With the end of physical PlayStation games looming, the need for clear digital ownership rights is more pressing than ever.
For its part, Sony believes your rights are very clear: you do not own your digital games, and it’s unlikely you’re stupid enough to believe otherwise. At least, that’s roughly the argument the company’s lawyers are presenting in response to a proposed class-action lawsuit.
Sony argues that its current customer-facing disclosures ensure that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they actually own their digital games. That’s according to a Game File report (paid article link) citing an August 21 filing Sony’s lawyers made in California’s Northern District.
if only one person can buy GTA 6, how can more than one person rent GTA 6?
The answer is always the human centipede
Patient gaming in a nutshell.
It’s not Lupus.
Son it’s time we talked about fractional reserve banking
So lets say one person owns it then through the magic of technology everybody else is playing their shared version
Oh really? Then it’s not a store, and it’s not a sale. It’s a leasing office and a lease.
If buying isn’t owning, then pirating isn’t theft.
Exactly
Piracy has never been theft
Jesus pirated a bunch of bread and fish.
Good point. Don’t say we’re buying it. They use the terminology of ownership when you’re paying money.
Actually this is an alright solution.
They should be forced to change the name of their platform if they want to keep using it. They should be barred from using the term “store”.
They can either continue their business model as is, (as “PlayStation Leasing”) or they can change their policy to include full ownership of games and the right to transfer the games they own to other accounts.
But they don’t get to call it a “store” or use words like “buy” or “sale” if that’s not what they’re actually offering.
They should be barred from using the term “store”.
While I agree with the intent, this would definitely be a losing legal argument, since “store” has a long and common history of usage for rental outlets (“hey, let’s go to the video store tonight and rent a movie”). I think that not allowing them to use the terms “buy” and “sale” could stand as a legal argument, since I don’t believe that there are any examples of people using them when they mean to rent something.
(“hey, let’s go to the video store tonight and rent a movie”)
Well that’s interesting. I’ve never actually heard someone call it that. I mean, I get your point, but actually, if anything I think people tended to call it the rental shop.
But then, even at video rental places they at least did also sell things, movies and candy. So even if they did call themselves a store, those rental places would actually qualify more as a store than a digital content distributor would.
I understand that it was likely not the same in every English-speaking place (rental shop makes it sound like you may be in the UK?), but it was very common usage in the US. It was also used this way even for video rental places that pretty much did nothing else other than rent videos. I don’t know what the origin of this usage was though.
The point that I’m making is that in the eyes of a theoretical jury or judge, this example would be an easy way to demonstrate that “store” didn’t imply that you were actually buying the items in it. Like I said, I agree with the intent, but just don’t think it would fly legally. But who knows, I’m not a lawyer!
I do sincerely hope that if it were to come to the point where a court agrees that consumers are not actually “buying” the items, that they will force the vendors to stop using the terms “buy”, “sale”, and “purchase”. But who am I kidding, that probably won’t happen.
Oh no, I’m from the US, East Coast. I’ve literally never heard anyone say rental store. But that’s fine, doesn’t really matter.
You could still be right, it would probably be possible to convince a judge that this is just common usage. That said, it might be worth trying anyway. You never get any change if you don’t try. And we have the slight advantage of being right.
I see, it could be a West vs. East Coast US thing. Although the example I was talking about was “video store”, used very casually between friends and relatives, etc.
Thanks a good point. Worth trying it anyway!
Absolutely
They dont need to keep trying to convice me to never buy another Sony/ Rockstar product. They keep giving more reasons though.
Sony convinced me that years ago when they sold me an expensive af dvd camcorder and then they hobbled it so it was unusable unless you edited in their crappy software and exported it through their expensive dongles.
They lost me when they removed basic functionality from the PS3 by update. They lost my dad with betamax.
Should have waited for releasecanidatemax
I always knew but it got confirmed for me about 20 years ago when I bought a 60$ dvd player that could play XviD discs and burned discs with no issues at all, my friend’s 300$ brand new Sony DVD player would not even play some legit DVD’s and refused any burned discs.
… wait. That’s not obvious. If it was obvious, it wouldn’t be a “Buy now” it would be like a “Purchase License.”
Because thats literally how the rest of the software industry works.
Purchase time limited license
No, it would just be license. The verb “license”; fulfill contractual agreement for limited use of intellectual property (in this case, monetary payment).
You’ve never purchased software in your life, even if it was delivered to you on a physical medium. (Ok well perhaps some of you own businesses and merged or purchased IP entirely but that’s an exception. I’m talking consumers here)
I’ve seen this argument before; that we don’t own our media, just a license to use them because otherwise that would undermine intellectual property. With respect, I can’t see how that is anything but nonsense.
I mean, if you take it to it’s logical conclusion, then I don’t own my paper book laying next to me and that’s ridiculous. Sure I don’t own the IP to it, but it’s my book. I own it. I can do whatever I want to do with it, as long as I don’t violate copyright and other IP rights like trying to sell copies. But I could still do many things, even modify it, sell it on or make a personal copy to replace the old and damaged book.
When I buy a game, it’s my game and I have the right to do all of those same things with it without infringing on the IP rights of the authors/developers/publishers etc…
Trying to equate owning a copy with owning the IP is nonsensical.
On a related note, the only reason we can’t sell our digital games second hand today, is not for legal reasons, but because every store owner is completely incentivized against it and the regulators have not been incentivized enough to demand it.
I don’t think one can just say license without specifying how long it is valid, not sure though. Anyways you are protected by consumer laws, like in my country stuff you buy should work for 5 years - if not, money back. But whatever, I guess the big capitalistic corps get to use the most deceptive form anyways. Tragic how some users even defend the way they try to deceive. Better to GOG and 🏴☠️🏴☠️ what isn’t available there 😊
I think it should be broader than that: “purchase limited license” or “purchase restricted license”.
One thing I’ve noticed is that, while they call it a store, they’ve gone out of their way to not use the word buy. It says “add to cart”, and that there are “purchases”, and that you can “check out”. But it’s been a long time since I’ve seen an actual buy button in any App Store I think they’ve seen this coming for a minute.
On the PS app in the UK it is “Add to cart” and then “Order & Pay”. As you say, they never use the word “buy”.
You don’t by Microsoft 365, you subscribe. But you do buy games. Oh wait…
Sony’s lawyers are dumb af
And they would add the dumb word “seat” to it.
And, you know, English.
Following that logic, pirating software is quite all right, no one is stupid enough to believe someone loses if they make a copy.
Not just software. Anything digital that is protected by copyright. Sony has massive media holdings in the television, movie, and music industries. Here’s Wikipedia’s list of assets owned by Sony.
Sony can’t speak for everybody who owns a copyright, but it does seem like they’re making the sort of argument where the logical end result is that they’re giving everybody permission to copy any Sony media without paying.
The solution seems easy enough, don’t buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.
This is fixable if consumers band together. Nobody needs to game on a PlayStation (or play GTA on PC/PlayStation), we need water, food, shelter not GTA6
The solution seems easy enough, don’t buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.
This will never work in America. I know people who already bought a PS5 just for this and pre-ordered (!) the game at $1000000 or whatever they’re charging.
People are too inundated with what the newest Thing™ is to actually give a shit about living conditions, it seems like. Deep rooted and normalized conservatism about how things are seems to be most people’s modus operandi.
I mean do you care? It sounds like you do. That’s one people right there. So do i. That’s makes at least two of us.
I’m sure there are enough to cause a stink if we drop this defeatism and start with ourselves
This is just the collective action problem in miniature. There’s a thousand different versions of this. It’s exhausting to care about each individual issue so everyone winds up voting for shit they don’t really want with their wallets. And some are oblivious to the problems and don’t read the news or care enough for it to effect them.
The better and likely harder thing is to change our politics. With decent governance, the corporations that do this shit would face real consequences. Government corruption be it in the name of “deregulation” or “free markets” or whatever is the problem.
Our regulators and regulations are toothless, and so we live locked inside a scam society.
I kind of don’t believe in a big “the problem” at least not in a totalizing way, especially if it’s a problem so big people can’t have any impact on it. I feel like there are a thousand of these battlefields, in our personal relationships, working life, civic life, consumer relationships.
I’m not saying tackling your big the problem wouldn’t be a huge help across the board, but we’d still have other problems. Hell maybe some problems are just part of human nature and will be with us forever.
In any case, even if there is one big huge ur-problem from which all problems spread like tentacles we can each only act on an I individual level, so I believe all change starts there—it can’t end there, but there it starts, and from there branches into collective action against the bigger problems in the world.
Does that make sense? I’m not meaning it in a contradictory way. But that negating the importance of individual action can actually disempower people from taking their part in collective action. Like it never gets off the ground because every individual just goes “well I’m just one person, so…”
But that negating the importance of individual action can actually disempower people from taking their part in collective action. Like it never gets off the ground because every individual just goes “well I’m just one person, so…”
Everyone pushes that viewpoint. What’s the real choice here? Let’s just look at this individual issue and pretend it’s not connected to a larger problem of our government being endlessly corrupt and complicit in the non-stop caveat emptor that pervades everything. The choice is don’t buy the fun toy while all of your friends do and every time they talk about the fun toy being fun you either relate to them less or actively become the debby downer that lectures everyone about why you didn’t buy the fun toy.
I guess that was even kind of abstract, but if you’re a gamer and are friends with other gamers they will likely buy this game and play it without you. They’ll have fun playing it without you, and you get the great choice of saying “no i haven’t bought that yet” and being vague and missing out, or lecturing them and risk being categorized as a negative nancy.
Either way your individual choice does little to solve the problem, because other individuals individually ignore it. And honestly, owning games is somewhat inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
You aren’t individually choosing your way out of these things. Other people exist. And unless you’re Elon fucking Musk, your individual preferences will likely not move the needle.
The only real answers are not individual choices and nagging. They’re collectivism and politics. Sorry for the inconvenience but it’s true.
The people opposing you understand this. It’s why Sony is a corporation. It’s why Republicans need megachurches. Collectivism is the only thing that works.
Edit: Look man I’m here on lemmy and never use Reddit. Reddit still exists. My individual choices do not move the needle.
And lemmy is thriving because individuals like you and me gave enough of a fuck to shift over to this place.
But look if someone wants to buy a game they can just do that. I was speaking more generally, like in spots you feel principled enough hell yeah be that nuisance.
I’m not saying like fixate on individual action or think your one part “moves the needle” but that it’s part of collective action. Like how are you going to find your collective if you aren’t out there showing what you’re about.
It’s like voting. Yeah yeah, it makes virtually no different. 1 half-brick in a sock is worth a million votes. But you’ve still got to pitch in and be one of the little drops. There are multiple borders in the war against working class people and you just do what you can in the ones you’re able to.
PS Just to be clear, none of this is meant in a combative tone. I’m reading this as a friendly back-and-forth.
All it takes is a large enough chunk. It’s happened before. There was a time of noble humans where we walked upright, and we could easily step back into that world even just one at a time
80 or 100. You were way off
don’t buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.
Way ahead of you. And I don’t see a point in buying anything from them even if there is a resolution. You don’t own the hardware, the software is a moot point.
yeah I wish people understood the blackout only works if you keep doing it. a company like Sony isn’t gonna panic if people stop playing their games for a week. happy to state I was never interested in their stuff in the first place so I’ve haven’t been giving em money ever. I do wish we could get a bloodborne pc port tho
Nobody needs to game on a PlayStation (or play GTA on PC/PlayStation), we need water, food, shelter not GTA6
At face value this seems true, but I’m not so sure it’s that simple. I know, it sounds crazy, but let me explain.
In life, we obviously need water, food, and shelter. However, we can’t spend our entire lives only drinking, eating, and sleeping. There has to be more to life than that, otherwise it will result in increased suffering.
Without hobbies (yes, gaming is of course a hobby), life would be a lot more dull, and many people would feel it’s less worth living. Decreased leisure time/recreational activities time (like time spent gaming) has been linked to increased rates of depression and increased levels of stress. Both of these things can have a profound negative impact on your health and can even result in death.
So while it seems true, I can’t help but think it’s also a little bit reductionist. It does seem to downplay the essential nature of having hobbies, of having something you actually enjoy doing in life.
Then again, you could argue that you don’t need a PlayStation or GTA on PC/PlayStation to accomplish this since there’s so many other games to play, which is fair. I understand that companies like Sony and Rockstar need to be held accountable for the awful things that they do. I just thought I should point out that leisure, and yes hobbies like gaming, are actually pretty essential in a way, and shouldn’t be downplayed in importance.
I get that this is probably an unpopular take, but I don’t think that makes it untrue either.
If that’s so obvious, then why not state it clearly on the packaging?
So when we bought games on disc, who was the one person who owned the game? John Sony San, who lives at the top of Sony Tower in Sony Plaza?
Lol this weasel logic they’ll use to justify their petty greed is ridiculous…
I don’t think anyone expects that they are buying the exclusive copyright license for reproduction. People just want to own their copies. You know like with books.
We want this for our games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Exactly, a perpetual, transferable, non rescindable license
I just checked with my wife, giving her no context other than checking out, having paid for a game. She doesn’t understand and said it’s a bunch of bullshit. She doesn’t even play games, she just gets them for someone else as a gift.
Apparently you can’t gift a game because it’s never yours to give.
I own a copy of the game…
the fucking mental gymnastics needed here are absurd.
When it’s really the only argument they possible have after decades of a purchase button. When it’s really the only argument they possibly have after decades of a purchase button.
*Edit: Either Lemmy or myself had an aneurysm. I don’t know how or why my sentence got doubled up on.
I was gonna buy a new PlayStation but now I’m not.
Did they teach this in business school? Repulsing customers for profit.
I’m really against the idea of buying any new consoles at this point.
Xbox had a good thing for casuals like me with gamepass. Its very rare I have the drive to replay a game unless it’s solely out of nostalgia…and I find it hard to get “into” a game, so gamepass was perfect for people like me…at the old price point.
Now? Hell nah.
Nintendo made having more than one Switch super fucking annoying if you have a lot of digital games. God forbid you ever want to take one of your portable systems out of the house to play a game, you have to make sure it’s released from the other system first.
And now this crap with Sony.
I feel especially burnt by Nintendo because I still want their exclusives damnit.
Emulation on older consoles is pretty sweet, I’m getting my fix that way
Oh yeah, for sure. I’d been playing with emulators since I was a kid and discovered Nesticle.
I just found out about The RomM Project and really want to set it up in my homelab.
That’s a super sick project! I think my favorite part about emulation is how accessible it’s become because of projects like that
I bought a switch 2 on points because of duskbloods. I have 3 switch lites and a regular switch. I kinda stopped playing for a while and missed the whole virtual card thing until I fired up my new switch 2. So enraged I almost threw it at the window. Luckily 90% of my frames are physical though. But ya the proximity and having them online is bullshit. It’s the same problem I gave with Netflix. Driving somewhere with no WiFi or cell dead zones? Don’t assume those saved videos with play!
Before virtual card, a lot of my switch games were virtual, and it worked well for us.
I was okay with the risk of a license being revokable for any reason, tbh, because I found that to be lower than the risk of my kid losing a game cart.
I’ve been proven right at least once…Super Mario 3D All-Stars, which I reluctantly bought because I really wanted to play Galaxy and Sunshine…but I digress. Pretty sure he lost the Forgotten Land cart too.
Now tho? I’ll take that chance, to hell with the odds. The amount of times I can’t play a game because it’s on the other switch that’s offline is too damn high.
God damnit Nintendo, convenience is like, the #1 selling point of digital games, and you somehow managed to completely screw the pooch on it.
It’s the kind of anti-consumer practice that drives me mad and honestly justifies piracy far, far more than it disuades it.
And on top of that, it was a rug pull. Meaning it cost my trust in Nintendo as a brand, and really brought to the forefront of my attention the limitations of digital games across the whole industry. A real “we’ve altered the terms of our agreement, pray we don’t alter them further” moment.
So, ya know, thanks for that Nintendo. Hope it was worth it.
Yup you have all my same complains. My digital games are either digital only (I bought lots of limited run and such) and my kids the digital was convenient. Like I have physical Minecraft, they all have digital. It’s kind of like having a classic car then the manufacturer one day turning it off (electric cars in 59 years 💀) because they feel like they’re not making money off you anymore.
Right, like, how “owning” a car means that you need to purchase the entire means of production required to produce said car, including all patents and trademarks.
This guy is somehow multi-rail drifting his pseudo-capitalist argument with like, a cartoon version of communism. It’s like he dropped acid and decided to become Frankenstein’s Economist.
Or if you buy a print copy of a famous art work you some how don’t own it because it’s a copy?
Or a book is a good analogue. I can own a copy of a book, a reprint. It’s mine.
sony’s even considered a game publisher… ya know, just like random house is a book publisher.
The problem with this argument was their short-sighted business model. They sold digital games for the same price as physical games.
If consumers are accustom to “owning” physical games, and then pay the same price for digital, of course they would assume they own those as well.
If instead you needed to buy a subscription to each game that came out, and they only charged $10/month for the latest AAA game, the “you don’t own it” argument would actually be reasonable.
I am kind of surprised people thought they owned the game at all. ~~I agree with Sony on this one, ~~people are stupid. (I guess I actually disagree from that title, people ARE stupid enough to believe they own they game).
They own a box. They own a disc. They have some art in their possession, but they don’t own the game and its obvious they will only get to play it if Sony lets them as they own/control the hardware.
The disc only was a way to copy the files to the machine, just like the internet so I fail to really see a difference.
Its nice to see the downvotes. I never liked reddit for that, but at least in this instance it affirms my postion. Most people are stupid. Most people are downvoting me. Everything is aligned in the universe.
Think about what I wrote, Sony owns that machine. Your fun little piece of plastic means nothing.
I think for modern machines they easily could put out a software update and brick your discs, I definitely agree with that, but it has the data still on the disc, you own that and I’m sure some tech wizards could extract that and emulate it somehow.
As for older machines that don’t even connect to the internet, your comment is blatantly wrong. So I think there’s a bit of multifaceted issues being discussed.
You dont own the data on the discs. It has been very clear that is not the case. Much like you don’t own the story even if you own a book.
Older machines are not whats being talked about or sold now days. That was a long time ago. Ps2 started the online digital market for Sony.
Sony sold ps3 with the ability to run Linux and you got the discs. Became useless in fairly short order when they updated the machine.
Newer games are released that force upgrades of the hardware software and can break the older discs requiring that software to be updated.
When you say some trickery to hack or emulate the disk, why bother caring that you have a disc at all? You have the game on the hard drive and if that’s the plan you don’t need the plastic anyways.
I find it interesting that the article uses GTA 6 as the example when Sony uses Resident Evil Requiem as the example. It’s clickbait tactics and I hate it.
