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

251–260 of 283 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#251

Post by Telaneo »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #242
jonhohle wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hist…

Licenses are commonly understood to have variable duration, as specified by the license. I get that people want to be able to purchase games forever, but this linguistic argument seems tortured concern trolling. maybe Im wrong, but are there even people confused by what they are getting when they pay for a modern online game? It seems like the bigger issues is people know, but dont like those terms. There is some str…

I'd be very surprised if the average buyer of Call of Shooty was aware that their game could be taken away from them (for reasons (or lack thereof) other than maybe getting their account banned for cheating).

I'd also be fairly surprised if that average buyer cared all that much. For many the life cycle of any random game is short enough that it doesn't matter whether or not it gets revoked, just so long as that's far enough into the future (and Sony probably knows that). So long as the average buyer doesn't have to think about it, since any revocation is so far into the future as to probably not matter, the average buyer won't care.

There's some media attention from the people who do care and want Sony et al. to do better, but they alone don't have the power to fight back against Sony, since even though the rest of the market might even agree that the current situation is bad, it's very difficult to mobilise people into actually doing anything (and what are you even supposed to to beyond 'voting with your wallet'?).

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#252

Post by jonhohle »

Telaneo wrote: post #251
s1artibartfast wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licenses are commonly understood to have variable duration, as specified by the license. I get that people want to be able to purchase games forever, but this linguistic argument seems tortured concern trolling. maybe Im wrong, but are there even people confused by what they are getting when they pay for a modern online game? It seems like the bigger issues is people know, but dont like those terms. There is some str…

I'd be very surprised if the average buyer of Call of Shooty was aware that their game could be taken away from them (for reasons (or lack thereof) other than maybe getting their account banned for cheating). I'd also be fairly surprised if that average buyer cared all that much. For many the life cycle of any random game is short enough that it doesn't matter whether or not it gets revoked, just so long as that's fa…

Whether or not people understand it (I’m guess most don’t), we’ve lost something and been handed an inferior alternative with significant disadvantages. I have CDs from the 80s that still work. Plenty of games on disc and cart that still work.

Is not having to get up to change a disc worth giving up libraries, resale, lending, and not having stuff taken away at the whim of the publisher?

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#253

Post by Zambyte »

chrisjj wrote: post #221
Zambyte wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Digital media cannot be transacted without being copied.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#254

Post by [deleted] »

bsimpson wrote: post #41
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…

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)?

[deleted]

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#255

Post by TheAmazingRace »

RajT88 wrote: post #227
TheAmazingRace wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. I find myself going back to older games anymore. Aside from maybe looking forward to GTA 6, I can't say I'm terribly interested in many modern titles. It's becoming more soulless.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#256

Post by dcow »

wredcoll wrote: post #245
dcow wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sony doesn't DRM the power that you use to run the Playstation either. But to try and meet the comparison: there are different manufacturers of fuel just like there are different publishers of games and while Volkswagen can't force you to not put standard fuel in your car they can certainly void your warranty if you don't use premium (and fuel is still tested and regulated for industry compliance). I'm getting a tad…

> And the average consumer has broad discretion to use cars and consoles from whatever manufacturer they wish to. Until you actually buy one. Obviously there are levels of wealth where this is all irrelevant, either because buying every console is a relatively minor expense or because you can't afford any console whatsoever, but for the people in the middle where you can more or less afford a console, once you buy in…

Same and even more so with a car.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#257

Post by dcow »

scheeseman486 wrote: post #239
dcow wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sony doesn't DRM the power that you use to run the Playstation either. But to try and meet the comparison: there are different manufacturers of fuel just like there are different publishers of games and while Volkswagen can't force you to not put standard fuel in your car they can certainly void your warranty if you don't use premium (and fuel is still tested and regulated for industry compliance). I'm getting a tad…

It's easy to get lost in arguments where analogies are used. They're almost always terrible and are the death of nuance and detail. Fuck car analogies, a car isn't a video game console. Sony host a massive, massive marketplace. That's where their monopoly lies, they have end to end control over distribution of not only their games, but anyone else who chooses to publish on the platform, in addition to control over ho…

If as a society we want to create an information age bill of rights and (1) protect hardware ownership and right to root (without exploits), (2) require platform marketplace neutrality, and (3) require digital intellectual property be distributed under lifetime irrevocable and transferable licenses, then I’d happily sign my name, and not least because you’re solving the problem at the core.

One can dream.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#258

Post by dcow »

ndriscoll wrote: post #249
dcow wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disabling DRM is required for basic archiving if the issue is someone else having the ability to decide the thing you bought will self-destruct. Don't move the goalposts. The only thing I am conceding is that conceptually it still ownership if you own the encrypted bits but they work fine with some other hardware that has the keys to decrypt them. I can backup my games on one playstation and play them on another. O…

You can't back up your encrypted bits on one machine and use them on another without constant permission from Sony though. Other hardware doesn't have the keys to decrypt them (actually this is it's own issue: it's obviously a very monopolistic, anticompetitive move that you can't run a PS5 game on a commodity PC because of their encryption). As far as I know, Valve's "DRM" just calls into a dll that asks Steam wheth…

You can’t back up your games on one PC and use them on another without constant permission from Value either. It’s the same and that is all I’m trying to point out. DRM is a red herring, the real problem is the phone home always online bullshit.

Both Valve and Sony run a completely legal video game platform service. There are minor differences here and there, of course… but this is 100% a general intellectual property law problem, not an instanced technical implementation issue.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#259

Post by Kinrany »

tiahura wrote: post #206
Kinrany wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

> And, if you don't agree with the terms, you shouldn't click "I Agree."

Nah, it's perfectly reasonable to click it if you know you're being transparently lied to in a way that won't hold up in court.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#260

Post by Kinrany »

Kinrany wrote: post #259
tiahura wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

> And, if you don't agree with the terms, you shouldn't click "I Agree." Nah, it's perfectly reasonable to click it if you know you're being transparently lied to in a way that won't hold up in court.

That is, it's bad that these situations happen and that's why they should be regulated away when possible. But if you can't personally change the status quo, the next best thing is to accept the game and respond in kind.
Post reply on HN