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

171–180 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#171

Post by AgingGamer »

red_admiral wrote: post #55

Sony is correct here? If I buy a CD or a cassette or a record, I own the physical media but I only have a licence to the music it contains - not the ownership, and not the copyright. Whether I can play that music as a DJ at an event or on the radio, or remix it as a backing track for another song I'm creating and so on, depends on licencing laws and royalty payments. That was true well before the internet, and it's w…

Yes, Sony can revoke a license. It is right in the terms of the license.

We own nothing but the right to access the game so long as the rights holder chooses to permit it. This means I could buy a game on Tuesday and the rights holder could render it unplayable on Wednesday with no recourse.

The "Buy" versus "License" question doesn't really resolve this. Sony is right in one sense that we all know we are licensing. What needs protection, probably requiring new or revised laws, is some sort of consumer right to get value out of a game license before the vendor renders it unplayable.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#172

Post by dfxm12 »

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…

We won't know without A/B testing, but I suspect aesthetics mean nothing here and, for example, someone isn't going to turn down playing GTA VI if the only button between them and the game says "purchase license" as opposed to "buy".

I'd rather have my rights as a consumer protected or get something tangible for giving them up (like cheaper games) than introduce even more legalese into online shops.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#173

Post by dcow »

scheeseman486 wrote: post #162
dcow wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Probably the same place you can buy an aftermarket CAN board and controller for your Volkswagen.

Oh, looks like cars and consoles aren't that different after all.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#175

Post by numpad0 »

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…

Someone in past threads mentioned that many digital sales website in fact no longer use "buy" anymore, and instead deniably implicate purchases by such expressions as "Add to Cart", "Proceed to Checkout", and "Pay".

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#176

Post by motbus3 »

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…

I would have spent much less money if I knew they could revoke the license at their own discretion

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#177

Post by yawnxyz »

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 would wreck a lot of the marketing efforts and probably be bad for their bottom line in the long run

I'm surprised the Sony team isn't freaked out about this

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#178

Post by iamleppert »

motbus3 wrote: post #174

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that they put "BUY" and then expect that they redefine what buy means.

You can BUY a license to something, but it's still a license. You don't own the actual game unless you buy the rights to it from the publisher. The rights to a game can cost millions, and only then, do you truly, ever own it.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#179

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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?

Sony supports the media industry in CA. It would be a shame if they moved their studios elsewhere...
Post reply on HN