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.
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.
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
Somehow, Blockbuster returned.
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.
If there’s a new game, we gotta buy it. I want fifa 2027, it will bring me so much satisfaction over fifa 2026.
Ohhh new ps6 pro? Which is better than my 1000 bucks brand new ps6? We gotta buy it.
/s
Sure, we have to enjoy something and spend some money but I can’t fathom how people keep spending like that.
I think I never purchased any new new device or game less than 4 years before my last purchase of an older device or game of the same type. And some have lasted 10 years, or even more, for an e-reader.
I may be wrong about games but can’t think of one atm.
I think part of the blame is Google’s, even before they turned evil: our average attention span is fucking low, and we only want instant gratification now. We used to need to read, to explore in games, to fail and try again before beating the game, before knowing the answer to something, and then suddenly we could magically get the answers we seeked in a matter of seconds.
It feels to me like speedrunners and challenge-runners of retro games show us how things can be enjoyed way more than just the first playthrough or the second.
They’re enjoying the hell out of a good game, even if old, while most others are seeking the dopamine of new and mostly ephemeral shit.
I am not part of either group, but I want to be part of the first, in some ways, and never the second.
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?
Ah yes, because I own my pair of jeans, or my hoodie, I’m the only person in the world with a pair of jeans and a hoodie…
A book would be better example.
You might not own the IP, but you sure as hell own an object containing that IP, which you have an eternal, irrevocable and transferrable license to use.
This right here. The existence of carriers is what has always allowed people to own copies of things they themselves did not create.
Digital “sales” are using mediation to outright ignore that fact that ideas must be expressed in a physical manner for sale. And yes, digital files are physical as long as they continue to be written to storage media like hard drives and tape. Selling access licenses is what they are doing (and I’m okay with that when the companies doing it aren’t asshats about it.) but they also need to stop derailing the discourse with statements about how “we’ve never owned anything ever because we’re not the copyright holder!”
All of this just demonstrates how much IP law has lagged behind and how abusive corporate IP holders are when exploiting loopholes and faulty mental models.
You are also unable to thrift them or donate them because they are licensed to you. Also we maybe take them back when we discontinue the style.
So by that logic, I am the only owner of a 2016 Subaru Impreza in the entire world.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
