With the end of physical PlayStation games looming, the need for clear digital ownership rights is more pressing than ever.

For its part, Sony believes your rights are very clear: you do not own your digital games, and it’s unlikely you’re stupid enough to believe otherwise. At least, that’s roughly the argument the company’s lawyers are presenting in response to a proposed class-action lawsuit.

Sony argues that its current customer-facing disclosures ensure that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they actually own their digital games. That’s according to a Game File report (paid article link) citing an August 21 filing Sony’s lawyers made in California’s Northern District.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      19 days ago

      Good point. Don’t say we’re buying it. They use the terminology of ownership when you’re paying money.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      19 days ago

      Actually this is an alright solution.

      They should be forced to change the name of their platform if they want to keep using it. They should be barred from using the term “store”.

      They can either continue their business model as is, (as “PlayStation Leasing”) or they can change their policy to include full ownership of games and the right to transfer the games they own to other accounts.

      But they don’t get to call it a “store” or use words like “buy” or “sale” if that’s not what they’re actually offering.

  • the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    19 days ago

    They dont need to keep trying to convice me to never buy another Sony/ Rockstar product. They keep giving more reasons though.

    • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      19 days ago

      Sony convinced me that years ago when they sold me an expensive af dvd camcorder and then they hobbled it so it was unusable unless you edited in their crappy software and exported it through their expensive dongles.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    19 days ago

    … wait. That’s not obvious. If it was obvious, it wouldn’t be a “Buy now” it would be like a “Purchase License.”

    Because thats literally how the rest of the software industry works.

  • zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    19 days ago

    Following that logic, pirating software is quite all right, no one is stupid enough to believe someone loses if they make a copy.

  • JustTheWind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    19 days ago

    Right, like, how “owning” a car means that you need to purchase the entire means of production required to produce said car, including all patents and trademarks.

    This guy is somehow multi-rail drifting his pseudo-capitalist argument with like, a cartoon version of communism. It’s like he dropped acid and decided to become Frankenstein’s Economist.

  • coolie4@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    19 days ago

    The problem with this argument was their short-sighted business model. They sold digital games for the same price as physical games.

    If consumers are accustom to “owning” physical games, and then pay the same price for digital, of course they would assume they own those as well.

    If instead you needed to buy a subscription to each game that came out, and they only charged $10/month for the latest AAA game, the “you don’t own it” argument would actually be reasonable.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    I find it interesting that the article uses GTA 6 as the example when Sony uses Resident Evil Requiem as the example. It’s clickbait tactics and I hate it.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    19 days ago

    Sony argues that its current customer-facing disclosures ensure that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they actually own their digital games.

    They can make that argument, but I think they’ll have a hard time finding evidence to support it. Judges aren’t stupid, but they can be corrupt, however.

  • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 days ago

    “You can’t, like, own a digital title, man. Like, if you, like, play a game it doesn’t make it your game, you know, it’s God’s game, man! It’s God’s game!

  • Eddbopkins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    I have never and will never buy a PlayStation or a playstion game. Anything worth while playing is on PC.