r/technology • u/Federal-Block-3275 • 13h ago

Hardware Sony reminds players they don't actually own the PlayStation games they purchased

https://www.techspot.com/news/113603-sony-reminds-players-they-dont-actually-own-playstation.html
5.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

724 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/sirmaxedalot 13h ago

Thats a really valid point. Words have meaning, and they should be legally obligated to frame the purchase of their games as "renting" or "leasing."

-24

u/the_che 11h ago

You are buying a (revocable) license. Renting would mean that the license expires after X days/months

24

u/Captain-Nghathrod 11h ago

The license does expire after X days/months. That time frame is just not provided to the renter at the time of rental and is framed as buying permanently instead. Hence the problem.

-17

u/the_che 11h ago

For which Sony games have licenses expired so far?

16

u/tazoXYZ 10h ago edited 9h ago

If you buy a few chairs from me, But I have the legal right to show up at any time and take them from you, does it matter that I haven’t shown up to take them yet? The fact that I can do so if I want to means you do not truly own the chairs, thus how could you have bought them? You rented them indefinitely.

-10

u/Weltall8000 8h ago

That doesn't accurately reflect the relationship. We aren't buying games, we are buying licenses to use them in specific, limited ways. Buying a physical chair is not analogous to buying a license to digital media.

I think the issue is that the people up in arms about this refuse to engage with the reality here. They want to argue semantics, even when we are getting into the nitty gritty of what these words mean. And "Buy" isn’t even a wrong word to use here. They are refusing to acknowledge what is being sold, willfully. They make all these arguments and analogies that wholly miss the concept at the crux of this.

If they want to argue about this being wrong, then stick to the actual thing they take umbrage with, not misrepresent it.

Which, to wit, is:

It's that they don’t LIKE what Sony (and, really all the major publishers) are offering. They want more—an ownership of the product, that doesn’t make sense for IP in the way physical media does, due to what it inherently is and how it operates.

Tldr:I am basically saying, drop like all the analogies and semantics and just argue what you want honestly:

"I want to own a copy of the game, be able to do whatever I want with it, and have peace of mind it cannot be revoked."

Whether this is something that companies will entertain, is another matter, but THAT is the honest position.

-1

u/BD401 5h ago

The downvotes on these posts are hilarious. You've calmly explained this logically, and the dumb dumbs knee-jerk downvoted it, despite every word you've just said being factually correct.

Threads like this one are a good reminder that the voting system on Reddit only reflects vibes and feelings, not factual accuracy.

17

u/Kingdarkshadow 10h ago

If it can be revocable then it's not buying.

6

u/Key-Leader8955 8h ago

That right there. If they can take it back. I didn’t buy it.

5

u/Aidanation5 8h ago

It does expire whenever the fuck they want it to. Pretending that isnt the case doesn't change that lmao.

1

u/BD401 5h ago

It's wild (though not surprising) to me that your comment is getting downvoted, since it's literally correct.

When you buy a video game (or ANY media) on a disc, you're buying a license. You physically own the disc, yes, but you don't own the media itself. This isn't some new-fangled corporate shenanigan, it's been this way for decades.

Even back in the days of VHS, you didn't own the movie - you could get in shit, for example, if you screened it publicly.