Sony makes bold claim about game ownership • Hacker News Board

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#141

Post by dcow » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

TuxSH wrote: post #115

dcow wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you do. When you play a digital game on Playstation you also download the files... It may be harder like you say but the law doesn't really see it any differently PC vs Console if you want to archive/backup your digital game media.

On consoles in general, backing up digital media (if even possible) requires full-system exploits, thus bypassing DRM, and decrypting them also requires breaking DRM

Woah, we're not talking about cracking your games. I think every console from at least the last two generations has supported copying game files to external/removable media.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#142

Post by Kinrany » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

stetrain wrote: post #130

simpaticoder wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a non-transferable lease that can be canceled at any time by the issuer. The real problem is that most of society still thinks of games as a piece of physical media that you combine with a player that allows you to play the game. In that world you have a liscense to the software, and a physical token which is transferable and therefore valuable. I'd argue that we need to decouple transferability and cancel abili…

Yes, some people are trying to achieve this by arguing that physical media should stick around forever. I think the real solution is providing the same protections and rights for digital purchases as we had with physical media. That would be a real win for consumers since we get the advantages of digital media with the ownership and transference rights of physical media. Of course this would be a great inconvenience…

As long as we're in copyright world, it ought to be structured as three separate parties:

1. Licensor, the company who makes the game.

2. Licensee, the person buying a digital copy of the game.

3. Safekeeper, Steam or another platform that stores the digital copy on behalf of Licensee. Similar to how depositories store securities and guarantee that they can be neither lost nor duplicated. For a separate fee perhaps.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#143

Post by dcow » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

PenguinCoder wrote: post #105

dcow wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you do. When you play a digital game on Playstation you also download the files... It may be harder like you say but the law doesn't really see it any differently PC vs Console if you want to archive/backup your digital game media.

How do you backup game files from a console, to an external drive/location that you own; and ensure the validity of that backup will still be usable on the console later?

By inserting storage media into the removable/external media port and copying or moving the files.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#144

Post by bsimpson » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

californical wrote: post #59

bsimpson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

I think it depends. If they are also required to allow 3rd party stores, and one of the third parties has a “buy” button while the others have “lease (lifetime)” buttons, it might sway a decent number of people. Same thing with consoles, if one has “buy” and the other “lease”, then it might not convert everyone but could it take 5% of sales? 10%? 20%??

That's assuming there's an alternative.

Yes, the language should be clear and precise.

Also, if the whole industry string-replaces "lease" for "buy," I doubt the effect will be much.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#145

Post by jdiff » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

embedding-shape wrote: post #65

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

But licenses in general you don't just "buy", you "earn" them somehow, then also usually you pay a price for it too, but it's typically about knowing about some rules and/or norms.

Software licenses are bought all the time.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#146

Post by scheeseman486 » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

redwall_hp wrote: post #100

philipov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Valve pivoting away from MacOS is a consequence of choices Apple has made for their platform, many of which made it a more hostile place for Steam to exist. This is baked into the long standing Apple model of software distribution, where API and architectural changes inevitably obsolete software with Apple usually providing only a limited time window for cross compatibility.

You can still play your purchases on an operating system that isn't actively fighting against you running them.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#147

Post by dcow » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

wredcoll wrote: post #133

alephnerd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sony is a giant corp with a reputation and a monopoly on playstations. That's like saying Volkswagen has a monopoly on Volkswagen cars. Sony clearly does not have a monopoly on the video game industry, and a plurality of video games are cross-platform across consoles, PCs (Windows/Linux), and even MacOS.

It would be slightly more accurate to say "volkswagen has a monopoly on volkswagen cars... and all accessories and replacement parts" But the analogy breakdown because a car is more or less a complete item you buy and use for a purpose (aside from consumables) whereas a playstation is completely useless without games to play on it. So maybe volkswagen brand gas would be the best analogy here.

Not really. I can plug a generic usb cable into my Playstation and it charges my aftermarket controller just fine. I can even use aftermarket screws or put the console in an aftermarket enclosure.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#148

Post by kstrauser » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

LOL fuck off with that. The Amazon link[0] to a Final Fantasy game has a "Buy Now" button, not "License Now". I'm buying a copy of a game, exactly like I'm buying a copy of a book.[1] If they want to pretend in their little "licensing" fiction, it should be federally illegal to describe buying a copy as "purchasing" or "buying".

When you lease a car, you know you're leasing a car. They have to be clear about that up front.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/FINAL-FANTASY-VII-REMAKE-INTERGRADE-N...

[1] In before the idiotic strawman "so you think you own Final Fantasy?". No. I think I own my copy, not the copyright to distribute it.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#149

Post by kazinator » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:31 PM UTC

Yes, when you pay to use a copy of copyrighted work, you're not owning the work in the sense of obtaining the right to redistribute.

That is completely separate from the question of whether you are buying your copy to permanently use, or just renting it temporary.

Conflating the two concepts is either sophistry, or stupidity.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#150

Post by chrisjj » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 5:31 PM UTC

Zambyte wrote: post #134

Waterluvian wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the only regulation I feel is reasonable. When it comes to luxury goods like video games, it doesn’t make sense to dictate how the product is offered. But by all means insist they’re clear with what the transaction type is. I can imagine the natural competitive wedge where GOG can say “Buy Game” but Steam has to say “Lease Game” on their buttons.

This would be case-by-case in Steam. There are some games which really do sell under "irrevocable license to play" (which, short of granting copyright privileges, is about as close as you can get to ownership for a digital product). Other games on Steam do not. I think it would highlight the differences between publishers / studios more than store fronts.

> There are some games which really do sell under "irrevocable license to play" (which, short of granting copyright privileges, is about as close as you can get to ownership for a digital product).

Far from it. E.g. excludes resale.