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

191–200 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#191

Post by hellcow »

numpad0 wrote: post #175
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".

Yes, all this talk about the language used still leads us to the same frustrating outcome: customer pays for something, and at some unspecified point in the future that same thing is taken away from them. I don't care if 6 years earlier I clicked a button that said Pay vs Buy, I care that my purchase is being removed due to some backroom licensing issue.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#192

Post by iamleppert »

kstrauser wrote: post #182
iamleppert wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 and there is nothing physical left that you own. Therefore, you have no physical rights to it anymore. The publisher, at their sole discretion, can remove the medium of access by which you consume the book. And then you'll be left without a book.

This is exactly how the current system works, I am just explaining it to you. So don't shout at the wind.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#193

Post by tombert »

didibus wrote: post #124

I might go Steam Machine route in the PS6 era, I know it's technically same on Steam, but they have at least been much better at not rug pulling, and there are easier way to circumvent things on a Linux/PC machine. Unless Sony changes their stance so that either I have full lifetime use of the game or an explicitly stated period of time (which if shorter than lifetime I'd expect to be cheaper). I'm even willing to dr…

Valve is also pretty amenable to adding third-party games to the box as well. It's trivial to add games from GOG using Heroic and play them alongside regular Steam games.

My main "game console" is a NixOS box running Jovian, and I have made oodles of Flakes that I use to make custom non-Steam games that launch deterministically, and as far as I'm aware, Valve is perfectly fine with this (not that I particularly care if they are).

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#195

Post by scheeseman486 »

dcow wrote: post #173
scheeseman486 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except for the software ecosystem which is the main driver of revenue for consoles and exists largely to support the sale and distribution of products from third parties, all of which is centrally controlled by the platform holder.

Someone else in the thread made the comparison to fuel, I'll go with that. Last time I checked, there was no such thing as petroleum DRM.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#196

Post by pc86 »

jurgenburgen wrote: post #68
singpolyma3 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don’t buy a hunting license though. You pay a fee and the government issues you a license.

And the license is not perpetual. It can expire or be revoked.

Are you suggesting that "Purchase license" is somehow unclear and "Pay a fee and we will issue you a license" is clearer?

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#197

Post by skrellm »

b112 wrote: post #136
benjiro29 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was their rationale for doing nothing? Carrot: Free vacations? Merch? Benefits ... Stick: Scared because taking actions against the Buy (aka you own nothing) is paramount to going in a fight with a entire industry.

Class action civil case should still be doable? And 100k small claims court cases would hurt.

> Class action civil case should still be doable?

Nope, because there's a stance in EULA's footnote (with extremely small letters) that you give up your rights to class action civil case.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#198

Post by satellites »

bluejay2387 wrote: post #160

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…

I'm keeping my ps4 as long as the hardware still runs because at least I can still buy discs for it. I have a nice collection of high-replay-value single player games. I know discs are just physical licenses at this point in time, not actual software on disc like the old school days.

But even with all this nonsense from Sony I don't think they'll cross the rubicon of terminating licenses that come on physical discs for their older consoles. If they do, I hear you can jailbreak ps4s :)

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#199

Post by tombert »

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.

I have to admit that I'm pretty impressed that GOG has managed to convince a lot of the big brand-name players, (including Sony! [1]) that a DRM-free way of distributing games can be viable. If there's no DRM then there's nothing stopping you from keeping a backup on your own that they can't take away.

[1] https://www.gog.com/en/game/god_of_war

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#200

Post by stronglikedan »

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.

Post reply on HN