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

201–210 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#201

Post by 13415 »

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 agree but that's not even enough. If you only lease the game, they will also need to tell you exactly for how long you lease it. Any reasonable person would have an issue with a lease for an indefinite time period that can be canceled at any time without refund, it doesn't sound acceptable at all.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#202

Post by thayne »

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…

And if you buy a license, it should either have a fixed term that is clearly communicated, or should be forever, and transferrable, not "untile we decide we don't want you to have it anymore".

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#203

Post by pc86 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #154
jdiff wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software licenses are bought all the time.

Sure, but that's a very different type of license compared to a hunting license, driver license or similar stuff, you know, the context.

And the initial comment that started this was that "Purchase license" in reference to this... software license... wasn't clear. Arguing about whether you buy a hunting license or that it's not a perfect analogy seems pedantic and irrelevant.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#204

Post by Zambyte »

chrisjj wrote: post #150
Zambyte wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For digital products, that would mean copyright privileges. Else there is no definition of "buy" that applies to GOG sales either.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#205

Post by embedding-shape »

pc86 wrote: post #203
embedding-shape wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's a very different type of license compared to a hunting license, driver license or similar stuff, you know, the context.

And the initial comment that started this was that "Purchase license" in reference to this... software license... wasn't clear. Arguing about whether you buy a hunting license or that it's not a perfect analogy seems pedantic and irrelevant.

> Arguing about whether you buy a hunting license or that it's not a perfect analogy seems pedantic and irrelevant

It's a completely different thing, it's like comparing buying a "license" (ticket) to ride a roller coaster and taking a driving license, they're obviously different things, not exactly pedantic, imo.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#206

Post by tiahura »

Kinrany wrote: post #158
tiahura wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US adults are expected to read what they agree to. If they don’t, it’s generally their problem.

In the rest of the civilized world adults are expected to have common sense and be truthful when it comes to formal transactions.

Good point. Reading before you sign should be common sense regardless of what country you're in. And, if you don't agree with the terms, you shouldn't click "I Agree."

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#207

Post by kstrauser »

iamleppert wrote: post #192
kstrauser wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I can buy a book. That gives me ownership over that copy of the book. No one is claiming it gives me the right to do things like make copies of it to distribute to others, so we can ignore that goofy argument. The fact is, I own the book. When I buy a game disc, I own that copy of the game on it. I can give it away. I can sell it. I own that copy, in the same way I own that book. No own claims to "license" a book…

You own that physical copy due to the physical nature of it. However, you still are limited in what you can do with it. You can't make a copy of it and sell that copy. You can't read that book aloud, and sell the recording. In certain cases, you can't even read that book for an audience. The fact that you own it has embrued certain rights to you due to the physical nature of the book. Take away the physical medium an…

Let me stop you right there: no one is claiming that buying a book gives you copyrights to its content. That's a strawman.

When you own a book, you own that copy of it. You can do whatever you like with that copy, short of distributing copies of it. You can sell it. You can lend it to friends. You can leave it laying around a doctor's office for a stream of people to read. Short of distributing copies of it, it's yours.

Sony claims you do not own your copy of a game, merely the right to use it until they decide otherwise. That is fundamentally different than when buying a book, or CD, or DVD.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#208

Post by flutteringfool »

megagpt1 wrote: post #189
aizk wrote: post #24

On this topic I'd like to give a big kudos to the devs at https://decomp.dev/ who are tirelessly working to decompile old video games for fun, preserving it for future generations.

[flagged]

I don't see that, maybe it was temporary?

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#209

Post by thayne »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #38
Boxxed wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I even take issue with "Purchase license". Shouldn't it be "Lease License"? Purchase implies that it can't be revoked, no?

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

Right but when you buy it, they tell you how long it is valid for.

With video games it is often for some unknown amount of time, and of course they don't tell you that.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#210

Post by nalekberov »

dcow wrote: post #152
nalekberov wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I want to move from point A to point B, I can choose from BMW, Audi or any cheaper Chinese brand. But I cannot play 'Astro Bot' on another platform.

You can't get the Volkswagen engine sound or drive experience in a BMW, though.

Remember? Moving from point A to point B.
Post reply on HN