If I won’t own them, I’m not buying them. This is them shooting themselves in the feet.
yeah but they don’t own their feet
Pirate away. If you don’t know ask. Fuck the system.
You can’t steal what you can’t own.
Its not enough they are ditching physical media, they’re being this brazen about it.
People need to stop supporting these companies. Stop buying Nintendo. Stop buying Sony.
I heard sega is thinking about releasing a handheld that takes carts 🤞
Oh cool, don’t trust them since they implement Denuvo on some of their games.
Where’d you hear that? :o
Scrolling somewhere… sorry I don’t have more info
Plus Microslop
Then why do they have the word “buy” on the PS store🤨
Because you buy it. It being a limited license of course, not a game.
deleted by creator
Next time: Acquire license
This kind of thinking is why they’re taking so much heat
I can prove in home that I don’t own any playstation past the 4.
Let’s see who loses.
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.
Imagine how well digital games would sell if they showed up in your cart like: 1 x Revokable License for God of War $69 See Terms and Conditions* [Confirm Payment]
- Terms: we will do whatever the fuck we want. Conditions: whenever we want.
There’s a reason they say “Buy” instead of “Pay”.
It’s been going on for generations, but it’s no less dishonest for all that. Software sellers write complex EULAs for which the only valid answer is “Agree” because the store won’t take an open box back and the software won’t install unless we pretend to agree, so even us legitimate software enjoyers are pirates in our hearts. Meanwhile normies don’t even think about it that much. Fuck this whole system, but double fuck an online service that says “purchase” but will steal it back later. Fuck that.
1x temporary license to play. Duration of license unspecified.
Pretty sure in the past it was at least considered a lifetime license.
*Lifetime for the time the product/service is alive
If they end the thing, they can just pretend they did a rewrite and invalidate the current version/not develop it any further and maybe offer a migration discount (lol).
I’d prefer the model of “Buy version X for at least x years of feature updates and Y days of security updates”.
“Sony pushes the idea that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they own the games in their digital library”.
Wasn’t this the same basic legal outcome Fox News received when they were sued and it was determined that ‘no reasonable viewer’ would think Tucker Carlson was anything but entertainment? That worked out well.
But people who are easily fooled by such things are exactly the ones who need extra protection. Many laws exist to protect the weaker members of society.
Its crazy how everybody got used to rental prices as high as physical copy.
Most people don’t know they are rentals
If I don’t own them, no reason to pay for them ever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How do libraries work then? Do they just go fuck the copyright law lol here are some DVDs? That said not used one for digital media in over 2 decades.
Should use ours more. Been in the cafe a few times and have looked at some books while inside though. Might be an idea to check out the cooking books and take some pictures/notes of interesting sounding recipes to try.
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.
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.
Physical media also comes with a license.
Silly consumer. The subscription is for the software’s lifetime, not yours.
🤣 Well I’m a vampire so jokes on them.
Rent. It’s rent.
