Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

aginggamer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#91

Post by dataflow »

nerdjon wrote: post #64
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their policy is exactly the same. It's not, though. Their ToS is the same. They reserve to right to deny you ownership of your games. Only Sony has been stupid enough to actually do it. Every ToS in the world is designed to screw the signee over as much as it possibly can, so you'd need to go live in the woods if you wanted to escape it, but there is a tangible difference between how much companies actually abuse t…

So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too? Instead of actually trying to fix the issue we just hope that Valve never has to do the thing they are legally allowed to do because we agreed they could. I honestly don't care who has done what, I don't care what company is supposedly better than another company. Overnight Valve, Microso…

> So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too?

Two things can be both "not fine" but one can still be worse than the other.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#92

Post by tetrisgm »

This is going to backfire spectacularly.

Between this claim, ramping down disc production, and the possibility of a $999 home console,they are going to have a difficult time.

There are still so few PS5 exclusives. Even fewer with PS5 Pro support. It’s going to take a lot to gain trust and justify a PS6. No clear path to victory here with a hardware update.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#93

Post by Lord-Jobo »

strictnein wrote: post #57
ncr100 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view this is faulty logic -- Buying in this case is "buying", and is a redefined term inside the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony accepts your money for a license to access their published video games, and so, it does not mean buying in the mundane sense of physical goods. I would suggest this workaround: If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a differen…

Redefining common words is the issue here. > If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's Society's "norms" around buying is that you own the thing you buy, which is why we have different words for buy, lease, rent, etc. Society's norms around theft is that you have taken something from someone else and they no longer have access to it. So…

Yes, if your transaction contract redefines very common well understood words like “buy” it honestly should be nullified in the eyes of the law. It’s an inherently deceptive practice.

Want to create new definitions for new words or phrases? Totally fine, but then Sony would need to replace the “buy” button with “blease” or “blent” or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has been playing at for entirely too long.

Or just be honest and call it leasing.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#94

Post by benjiro29 »

dataflow wrote: post #74
Topology1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually state law in CA. People reported Sony to California's Attorney General, who basically said they weren't going to do anything about it. Unfortunately the law is only as useful as its enforcement.

What was their rationale for doing nothing?

What was their rationale for doing nothing?

Carrot: Free vacations? Merch? Benefits ...

Stick: Scared because taking actions against the Buy (aka you own nothing) is paramount to going in a fight with a entire industry.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#95

Post by Danox »

hn_submit wrote: post #66

This statement could do Sony in. Gamers will refuse to buy a PS6 if there's not an ironclad guarantee that they own the games they purchase, be it digital or disc form. And since gaming is the only profit center that's holding Sony above water I see the company disappearing in a couple of years. I foresee another "gaming winter" like we had in the 1980's. Maybe a decade from now another gaming platform will arise, mo…

Microsoft gaming division i.e. the Xbox will disappear before Sony goes anywhere. Same thing goes from Nintendo every year people/analysts insist that both those companies are in trouble and will die off because of the way they do business but here they are still successful and the main reason, they’re successful is that they concentrate on gameplay in comparison to their competition.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#96

Post by deaton »

bsimpson wrote: post #41
captainbland wrote: post #11

If we're not owning it, you're not selling it, you're leasing it. Terminology on sales pages should reflect this. "Subscribe now" "purchase license" etc. should be mandated if this is the expectation. Terms like "buy" without qualification are misleading in this context, but they won't remove them from store pages because people are more likely to pay higher rates for something if they believe they are actually ownin…

Then the button becomes License and everyone knows that's the one you click to buy. As much as I empathize with (and even support) the reasoning, I wonder if it would have a tangible effect. Is there anyone who was gonna click "buy" but not "license" (presuming they relabel the button and everything else is the same)?

The point is to not mislead people. When you write "buy," you are implying that the "buy"er is obtaining a perpetual right to use the software, subject to certain rules (i.e. you can't make copies and redistribute it). "Buy" implies the buyer has an absolute right. When "buy" actually means a temporary revocable license is issued, and the buyer has no rights, that's a problem.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#98

Post by Draiken »

nerdjon wrote: post #64
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their policy is exactly the same. It's not, though. Their ToS is the same. They reserve to right to deny you ownership of your games. Only Sony has been stupid enough to actually do it. Every ToS in the world is designed to screw the signee over as much as it possibly can, so you'd need to go live in the woods if you wanted to escape it, but there is a tangible difference between how much companies actually abuse t…

So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too? Instead of actually trying to fix the issue we just hope that Valve never has to do the thing they are legally allowed to do because we agreed they could. I honestly don't care who has done what, I don't care what company is supposedly better than another company. Overnight Valve, Microso…

I'm not sure what you propose. Generally speaking we don't get a perfect solution on the first try.

Would it be great if we could make all digital purchases better? Hell yes. Is it realistic? No.

If we can make one company/segment pay or set legal precedent that this is not okay, we're at least moving in the right direction.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#99

Post by delecti »

jurgenburgen wrote: post #68
singpolyma3 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. Licenses can be revoked. When I buy a hunting license I don't get it forever

You don’t buy a hunting license though. You pay a fee and the government issues you a license.

That feels like a distinction without a difference. On the other hand, "buy" vs "buy license" is actually a meaningful difference.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#100

Post by redwall_hp »

philipov wrote: post #61
redwall_hp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve killed the previously thriving boxed game industry two decades ago and people can't get over how much they love everything about Valve. Sony follows 20 years later (in a world where internet is faster than installing from BluRay and games are outgrowing three layer discs) and people lose their mind. There's more noise about this than Microsoft's mass layoffs at the game companies they bought up.

Valve doesn't randomly remove stuff I've payed for from my library. Even when the ability to purchase something goes away, people who already bought it keep access to it.

They patched CS:GO away, a game I paid retail price for, with "Counter-Strike 2" and overnight dropped support for my platform (MacOS).

Sony has never stolen a game from me, unlike Valve. The closest incident was that movie thing, which was more a failure on their part to negotiate perpetual licensing with the rightsholder.

Post reply on HN