557
Sony lawyers argue that nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own digital games, because then only one person could buy GTA 6 (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 3 days ago* by to c/news@lemmy.world
144 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 79 points 3 days ago* (4 children)

The solution seems easy enough, don't buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.

This is fixable if consumers band together. Nobody needs to game on a PlayStation (or play GTA on PC/PlayStation), we need water, food, shelter not GTA6

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    The solution seems easy enough, don’t buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.

    This will never work in America. I know people who already bought a PS5 just for this and pre-ordered (!) the game at $1000000 or whatever they're charging.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    People are too inundated with what the newest Thing™ is to actually give a shit about living conditions, it seems like. Deep rooted and normalized conservatism about how things are seems to be most people's modus operandi.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    I mean do you care? It sounds like you do. That's one people right there. So do i. That's makes at least two of us.

    I'm sure there are enough to cause a stink if we drop this defeatism and start with ourselves

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

    This is just the collective action problem in miniature. There's a thousand different versions of this. It's exhausting to care about each individual issue so everyone winds up voting for shit they don't really want with their wallets. And some are oblivious to the problems and don't read the news or care enough for it to effect them.

    The better and likely harder thing is to change our politics. With decent governance, the corporations that do this shit would face real consequences. Government corruption be it in the name of "deregulation" or "free markets" or whatever is the problem.

    Our regulators and regulations are toothless, and so we live locked inside a scam society.

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

    I kind of don't believe in a big "the problem" at least not in a totalizing way, especially if it's a problem so big people can't have any impact on it. I feel like there are a thousand of these battlefields, in our personal relationships, working life, civic life, consumer relationships.

    I'm not saying tackling your big the problem wouldn't be a huge help across the board, but we'd still have other problems. Hell maybe some problems are just part of human nature and will be with us forever.

    In any case, even if there is one big huge ur-problem from which all problems spread like tentacles we can each only act on an I individual level, so I believe all change starts there—it can't end there, but there it starts, and from there branches into collective action against the bigger problems in the world.

    Does that make sense? I'm not meaning it in a contradictory way. But that negating the importance of individual action can actually disempower people from taking their part in collective action. Like it never gets off the ground because every individual just goes "well I'm just one person, so..."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    But that negating the importance of individual action can actually disempower people from taking their part in collective action. Like it never gets off the ground because every individual just goes “well I’m just one person, so…”

    Everyone pushes that viewpoint. What's the real choice here? Let's just look at this individual issue and pretend it's not connected to a larger problem of our government being endlessly corrupt and complicit in the non-stop caveat emptor that pervades everything. The choice is don't buy the fun toy while all of your friends do and every time they talk about the fun toy being fun you either relate to them less or actively become the debby downer that lectures everyone about why you didn't buy the fun toy.

    I guess that was even kind of abstract, but if you're a gamer and are friends with other gamers they will likely buy this game and play it without you. They'll have fun playing it without you, and you get the great choice of saying "no i haven't bought that yet" and being vague and missing out, or lecturing them and risk being categorized as a negative nancy.

    Either way your individual choice does little to solve the problem, because other individuals individually ignore it. And honestly, owning games is somewhat inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

    You aren't individually choosing your way out of these things. Other people exist. And unless you're Elon fucking Musk, your individual preferences will likely not move the needle.

    The only real answers are not individual choices and nagging. They're collectivism and politics. Sorry for the inconvenience but it's true.

    The people opposing you understand this. It's why Sony is a corporation. It's why Republicans need megachurches. Collectivism is the only thing that works.

    Edit: Look man I'm here on lemmy and never use Reddit. Reddit still exists. My individual choices do not move the needle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    And lemmy is thriving because individuals like you and me gave enough of a fuck to shift over to this place.

    But look if someone wants to buy a game they can just do that. I was speaking more generally, like in spots you feel principled enough hell yeah be that nuisance.

    I'm not saying like fixate on individual action or think your one part "moves the needle" but that it's part of collective action. Like how are you going to find your collective if you aren't out there showing what you're about.

    It's like voting. Yeah yeah, it makes virtually no different. 1 half-brick in a sock is worth a million votes. But you've still got to pitch in and be one of the little drops. There are multiple borders in the war against working class people and you just do what you can in the ones you're able to.

    PS Just to be clear, none of this is meant in a combative tone. I'm reading this as a friendly back-and-forth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 child)

    And lemmy is thriving because individuals like you and me gave enough of a fuck to shift over to this place.

    I dunno about thriving, but it's here and it's kinda sorta close enough to Reddit that I don't use Reddit anymore. But Reddit still exists. Similarly, GTA 6 will probably break sales records whether I buy it or not.

    The other thing is that conceptualizing it as "voting with your dollars" points out the problem straightforwardly. Some people have millions/billions/trillions to vote with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Alright, so what's the plan?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Where's the protest / riot?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 34 minutes ago

    I mean it's labour day long weekend, I'm sure there's one near you. I don't want to dox myself, but I'll be harassing a local MP with a group sometime this weekend. It's not the whole war but it's pretty high impact for what a dozen people would otherwise be able to do with just votes or dollars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    If there's a new game, we gotta buy it. I want fifa 2027, it will bring me so much satisfaction over fifa 2026.

    Ohhh new ps6 pro? Which is better than my 1000 bucks brand new ps6? We gotta buy it.

    /s

    Sure, we have to enjoy something and spend some money but I can't fathom how people keep spending like that.

    I think I never purchased any new new device or game less than 4 years before my last purchase of an older device or game of the same type. And some have lasted 10 years, or even more, for an e-reader.

    I may be wrong about games but can't think of one atm.

    I think part of the blame is Google's, even before they turned evil: our average attention span is fucking low, and we only want instant gratification now. We used to need to read, to explore in games, to fail and try again before beating the game, before knowing the answer to something, and then suddenly we could magically get the answers we seeked in a matter of seconds.

    It feels to me like speedrunners and challenge-runners of retro games show us how things can be enjoyed way more than just the first playthrough or the second.

    They're enjoying the hell out of a good game, even if old, while most others are seeking the dopamine of new and mostly ephemeral shit.

    I am not part of either group, but I want to be part of the first, in some ways, and never the second.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    All it takes is a large enough chunk. It's happened before. There was a time of noble humans where we walked upright, and we could easily step back into that world even just one at a time

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 days ago

    don’t buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.

    Way ahead of you. And I don't see a point in buying anything from them even if there is a resolution. You don't own the hardware, the software is a moot point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago

    yeah I wish people understood the blackout only works if you keep doing it. a company like Sony isn't gonna panic if people stop playing their games for a week. happy to state I was never interested in their stuff in the first place so I've haven't been giving em money ever. I do wish we could get a bloodborne pc port tho

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago*

    Nobody needs to game on a PlayStation (or play GTA on PC/PlayStation), we need water, food, shelter not GTA6

    At face value this seems true, but I'm not so sure it's that simple. I know, it sounds crazy, but let me explain.

    In life, we obviously need water, food, and shelter. However, we can't spend our entire lives only drinking, eating, and sleeping. There has to be more to life than that, otherwise it will result in increased suffering.

    Without hobbies (yes, gaming is of course a hobby), life would be a lot more dull, and many people would feel it's less worth living. Decreased leisure time/recreational activities time (like time spent gaming) has been linked to increased rates of depression and increased levels of stress. Both of these things can have a profound negative impact on your health and can even result in death.

    So while it seems true, I can't help but think it's also a little bit reductionist. It does seem to downplay the essential nature of having hobbies, of having something you actually enjoy doing in life.

    Then again, you could argue that you don't need a PlayStation or GTA on PC/PlayStation to accomplish this since there's so many other games to play, which is fair. I understand that companies like Sony and Rockstar need to be held accountable for the awful things that they do. I just thought I should point out that leisure, and yes hobbies like gaming, are actually pretty essential in a way, and shouldn't be downplayed in importance.

    I get that this is probably an unpopular take, but I don't think that makes it untrue either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent