657
Sony Reminds PS Users They Don't Own Digital Games (games.gg)
submitted 3 days ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The relevant section is blunt. "The Software is licensed to you, not sold," the EULA states. "You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for."

The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony's EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

It’s in the EULA for every piece of software,** including physical.**

Bolded for those that aren't getting it.

Even if you buy a disc, that does not guarantee you can play the game in the future. Often games have to be authenticated on install, and if that authenticating server is no longer online, you can't play the game--even if you have all the files required to play it.

Europe had a whole "Stop Killing Games" initiative that would require companies to unlock games they are no longer supporting, but that mysteriously vanished from the legislative docket after meetings with game companies that organizers weren't invited to.

Stay mad, but you need to be mad at the right things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Kind of funny how Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem and they'll be here after it's all done. You put that cartridge into your console, and you can play it. It may be version 1.0, but you can play it. And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them. It'll cost $70 a decade from now, but it'll run after you pay it lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem

    Because NES locked it down at propertiary carts and still do...

    That drastically increases the cost of Ninetendo games, because Nintendo is the only one legally allowed to make the blank. Even gamecube used tiny discs.

    If you wanted to sell a NES game, you had to buy X amount of blank copies from Nintendo, then pay Nintendo to put the code on the blank, then pay Nintendo a licensing cut to sell...

    Like, it's not like Nintendo had consumers best interest at heart, they just nickle and dime developers at every step, which is why Nintendo versions costs more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.

    The difference is more that they'll be useless in 25 years or whenever Nintendo pulls the plug on the download servers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.

    Being able to sell/trade a specific copy of digital media kind of is the one functional use NFTs could be used for (if companies would be willing to treat digital media to be treated like physical media which they obviously like the current setup). Would also kind of need a universal industry blockchain (or some other ledger system) with better scam protections, and be used for the "new" sales for the trades and "used" sales. Which is way more effort than digital media companies would ever care to figure out (especially now) and were able to get away with not being required to treat digital like physical. And the major players don't have to care about making their stuff DRM-free.

    In the case of video media it is worse since there are so many set-top devices that don't allow offline downloads like the mobile versions of the same apps (mostly since the boxes don't have storage for it) or ability to use on a home media server (Plex/Jellyfin). So you may have a license to a movie/show but not have access to it if networks are down. And digital audio media has been reverting since a lot of new music can't be purchased and only streamed. Which is sad since I had some early hope that the digital video stuff would follow how audio was working with a lot of DRM-free options Apple and Amazon managed to "legitimize". I will give some level of credit to the UV/Movies Anywhere system that allows retaining a supported movie/show if you have accounts on multiple services and any one of them shuts down. But that still requires that stores/studios support it, AND that the core system isn't the thing shutdown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent