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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 28 points 1 day ago

Then stop calling the button purchase and call it rent.

  • source
  • This is why the stop killing games movement exists

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    Simple solution: Piracy. If they won't sell it to you, then steal it.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago*

    Arr me hearties.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 day ago

    if buying isn't owning the piracy isn't stealing.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It says "limited" but does not define what limited is, so you legally paid for nothing guaranteed. You just give them money but they are obligated to give you nothing.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago*

    Not that this gives them a pass, but just to clarify the term: “limited” means you’re only allowed to use the software in the specific ways described by the EULA. The whole purpose of the EULA is to define exactly what “limited” means. In contrast, “unlimited use” would indicate that you’re allowed to use the software however you want unless specifically forbidden by the EULA.

    “Limited” does not mean that they can just make up whatever they want later and say “well that’s what we meant when we said limited.” The EULA describes the agreement you make, and both parties are bound to exactly what is described in that EULA.

    They can decide to change the EULA later and technically you are free to choose whether you want to accept those new terms, but the nasty part is that they can revoke your current license if you decide not to accept their new EULA and you’re just out of luck because you don’t actually own a copy.

    TL;DR it’s a shitty deal either way, but I think it’s important to be accurate. They do define what “limited” means or it wouldn’t be a valid license agreement. That does not imply that the EULA is a good one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 days ago

    The only solace is at least the majority of AAA games coming out now are so ass that i don't want them anyway.

  • source
  • [–] 46 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    AS A CONSUMER YOU MAY HAVE RIGHTS UNDER APPLICABLE LOCAL LAWS THAT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED, LIMITED OR CHANGED. THOSE RIGHTS TAKE PRIORITY OVER ANYTHING IN THESE TERMS.

    So they're saying we should write to our law making representatives and have that changed?

    Sounds like a fucking great idea to me.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    To be fair, i recall Steam and GOG said that in case of a platform shutdown or if a game from your library is delisted, they can provide you a copy of the game files that you can keep and use.

    The Sony policy is much more shady.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    in very limited terms I think Valve might fully remove games (like the crypto miner one) from accounts but other then that if you bought it you own it as far as I've seen with Steam. I have transformers devastation which was delisted, and while the achievements won't really show up on my account iirc, and I can't sell the card drops on the market, I can still install and play it fine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Nah see my other comment. You don't own shit on Steam. In fact the agreement specifically says you may need to use the client and be connected to the Internet in order to even play your games. Like if steam shut down tomorrow and just stopped existing it's very possible they could legally just give you the middle finger and say sucks for you.

    IANAL and there's more to it than just the contract you have with Valve as far as the law goes but the way the contract is written you have no ownership of anything on the platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    I interpret that as Steam covering for some enhittified games on their store that require a constant internet connection.

    For example several games I have in my Steam library work fine offline.

    But the Megaman Battle Network remake subtly requires an internet connection to start the gamea from the title screen.

    Very misleading as the game technically boots offline but you can't leave the title screen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago*

    The Sony policy is much more shady.

    It's not.

    There's a lot more in the agreement but this is the start of the licensing part.

    Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.

    (Emphasis mine)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 217 points 3 days ago (34 children)

    Don't buy PlayStation, got it.

  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • load more comments (34 replies)
    [–] 60 points 2 days ago

    If buying isn't owning, piracy isn;t theft.

  • source
  • [–] 84 points 3 days ago (17 children)

    If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [–] 36 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    If you pirate the games, you actually own them and they can't take them away from you. Funny how that works.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 114 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    obtaining games through unauthorised means

    If games are going to have DRM, collect our data through unauthorized means, and be randomly taken away without our authorization, then exactly what social contract are we upholding?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    Should change the "buy" button to "rent"

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago

    Pretty much all software EULA's are like this. Anything you "buy a license for" certainly. Same as it ever was.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›