If I don’t own them, no reason to pay for them ever.
To prove their decision to ban physical was greedy? Are they trying to shoot them on the foot or just a rage bait title?
right, just before going digital only. it’s a bold move cotton…
If I’ve already bought it I won’t even hesitate to pirate it.
Having backups of owned digital media is just good practice.
Even if they succeed with a weird judge to prove this… It’s not the point. We want to own stuff, so either make “owning” available or we stop buying/renting.
Also, there is the common online sentiment “If buying isn’t owning, then piracy is not stealing” and I can’t help but believe that this will permiate even deeper into the gaming culture.
Piracy has never been stealing, whether you were allowed to own the thing or not. Piracy is a copyright infringement.
It’s a bolder than usual move for Sony to announce the end of physical media prior to a new console launch, and launch this “you don’t own the digital games you buy” campaign at the same time.
The usual easy strategy is first you end physical media sales, let people be content with the idea that they own their digital games at least so that the only thing people think about is the convenience of digital, then after you launch your new console, get everybody locked in, that’s when you launch the “Oh you don’t own these digital games btw” campaign.
The fact that they’re just doing all of this at the same time means they know they won’t lose any money over it because we’re sheep and the consumer just doesn’t care anymore
um yeah, that’s not hard to prove, you can check my torrent history
deleted by creator
granted limited access to software that can be revoked at any moment.
If it is that, then it may not be called a purchase. Simple.
Turns out I was granting limited access to my money that can be revoked at any moment.
threadiverse is about to learn what tickets are🤦♀️
Please don’t cake it the threadaverse
It should be called renting (or something similar). But then, that would likely mean an expectation of a lower price tag and they wouldn’t want that. Who would rent a game for $80? Even if the rental is a decade or longer. Probably people out there that would and currently do this.
Silly consumer. The subscription is for the software’s lifetime, not yours.
🤣 Well I’m a vampire so jokes on them.
But then, that would likely mean an expectation of a lower price tag and they wouldn’t want that.
In other words, they want to commit fraud with impunity. Because that’s what lying about the difference between a sale and a rental is: fraud on Sony’s part.
I would agree, but most leases have stipulations that restrict voiding the contract “at any moment”. You have to do something to violate the lease agreement most times so this is even worse than renting.
It should just be called License. Put that there instead of the buy button. And clearly visible the minimum expiration date for the license. Reserve the buy button for actual perpetual licenses where not having access to the licensed good is a breach of contract good for money back.
Licenses are a copyright concept, but this isn’t a copyright issue. You’re buying a copy of a game, and you should own the copy after the purchase (which of course, means the company who sold it to you shouldn’t be able to revoke your access at will). That’s the part that sony is apparently not willing to do. But copyright-wise, it would be a license either way, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to confuse people with only tangentially related concepts here.
copyright(n.) c. 1729, “the exclusive right to make and sell copies of an intellectual production,”
license(v.) c. 1400, “grant formal authorization to do what would be illegal to do without it,”
Yeah… I don’t think you are right about that…
I don’t really see what that has to do with what I said? Unless you are saying that licenses exist for other things than copyright (in response to “licenses are a copyright concept”). That’s definitely true, I oversimplified to make my point, but I’m also pretty sure that copyright licenses are the only kind of license that are relevant here in the first place.
Copyrights are a type of license not the other way around.
Copyrights are rights. A license grants others (parts of) that right. A copyright isn’t a license.
licenses are a very IT central idea.
I have to buy licenses of Windows, Acrobat, etc… It lines up with what Sony is trying to say too
licenses are a very IT central idea.
No, that’s just the implementation you’re most familiar with. Licenses are a copyright idea that IT adopted and made digital. Every physical movie and game you own also comes with a license that authorizes your retail use of it, but forbids your commercial use of it. You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people, nor can you charge admission to people to watch Shrek at your house, nor are you allowed to make copies of your Shrek DVD and sell them, for example.
Care to back that up? You wouldn’t need a license to do something that copyright laws already allow you to do on their own. For example, making additional copies for your own personal use is perfectly legal, if allowed depends on your local fair use or private copying exemption law (provided you do it without circumventing DRM, e.g. via the analog hole), even though of course the movie studio wouldn’t give you a license for that.
Of course, DRM is the real issue here, as due to anti-circumvention the movie industry controls who can legally make players for movies on DVD/Blu-Ray (unlike on VHS and CD).
You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people
That’s literally how Netflix got started.
Netflix had a different type of license they negotiated with the rights holder. They didn’t just buy DVDs retail and start mailing them around.
Physical media also comes with a license.
Removed by mod
Because you buy it. It being a limited license of course, not a game.
Next time: Acquire license
This kind of thinking is why they’re taking so much heat
unless it is layed out plain in their TOS it aint gonna live long. if they place a revision of the TOS to reflect that, then john q public is thoroughly screwed
Don’t put it past them to change it without telling anyone and backdate it.
If I don’t own, I won’t buy. Good luck.
Already lost my PS4 collection for not logging in 3 years.
Already lost my PS4 collection for not logging in 3 years.
Wait, seriously?! Damn, that sucks. What kept you off PSN for three years?
Didn’t have a PS4 any more, now I got a PS5 and found my account deleted.
The fact you even have to ask that is fucking wild. It shouldn’t matter in the first fucking place.
I think they’re just curious, not implying it makes a difference
We’re going to need the full story here. What the heck man?? They just delete you if you’re offline for a couple years?
Yes, I had a PS4 with a few games, then I sold it and didn’t have ps for many years.
Now I got a PS5 and when I tried to login my account didn’t exist.
Sony has a policy where they can delete you account if you don’t login in 3 years.
Seeing G*mers get upset and try to boycott Sony for this.
Then go on to pump money into Helldivers and Palworld on Steam.
Absolutely brain rotted.
wtf does Palworld have to do with Sony?
Apparently they’ve signed a deal with Sony to help them expand the franchise
Nothing “apparently” about it.
There was a lot of coverage about it.
Apparently is used when the person speaking wasn’t previously aware of something, regardless of how much coverage it received within it’s own niche.
So yes, it was. You can now go find something else to uselessly and incorrectly pedant over.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apparently
According to this that definition only applies to simplified American English.
Sorry the world doesn’t all follow your backwards country. Go cry in Lake America
Your source.
used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was:
Do they not teach reading comprehension in whatever country you hail from?
used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true:
Apparently it’s going to rain today.
Apparently he’s had enough of England and is going back to Australia.
used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was:
You know I told you Alice’s party was on the 13th? Well I saw her last night and apparently it’s on the 14th.
She looks about ten, but apparently she’s 10.
I thought they were married but apparently not (= they are not married).
Do you not see the difference?
Starting the sentence with “Apparently” is you casting doubt over the proceeding information.
Using it mid sentence after giving information as a correction would meet the definition you cherry picked. Which would mean you do know about the Sony deal.
But who am I to try and correct and Yankee, clearly you lot are the absolute authority on everything. And it’s my fault for not instantly understanding what you meant (despite it following zero established rules)
With how shitty the owning and freedom situation on consoles is already, this really doesn’t change much. People who are still using consoles just don’t give any fucks. They happily swallowed the PSN subscription. They will happily swallow the next toad too.
Going to court to prove they’re arseholes. Nice.
If you want to stop it, write to your representatives. EULAs do not override local laws.
