If I won't own them, I'm not buying them. This is them shooting themselves in the feet.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots

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.
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.
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 🤞
- Microsoft
if buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing.
Piracy isn't stealing either way. It's just copyright infringement.
Sadly, catchy slogans don't hold up in court. Better to buy from distributors who don't try to make that claim, like GOG - even if they won't put Nine Sols on the store to avoid offending many gamers.
Sadly, catchy slogans don't hold up in court.
Idk, OJ floated by on his.
If I've already bought it I won't even hesitate to pirate it.
Having backups of owned digital media is just good practice.
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.
In the past it didn't matter, because you had the whole file structure for the application when you purchased it. You either downloaded it in whole as an install file or archive, or you had it on the physical media that you purchased it on. Maybe there was a license you had to input or some other rudimentary DRM system, but you had that too. No remote access from the company, no forced additional downloads or internet connectivity, no phone home. So they could say whatever they wanted, but you actually had the product.
Now with media files that only play with proprietary tools that phone home, or applications that phone home, your computers are backdoored. And if you have a system that's backdoored, it's not really yours, it's just something you can access for now. That's what your Kindle is: a backdoored computer with an e-ink screen and proprietary software that can open proprietary files that other software isn't supposed to be able to open. Which is why no one should buy one.
You should stop buying that shit then.
Also isn't the kindle fine if you just download offline files? Its been a very long time since I used one though.
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.
If I don't own, I won't buy. Good luck.
Already lost my PS4 collection for not logging in 3 years.
Pirate away. If you don't know ask. Fuck the system.
You can't steal what you can't own.
I can prove in home that I don't own any playstation past the 4.
Let's see who loses.
does anyone know why Sony is so intent on ensuring that I never become a console gamer and give them money?
like how does this benefit them?
in the short term? It doesnt benefit them at all. it may actually hurt them.
in the long term? Bandwidth is cheap. especially at the scale that companies like Sony, Steam, Microsoft, etc, use it. So sell 6 million copies of a game, 10 extra bucks of profit thanks to no physical media/boxes/shipping/etc, per game.. Thats 60 million dollars in free money.
Plus, because you no longer own anything, they no longer have to invest in storage to keep old games up and running. So as new games release, they delete old games from their servers and from your accounts, So thats less investment they have to make in infrastructure, which is again more free money for them.
I wager Sony would love the day when people pay 100 dollars for a game that gets deleted in 6 months, that they have to rebuy again at full price to play again.
Cause remember, with no physical media, you have nothing but sony's closed garden marketplace to buy games.. Which means no competition for sony, which means no incentive for sales, no lower prices (not that 70+ dollars is a low price for a game 🙄 ), no nothing but take what sony offers you, and liking it.
If I don't own them, no reason to pay for them ever.
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
🎶🎶oh, the pirate's life's for me🎶🎶
"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.
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.
That's why you should buy physical disks. In the worst case you can re-sell them to someone else.
Nothing new. This is the same bullshit legal framework that underpins the entire software industry and extends back to the mid 90s. It's just front-and-center in games now because the industry has transitioned from a growth industry to a mature one wherein producers need to extract more revenue per user and predictably enshittify their platforms to do so.
I've basically decided that I will not buy any game that I cannot play offline. If I do a buy game, I will also pirate it to ensure continued access. If I can't pirate it, I won't buy it.
Fuck em.
um yeah, that's not hard to prove, you can check my torrent history
This kind of thinking is why they're taking so much heat
Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. Linux PCs will run the vast majority of games and the handful of exclusives that don’t run yet will run on an emulator at some point.