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

221–230 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#221

Post by chrisjj »

Zambyte wrote: post #204
chrisjj wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> For digital products, that would mean copyright privileges.

If you sell me a (copy of a) program, I own it and need no (c) privilege to be allowed to resell it. Just like a book.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#222

Post by MayeulC »

kazinator wrote: post #149

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.

You are buying a copy though, and would be expected to have the right to resell it. So digital stores go out of their way to "license" the copyrighted work instead of selling you a copy.

I have been thinking about this lately, and figured that another difference with classic media was the "live service" model, where games receive updates.

You can't take for granted that a copy comes with updates, so I guess that as a middle ground, publishers could license updates (and online multiplayer) & sell copies of the game. Sell your copy, fine, but if you want updates or multiplayer, you have to purchase a subscription again. This would make more sense to me, but may be difficult to communicate and implement.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#223

Post by binarin »

gustavus wrote: post #23
cratermoon wrote: post #8

If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't theft.

It's actually an interesting question there. Because I've been wondering if I buy something in taking ownership of it, whereas if I steal something I am still taking ownership of it without compensation. However if I'm not buying something but merely licensing it the wouldn't that mean that technically I'm not stealing it I'm only violating the terms of the license of it, which is now a civil not criminal matter.

Yeah, exactly, it's not stealing, it's just ignoring the terms of license. The same thing in spirit as e.g. different corps shitting on GPL. And should be enforced with the same eagerness (lol).

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#226

Post by RajT88 »

tetrisgm wrote: post #92

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.

I like the graphics horsepower of my PS5, but a lot of the games I play, I'm just not sure I would notice the difference between it and my old PS4. Resolution is the biggest thing, since I didn't have a PS4 Pro and it'd be limited to 1080p on my TV.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#227

Post by RajT88 »

TheAmazingRace wrote: post #168
RajT88 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They had all kinds of weird stuff which the big makers didn't want to exist - adapters to use Xbox controllers on Playstation and every permutation you could think of.

All the big console manufacturers sued them. Said it was about modchips (and maybe it really was). Sony bore the most guilt.

The gaming industry is a little less wonderful these past 20 years.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#228

Post by dzonga »

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…

people tend to have short memories though.

late 90s and early 00s - even while growing up in the 3rd world - you bought or pirated a software license.

so we've never really purchased or bought software.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#229

Post by ethin »

stronglikedan wrote: post #200
ethin wrote: post #135

IMO the better thing is to force these companies to dump this mindset that digital information is a finite resource. Sony's logic doesn't even make sense to begin with. If person A buys a game, that game does not suddenly become unavailable for person B to also buy. I mean, even copyright recognizes that it is possible for a rightsholder to own all rights to the master copy of a good but other people can own separate…

> IMO the better thing is to force these companies to dump this mindset IMO this is a strictly idealistic view in a world where only a very small vocal minority actually seems to care. The vast majority of people will continue to reward these companies with their wallets, so they have no incentive to change course.

How is this idealistic? This is how digital information and copyright (if it is to apply to digital information) needs to work. It is absolutely absurd that I can buy something from you, but you can then turn around and say "well actually you just leased a license from me" and you then can break into my digital home and steel (ahem, "repossess") the digital copy for yourself without my consent. My logic is quite simple: if something would be nonsensical if applied to physical goods, then it is even more nonsensical for digital ones.

Obviously the general populous won't care about this, but it is something we should be striving for, as digital information is infinite once it has been transmitted over the internet.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#230

Post by t-writescode »

ActorNightly wrote: post #126
tetrisgm wrote: post #92

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.

It will be fine. Gaming as a whole is a shadow of what it used to be, specifically because it has been tailored to the masses who have no real opinion on any of this other then they want to play what their friends play.

My guy, there’s more weird and niche indie games than there’s ever been. Not too long ago, even AAA studios like EA were trying super weird stuff, like It Takes Two.

Nostalgia glasses are real, and yeah we don’t have a Good and Evil game anymore, and we’re not in an RTS renaissance; but there are a LOT of VERY good games out there, even for your particular niche - and if there’s not, then Godot and Unity make it VERY easy for you to add to the pile, like hundreds of thousands of teams before you in the last decade.

Post reply on HN