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

151–160 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#151

Post by throwaway219450 »

cautiouscat wrote: post #77
giancarlostoro wrote: post #62

I wonder if anyone will ever have the guts to enter the gaming console market using open source as a base. Linux support for GPUs has never been better than what it is today. I've spent the last 4 or 5 years gaming exclusively on Linux just to highlight how good it has gotten, and no I don't have to run around doing command line incantations. Linux has improved a lot, heck, even AI you have a drastically better exper…

Like the Steam Machine? Or do you mean open hardware too?

You can stream Big Picture with tools like Sunshine/Moonlight or their forks. Works amazingly well over a LAN if you have a server somewhere and stream to something connected to the TV. I have a headless server and an NVIDIA GPU so not sure what the sibling comment is referring to about compatibility.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#152

Post by dcow »

nalekberov wrote: post #80
alephnerd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sony is a giant corp with a reputation and a monopoly on playstations. That's like saying Volkswagen has a monopoly on Volkswagen cars. Sony clearly does not have a monopoly on the video game industry, and a plurality of video games are cross-platform across consoles, PCs (Windows/Linux), and even MacOS.

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.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#153

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

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…

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that you do not own a license when you buy a CD or cassette, you own a copy (strictly speaking, a "phonorecord" in US law). Copyright doesn't regulate the sorts of typical uses that the owner of a copy would engage in, so a license is not required. When you see those warnings on VHS/DVD/Blu-ray that they're licensed only for private home viewing, what they're telling you is that you don't have a license to do anything controlled by copyright such as broadcasting, publicly exhibiting, or reproducing it.

Software is significantly more complicated and gets into issues of physical permanence/transience and specific exemptions/limitations to normal copyright law (see e.g. 17 USC 117).

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#154

Post by embedding-shape »

jdiff wrote: post #145
embedding-shape wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But licenses in general you don't just "buy", you "earn" them somehow, then also usually you pay a price for it too, but it's typically about knowing about some rules and/or norms.

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.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#156

Post by AgingGamer »

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…

Very much matching my thinking on the argument the plaintiffs are making. Sony just needs to change the labels on a few buttons.

But for some reason they don't want to and are willing to go to court on the matter. As you say, using the word "Buy" is stronger than "License", but it seems a strange hill to die upon.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#158

Post by Kinrany »

tiahura wrote: post #139
barnabee wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy a game - i.e. I am on a store page title "Game Name" not "Limited Revokable License for Game Name", and I click "buy", then I expect to own a copy of the game or the right to a copy of the game (in perpetuity), not a limited revokable license to play the game.

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.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#159

Post by RajT88 »

chrisfosterelli wrote: post #15
nerdjon wrote: post #3

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? I don't know of a digital marketplace that works differently. But instead all of the hate, the boycots, etc are all targeting Sony instead of focusing on actually figuring out how to improve digital purchase rights which extend beyond games (and far beyond Sony). I know that some…

> 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.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#160

Post by bluejay2387 »

I know I am in the overwhelming minority and that most people will just continue to buy Sony's stuff anyway, but I decided a few years ago when all the ownership crap came up that I am just not buying stuff that I don't own. Sony's PS4 went to my local electronics recycler and I haven't bought a Sony product since. I can't realistically do it with everything, there are some products I have to buy rather I get to own them or not. But I am not putting up with it where I can and gaming is optional -- plus GOG has served me really well since.
Post reply on HN