the inherent biases therein.

Increasingly so, software is starting to go away. This is most evident in the business sector where downloads of both products, and hot fixes, are most commonly delivered via download.

The "rental" argument is a valid one, and specifically relevant regarding limited licensing (again common in the business sector), but I'm not convinced it fits entirely in this case.

Downloads from XBLA/PSN/VC/Steam are different in that there is, effectively, a perpetual license. The fair use of the application is guaranteed for the life of the service offering it. This isn't much different then owning a bunch of Genesis games that work only so long as your actual Genesis does. The tricky element comes around the licensing that is in play.

You can easily (or relatively easily) go out to eBay and aquire another Genesis. On the other hand, it's impossible for you to go to eBay and buy another XBLA profile that is linked to your downloads. What Microsoft DOES offer (and Sony) is the ability to transfer profiles since that's tied to their service on the back end, not on your consoles front end. So, I COULD go out and purchase another 360 or PS3 and simply log in with my profile (account) and re-download all the games I had originally purchased.

In this vein, you can go over to your friends house, log in with your account, download the game you want to play, and enjoy it as though you were back at home. Is this as easy as popping in a different cartridge? No. And that's where the inherent bias comes in; but to say you can only play your XBLA/PS3 games on just your machine is completely wrong.

Take Steam for example. They have a similar mechanism. Your ability to download software isn't (entirely) tied to your computer, but to your account. That said, most games have a limited number of activation licenses meaning you can't put the software just anywhere you want. But, for the purposes of fair use, this is, more or less, acceptable.

Now, regarding the Virtual Console; I have to give some ground there but this is more an issue with Nintendo’s delivery mechanism than an indictment of official download services as a whole. Nintendo doesn’t tie your downloads to an account but ties them to your console itself. As mentioned before, this is an issue if your console fails in that Nintendo has to transfer the license so you can continue to access the software you’ve paid for. Is it still possible for you to use the software, regardless of console, so long as the service is up? Technically yes. Is it painful to do? Emphatically yes.

Downloadable software isn’t a fad; it’s here to stay. Increasingly so, software companies will use this medium to deliver more and more games; some exclusively. And I believe that, at some point, physical media will be phased out to a smaller and smaller piece of the distribution pie. This may not happen for some time, but as delivery speeds and storage increase multiplicatively at the rate they are, it would be silly to assume that we’re looking at any other path.

Yes, people do still like to own the physical medium. I do as well. But I say that a collection of official, downloadable software, legally acquired and perpetual in use is just as valid as the stack of VCS games I have on a shelf.

[jcalder8]

The ROMs issue is a red herring. These are legally purchased games, exactly the same as you would at a store. There's no man in a trench coat offering the products from the back of a van. These are completely legal offerings from an official product catalog that are designed to work exclusively on the system you're downloading them from.

The issue here is two fold:

1) Licensing / Use.
2) Definition of ownership regarding physical media verses software and the inherent biases therein.

Increasingly so, software is starting to go away. This is most evident in the business sector where downloads of both products, and hot fixes, are most commonly delivered via download.

The "rental" argument is a valid one, and specifically relevant regarding limited licensing (again common in the business sector), but I'm not convinced it fits entirely in this case.

Downloads from XBLA/PSN/VC/Steam are different in that there is, effectively, a perpetual license. The fair use of the application is guaranteed for the life of the service offering it. This isn't much different then owning a bunch of Genesis games that work only so long as your actual Genesis does. The tricky element comes around the licensing that is in play.

You can easily (or relatively easily) go out to eBay and aquire another Genesis. On the other hand, it's impossible for you to go to eBay and buy another XBLA profile that is linked to your downloads. What Microsoft DOES offer (and Sony) is the ability to transfer profiles since that's tied to their service on the back end, not on your consoles front end. So, I COULD go out and purchase another 360 or PS3 and simply log in with my profile (account) and re-download all the games I had originally purchased.

In this vein, you can go over to your friends house, log in with your account, download the game you want to play, and enjoy it as though you were back at home. Is this as easy as popping in a different cartridge? No. And that's where the inherent bias comes in; but to say you can only play your XBLA/PS3 games on just your machine is completely wrong.

Take Steam for example. They have a similar mechanism. Your ability to download software isn't (entirely) tied to your computer, but to your account. That said, most games have a limited number of activation licenses meaning you can't put the software just anywhere you want. But, for the purposes of fair use, this is, more or less, acceptable.

Now, regarding the Virtual Console; I have to give some ground there but this is more an issue with Nintendo’s delivery mechanism than an indictment of official download services as a whole. Nintendo doesn’t tie your downloads to an account but ties them to your console itself. As mentioned before, this is an issue if your console fails in that Nintendo has to transfer the license so you can continue to access the software you’ve paid for. Is it still possible for you to use the software, regardless of console, so long as the service is up? Technically yes. Is it painful to do? Emphatically yes.

Downloadable software isn’t a fad; it’s here to stay. Increasingly so, software companies will use this medium to deliver more and more games; some exclusively. And I believe that, at some point, physical media will be phased out to a smaller and smaller piece of the distribution pie. This may not happen for some time, but as delivery speeds and storage increase multiplicatively at the rate they are, it would be silly to assume that we’re looking at any other path.

Yes, people do still like to own the physical medium. I do as well. But I say that a collection of official, downloadable software, legally acquired and perpetual in use is just as valid as the stack of VCS games I have on a shelf.
Well stated

[Kid Ice]

Why do you consider it a rental?

IMO it counts as an actual game. I have payed for it and it's a complete game

Someday XBLA is going to be shut down. Five years, ten years, who knows. At that time your XBLA games will be gone. Therefore it is in my mind a rental. Same with the videos that are on there, they just expire sooner.

[Oobgarm]

Someday XBLA is going to be shut down. Five years, ten years, who knows. At that time your XBLA games will be gone. Therefore it is in my mind a rental. Same with the videos that are on there, they just expire sooner.

Well stated

[Leo_A]

That would only be true if you delete a game after playing it and redownload it everytime you want to play it.

Xbox Live Arcade going offline will not suddenly mean everyones XBLA's titles disappear, though as consoles die it will become an issue if you have no way to retrieve your games.

[ScourDX]

I would agree with most of you about the XBLA downloading being rental. There are few company that actually release free full version game on the net. Not long ago Ubisoft release Far Cry, Rayman 3, and Prince of Persia: Sand of Time PC for free with ad support. You can download the game and burn them to disc, but you cannot sell it. Do you guys consider that as rental or you actually own it?

[s1lence]

I've been wondering what is going to happen when XBLA does away and you can't access the games anymore because they are locked in trial unless connected to live. Of course that also brings the question as to how many 360's will still be working in a few years anyway.

[Poofta!]

i own a couple games on the wii VC and i would never consider them part of my collection.
whoever here wants to consider it part of your collection, i agree with a previous poster "i will laugh at your face".

while it may be true about other items, like an OS, with games, if you cant lend it to me, sell it to me or drive over it with a truck when you're angry -- you sir, do not own the item. period.

count thought, whatever, just dont complain or be surprised when people tell you "...uh no, you own XXXX games, not XXXX+YY.

i think the most you can do is count as 'digitally distributed games' VC and XBLA are nothing but ROMS (or improved ROMS in some cases) that you paid for. well i have these ROMS too, on another platform, that wont expire, and i got them for free, but i don't count them in my collection, even though i can go and play them as easily (easier actually) as you can.

[MarioMania]

No, Just No, Can you take it anywhere from 360 to another 360, No..

[jcalder8]

Does this mean that no one owns a copy of WOW or any of the other games where you can only use the install code a limited number of times without calling?

At a certain point the company will stop giving you new codes and you are unable to take it and lend it to a friend or install it on a number of different machines.

[Poofta!]

first of all, we dont ''own'' any new software anymore. it just becomes more and more obviouse with shit like 'limited install codes'.

i think the debate has switched more to what games one 'has' in his possession, in which case you still dont actually 'have' the game. it is installed on your xbox. and without MS's OK, you cant reinstall it or transfer it.

[SkiDragon]

I don't even count PC games in my collection because there are too many weird ways of "owning" them.

[Oobgarm]

No, Just No, Can you take it anywhere from 360 to another 360, No..

PLEASE read the thread before you post.

If you would have taken the time to read, you would have noticed that you CAN take games from 360 to 360.

[Leo_A]

I've been wondering what is going to happen when XBLA does away and you can't access the games anymore because they are locked in trial unless connected to live. Of course that also brings the question as to how many 360's will still be working in a few years anyway.

That is only the case if your trying to play your XBLA titles on a system other than the one they were purchased on. I play mine offline all the time with no troubles.

[Daria]

The ROMs issue is a red herring. These are legally purchased games, exactly the same as you would at a store. There's no man in a trench coat offering the products from the back of a van. These are completely legal offerings from an official product catalog that are designed to work exclusively on the system you're downloading them from.

How is it a Red Herring. I believe I proposed a valid comparison. How do virtual console games really differ from those downloaded by other legal means. Ie. Japan's Sega Saturn downloads, China's Ique, America's own GameTap? Or consider that brief period in which Atari was selling MAME roms through a program called StarRoms? The data of those files downloaded from that program would be the same as those downloaded through torrents or rom sites. It seems silly to put the "collection approved" stamp on those 27 titles downloaded through that service but not on the same files "stolen" from another.

Consider the inevitable when someboy figures out how to mod their wii, already an issue with the PSP and it's download service, and start uploading cracked roms to the console. Only those bought an paid for are elligable to pad your collection numbers?

When considering virtual media it's obviously not the file it's self that matters or ROMs would be valid. They're games too even if unpaid for. As it's been already said the license is the key, but I'm not so sure I really want to compile spreadsheets chronicling my purchases of virtual rental contracts. Kind of dirties the acheivement of collecting physical games. But in the end people are going to set up their collections however they want to regardless of this poll or debate.

[blissfulnoise]

How is it a Red Herring. I believe I proposed a valid comparison. How do virtual console games really differ from those downloaded by other legal means. Ie. Japan's Sega Saturn downloads, China's Ique, America's own GameTap? Or consider that brief period in which Atari was selling MAME roms through a program called StarRoms? The data of those files downloaded from that program would be the same as those downloaded through torrents or rom sites. It seems silly to put the "collection approved" stamp on those 27 titles downloaded through that service but not on the same files "stolen" from another.

Consider the inevitable when someboy figures out how to mod their wii, already an issue with the PSP and it's download service, and start uploading cracked roms to the console. Only those bought an paid for are elligable to pad your collection numbers?

When considering virtual media it's obviously not the file it's self that matters or ROMs would be valid. They're games too even if unpaid for. As it's been already said the license is the key, but I'm not so sure I really want to compile spreadsheets chronicling my purchases of virtual rental contracts. Kind of dirties the acheivement of collecting physical games. But in the end people are going to set up their collections however they want to regardless of this poll or debate.

The difference is that through PSN/VC/XBLA, the hardware vendors themselves are setting up a propritery offering for "new" content that is exclusive to that medium. These downloads are, for all intents and purposes, full offical releases on that system, and are often times, are original content.

There is a wide gap between services like StarRoms and, to a lesser extent, Gametap stacked next to Xbox Live Arcade; specifically in the realm of application. XBLA is propritary to it's medium (X360) as are PSN and VC titles. You cannot simply move that software and use it on your PC. In this way, these downloadable games are identical to a retail release short of existing on a CD.

All you can eat portals like Gametap are a bit more limited, but admittedly similiar, to what the big three software portals are offering. You're not selectively chosing what game you're looking to purchase for play (as you would the old fashioned way) but instead paying for a right to play any number of titles so long as you maintain your subscription. This is quite a bit different than PSN/VC titles, but somewhat similiar to XBLA titles. Gametap does offer original content (specifically thinking of Sam and Max, but that's now available through other means too), but its service doesn't really cater to "ownership", or at least so far as a perpetual license goes.

Regardless, we might be waging a battle of symantics here. ROMs could apply to any particular piece of software that has been dumped (or ripped, or whatever) from it's original medium and stored as a transferable piece of computer code. By that definition, any game played on any medium could be defined as a ROM. If you wanted to narrow that by saying that ROMs can only be run through software, then services like PSN/VC/XBLA would no longer apply in that said software can only be run on it's respective hardware. But to most, ROMs are simply software dumps obtained illegally, typically through the internet. For all intents, I used that last definition when referring them to a red herring for the purposes of this conversation.

I draw the line based on the service offering the content and how it's fair use license applies. StarRoms was wide open. Here's our dump, do what you want with it. Gametap is slightly more constrictive; pay our fee (or register or whatever promotion they have right now) and play in our portal till your heart's content. Xbox Live Arcade takes it a step further; here's the software we ofter, pay for each piece of software individually and play so long as our service is offered (or potentially longer, this element hasn't been fleshed out yet for all service providers).

That doesn't sound too different from going to Toys R Us and buying a copy of Halo 3. The difference is what you have in your hand at the end of the day.

Sure, XBLA might close up shop in 10 years, or 50, or next month and you (might) not be able to play any of the games you bought again. If you wanna get all philsophical about it, your Sonic the Hedgehog cartridge will eventually surcumb to entropy and rot away.

It's a bit extreme, but the previous example cited the ability to run over your game with a truck as a critera for "ownership" thus making it worthwhile to add to your "collection". We you can virtually do the same thing with the "delete" button on XBLA. But, no, you can't sale or trade your virtual software to a friend. So if you want to make that the critera, then so be it. That's valid.

But from where I sit, downloading Puzzle Quest for 1200 MS points is functionally identical to buying Beautiful Katamari at Target for $39.99. As far as my collection goes, I own both games. At some point, I may not be able to play Puzzle Quest again due to a service shutting down. At that point I guess I'll remove it from my "collection".

So I guess someone might say that renting a game implies ownership for the duration of the rental. I was going to come up with a counter-arguement to that, but upon thinking about it, it kind of does. The game IS in your possession for the duration of said rental based on the contract you signed. Would I put a rental in my "collection" though? No, for nearly all cases, your ownership is very limited (a day to a couple of days) so it isn't really worth keeping track of or even making a case for.

Regardless, this is kind of a silly topic for a very important discussion. Services like XBLA are only going to get more common. No one can really disagree with that. Again, I doubt they'll ever really usurp physical ownership of software entirely. But what happens when your software is tied to a license on your console (already an issue with PC software)? What happens when Halo 5 can only be run on your XBLA profile (Sony was going down this road with the PS3)? Do you own Halo 5?

Again, as far as "collection" purposes go, I'd say yes, you do. At least in the immediate and reasonable future.

Post-Script: Sorry for spelling mistakes in this post. I normally spell check but that's not an option from where I'm typing this. Hopefully the post is coherent enough to compensate.