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

161–170 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#161

Post by jtbayly »

delecti wrote: post #99
jurgenburgen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it says it on the button doesn’t really help, because no reasonable person thinks that a “purchased” license can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. Why doesn’t anybody think that? Because “owning” a license implies you actually control it. But a license you can’t control at all means you own NOTHING! Not even a license. So “buy license" miscommunicates in the same way as “buy.”

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#162

Post by scheeseman486 »

dcow wrote: post #147
wredcoll wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where can I buy an aftermarket optical drive and motherboard?

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#165

Post by bix6 »

Topology1 wrote: post #37
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…

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.

Is that true? This says it’s still pending with a hearing in Oct

https://clouddosage.com/playstation-digital-game-lawsuit-son...

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#166

Post by ahartmetz »

ncr100 wrote: post #16
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…

Yes. "buy" and "purchase" are redefined in the EULA

In which case I redefine "pay" as "torrent it with a very respectable upload ratio".

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#167

Post by ryandrake »

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%??

I don't think the general public is engaged enough to understand the difference between "license" and "buy". They will look at the button and think "This is what I click to get it" and don't understand that they are just temporarily renting the thing. To most people, "license" is a noun: something you carry in your pocket to drive. The word is already overused by media vendors to confuse people.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#168

Post by TheAmazingRace »

RajT88 wrote: post #159
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't understand is why Sony is the one being targeted for this when this has been the case with any digital purchase for 20 years? Examples: literally two days ago Sony permanently removed access to over 500 movies for people who had "purchased" them, and only a couple months ago Sony announced their plan to permanently shutter physical media production for Playstation. I agree with you that it's a systemic…

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and more bear the blame here for this and more. RIP Lik Sang.

Lik Sang was awesome back in the day for procuring accessories like classic XBOX controller to USB adapters that weren't dodgy duct tape jobs. Hard to believe they were forced out of business by Sony two decades ago.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#169

Post by m463 »

kstrauser wrote: post #148

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…

What's interesting is that the item you linked says "game key card" and "90 GB - Full game download via internet required"

also interesting, in california vendors are required to say "you are buying a license" unless you can download the media you are purchasing.

I don't know if that game qualifies.

for kindle books, amazon says:

"By placing your order, you're purchasing a license to the content and you agree to the Kindle Store Terms of Use."

but some books actually could say "buy" like this one:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DMZC4VPQ

Because when you "purchase a license" you can actually download the book in epub/pdf format

(this specific book, not all books)

There doesn't seem to be a way to determine kindle books that you can download in epub/pdf before you "license" them.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#170

Post by jonhohle »

jtbayly wrote: post #161
delecti wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it says it on the button doesn’t really help, because no reasonable person thinks that a “purchased” license can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. Why doesn’t anybody think…

Then maybe is should be forced to say: “Buy revocable license” and require the user to answer randomized multiple choice questions regarding the terms of the license that act in opposition to the purchaser. Collect metrics on wrong answers and if greater than say, 15% of people can’t determine what they are actually handing over money for, fine and require additional clarity.

Or, just flip the tables and say the historical meaning of buy implies transfer of ownership in exchange for some trade. Since the seller no longer owns the items that was sold in the transaction, they have no additional rights that are covered by other areas of the law (such as copyright). First sale applies and if the seller doesn’t provide a mechanism to facilitate that sale, the buyer is free to exercise that right in whatever way they see fit.

Post reply on HN