This is actually state law in CA. People reported Sony to California's Attorney General, who basically said they weren't going to do anything about it.

Unfortunately the law is only as useful as its enforcement.

This is the only regulation I feel is reasonable. When it comes to luxury goods like video games, it doesn’t make sense to dictate how the product is offered. But by all means insist they’re clear with what the transaction type is.

I can imagine the natural competitive wedge where GOG can say “Buy Game” but Steam has to say “Lease Game” on their buttons.

It's a non-transferable lease that can be canceled at any time by the issuer.

The real problem is that most of society still thinks of games as a piece of physical media that you combine with a player that allows you to play the game. In that world you have a liscense to the software, and a physical token which is transferable and therefore valuable.

I'd argue that we need to decouple transferability and cancel ability from physical media. If this were to happen then the word "Buy" makes sense precisely the same way it used to with physical media. Of course more provision needs to be provided for live service games regarding cancel ability.

I even take issue with "Purchase license". Shouldn't it be "Lease License"? Purchase implies that it can't be revoked, no?

Very much matching my thinking on the argument the plaintiffs are making. Sony just needs to change the labels on a few buttons.

But for some reason they don't want to and are willing to go to court on the matter. As you say, using the word "Buy" is stronger than "License", but it seems a strange hill to die upon.

Then the button becomes License and everyone knows that's the one you click to buy.

As much as I empathize with (and even support) the reasoning, I wonder if it would have a tangible effect. Is there anyone who was gonna click "buy" but not "license" (presuming they relabel the button and everything else is the same)?

Someone in past threads mentioned that many digital sales website in fact no longer use "buy" anymore, and instead deniably implicate purchases by such expressions as "Add to Cart", "Proceed to Checkout", and "Pay".

Yes. "buy" and "purchase" are redefined in the EULA

And if you buy a license, it should either have a fixed term that is clearly communicated, or should be forever, and transferrable, not "untile we decide we don't want you to have it anymore".

I would have spent much less money if I knew they could revoke the license at their own discretion

people tend to have short memories though.

late 90s and early 00s - even while growing up in the 3rd world - you bought or pirated a software license.

so we've never really purchased or bought software.

We won't know without A/B testing, but I suspect aesthetics mean nothing here and, for example, someone isn't going to turn down playing GTA VI if the only button between them and the game says "purchase license" as opposed to "buy".

I'd rather have my rights as a consumer protected or get something tangible for giving them up (like cheaper games) than introduce even more legalese into online shops.

this would wreck a lot of the marketing efforts and probably be bad for their bottom line in the long run

I'm surprised the Sony team isn't freaked out about this

I agree but that's not even enough. If you only lease the game, they will also need to tell you exactly for how long you lease it. Any reasonable person would have an issue with a lease for an indefinite time period that can be canceled at any time without refund, it doesn't sound acceptable at all.

This is the law in some places. Companies solved the problem by not using any buying verbs at all. The button you click to not-buy the app says "$3.99" or "Add to cart". When you go to the cart the next step is "Pay now" or "Continue to checkout".

It just says the site has been seized by the FBI.

GOG is better, but I still really don't like buying video games that I don't own (ie can't resell). Come to think of it, I've only ever digitally purchased one game above $5, Minecraft, and Microsoft ended up stealing that from me.

I'm keeping my ps4 as long as the hardware still runs because at least I can still buy discs for it. I have a nice collection of high-replay-value single player games. I know discs are just physical licenses at this point in time, not actual software on disc like the old school days.

But even with all this nonsense from Sony I don't think they'll cross the rubicon of terminating licenses that come on physical discs for their older consoles. If they do, I hear you can jailbreak ps4s :)

You're literally describing the steam machine/steam deck. Also, bazzite is an immuable distro based on silverblue that does pretty much exactly what you described.

I know there's some issues with big picture mode and Nvidia, but that's an Nvidia driver problem, not a limitation of the platform.

Steam says hi: https://store.steampowered.com/hardware/

Though one could argue that Linux GPU support is as good as it is because of Steam.

> I wonder if anyone will ever have the guts to enter the gaming console market using open source as a base.

It's definitely possible, but I suspect that Valve (or some other major player) must first prove the concept to be viable for a business.

e.g. The Steam Deck wasn't the first PC gaming handheld made, but it was the one that proved there was a viable market, which led to a bunch of competitors following Valve's lead.

The Steam Machine, unfortunately, botched the execution due to high pricing. If pricing had been good, I'm guessing that it too could have been the proof-of-concept needed to jump start the market.

Like the Steam Machine? Or do you mean open hardware too?

Is this not the Steam Machine? Provides a console-like experience with its controller and SteamOS.

> IMO the better thing is to force these companies to dump this mindset

IMO this is a strictly idealistic view in a world where only a very small vocal minority actually seems to care. The vast majority of people will continue to reward these companies with their wallets, so they have no incentive to change course.

Yeah I've already decided there won't be any new Sony consoles in my household. Games are so big now I can't possibly download all my games at once so if the store goes down I lose all those games permanently and $70+ for AAA games that are really hit and miss in the "fun" category is no longer worth it to me. The PS5 was also pretty darn expensive when it came out and I can't say I've played too many PS5 exclusive games since I bought it. Most of the PS5 catalog has been indie games available on Steam or ported PS4 games... and with Sony reportedly releasing a new console next year they are clearly high on their own supply.

Never thought I'd have this opinion, but the gaming industry as is needs to crash/burn and rebuild itself. So many downright wild anti-consumer things happening in the last 10 years and studios have completely lost sight of how to keep themselves out of bankruptcy.

I like the graphics horsepower of my PS5, but a lot of the games I play, I'm just not sure I would notice the difference between it and my old PS4. Resolution is the biggest thing, since I didn't have a PS4 Pro and it'd be limited to 1080p on my TV.

It will be fine.

Gaming as a whole is a shadow of what it used to be, specifically because it has been tailored to the masses who have no real opinion on any of this other then they want to play what their friends play.

> What I don't understand is why Sony is the one being targeted for this when this has been the case with any digital purchase for 20 years?

Examples: literally two days ago Sony permanently removed access to over 500 movies for people who had "purchased" them, and only a couple months ago Sony announced their plan to permanently shutter physical media production for Playstation.

I agree with you that it's a systemic issue but it also doesn't surprise me that Sony is seen as the lead boogeyman. I think if you asked the average gamer what their opinion of Valve's business practices was vs. Sony you'd get a very different answer even if the legalese in the TOS is similar.

> Where were the boycots then.

1. steam does not have a monopoly on distribution rights for PC games. if steam were to go bankrupt publishers could honor your keys and even other marketplaces could do it. steam themselves let you bring your own key.

2. steam has been a benevolent marketplace leader, even though DRM itself plays against customers, the rest of the stuff they pushed while leading, like game sharing, play and refund, offline playing, are pro consumer.

3. why would your knee jerk reaction to this is pointing a finger to steam, what's your endgame?

Valve killed the previously thriving boxed game industry two decades ago and people can't get over how much they love everything about Valve. Sony follows 20 years later (in a world where internet is faster than installing from BluRay and games are outgrowing three layer discs) and people lose their mind.

There's more noise about this than Microsoft's mass layoffs at the game companies they bought up.

> when you compare this situation to PC since there is choice there, but not when it comes to this

They may not be playing in the same league as Steam, but PC folks do have the choice of GoG and itch, which both sell DRM-free binaries.

I think it's because they're a huge player in the space and the PS5 appears to be the dominant player in the console space this generation. This affects so many people in their faces right now, where as the switch to "buying" movies on an online platform was more gradual as it was a new platform offering and not one that had had ownership from day one (arguably since 1994 with the PS1).

So in short, I think it's because they're the big guy making a very visible change to the broader public, instead of a new platform with a new way of doing things (how Steam was).

Even disc-based games in boxes have mostly required online connectivity to download most game files for a long time.

It doesn't make it right but I feel like the writing has been on the wall for ages.

When You rootkit people, it tends to be unforgettable..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

Sony announced they're not going to print more physical discs for games. So far no one else in the big three has confirmed they're doing this, so obviously the controversy goes to them

I think the difference here is that sony is in the middle of taking down their ps3 store, and while they say you'll be able to download the games for the "foreseeable future" I don't think many folks have a great deal of confidence in this being true for for that long.

Valve has spent the better part of 20 years fostering a good relations with the gaming community and pretty much every gamer has a great deal of confidence that they'll protect your purchases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA

Because they did a whole marketing stunt over it. Granted it was more than a decade ago, so probably just a remnants of old console war.

Nintendo is the only one still selling video games that you own practically speaking, ie you own the cartridge and it has the game on it or at least has the key. Unless I'm out of the loop on that.

Sony is just handling this stupidly.

What they should do is just stay silent and stay the course. Everyone fucking knows in 10 years time physical media will be dead and all of this is water under the bridge.

I think I'll vote with my VPN protected piracy.

If I'm not buying a thing, but instead a limited license to a thing, then I don't care about buying that thing anymore and I'll just take it.

I doubt I'll be alone and with Denuvo being regularly defeated on release day, I'm not too worried about availability.

It's nothing like democracy though, and the concept of paying (or not paying) to vote is antithetical to a democratic process. We should not confuse the two.

The whales have votes orders of magnitude larger than mine.

Valve is also pretty amenable to adding third-party games to the box as well. It's trivial to add games from GOG using Heroic and play them alongside regular Steam games.

My main "game console" is a NixOS box running Jovian, and I have made oodles of Flakes that I use to make custom non-Steam games that launch deterministically, and as far as I'm aware, Valve is perfectly fine with this (not that I particularly care if they are).

Pirating is basically unlicensed use.

When have gamers held firm in a boycott situation? A lot of tough talk that crumbles when a new hat is released.

There was that infamous picture of the Steam Group, something like, “Never Buy CoD XYZ”. Half of the group members were playing it.

> Gamers will refuse to buy a PS6 if there's not an ironclad guarantee that they own the games they purchase, be it digital or disc form.

I highly doubt that. I’d say 99%, probably more, won’t care either way. People barely care on PC, and people on consoles are generally used to more abuse.

I think that this could end up true if the next Xbox really is "just a PC".

The PC gaming ecosystem is a powerful selling point, especially due to the existence of Steam, emulators, modding, etc.

Windows really needs more refinement and polish though, the current experience is mostly unacceptable for a living room PC.

A next-gen Steam Machine would likely be a better competitor to the PS6, it doesn't have the reputational baggage that Xbox and Microsoft currently has.

Microsoft gaming division i.e. the Xbox will disappear before Sony goes anywhere. Same thing goes from Nintendo every year people/analysts insist that both those companies are in trouble and will die off because of the way they do business but here they are still successful and the main reason, they’re successful is that they concentrate on gameplay in comparison to their competition.

What's interesting is that the item you linked says "game key card" and "90 GB - Full game download via internet required"

also interesting, in california vendors are required to say "you are buying a license" unless you can download the media you are purchasing.

I don't know if that game qualifies.

for kindle books, amazon says:

"By placing your order, you're purchasing a license to the content and you agree to the Kindle Store Terms of Use."

but some books actually could say "buy" like this one:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DMZC4VPQ

Because when you "purchase a license" you can actually download the book in epub/pdf format

(this specific book, not all books)

There doesn't seem to be a way to determine kindle books that you can download in epub/pdf before you "license" them.

You are buying a copy though, and would be expected to have the right to resell it. So digital stores go out of their way to "license" the copyrighted work instead of selling you a copy.

I have been thinking about this lately, and figured that another difference with classic media was the "live service" model, where games receive updates.

You can't take for granted that a copy comes with updates, so I guess that as a middle ground, publishers could license updates (and online multiplayer) & sell copies of the game. Sell your copy, fine, but if you want updates or multiplayer, you have to purchase a subscription again. This would make more sense to me, but may be difficult to communicate and implement.

I have to admit that I'm pretty impressed that GOG has managed to convince a lot of the big brand-name players, (including Sony! [1]) that a DRM-free way of distributing games can be viable. If there's no DRM then there's nothing stopping you from keeping a backup on your own that they can't take away.

[1] https://www.gog.com/en/game/god_of_war

Don’t worry. You can’t “buy” them anyway!

The important bit is that you can sell the CD or cassette or record.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that you do not own a license when you buy a CD or cassette, you own a copy (strictly speaking, a "phonorecord" in US law). Copyright doesn't regulate the sorts of typical uses that the owner of a copy would engage in, so a license is not required. When you see those warnings on VHS/DVD/Blu-ray that they're licensed only for private home viewing, what they're telling you is that you don't have a license to do anything controlled by copyright such as broadcasting, publicly exhibiting, or reproducing it.

Software is significantly more complicated and gets into issues of physical permanence/transience and specific exemptions/limitations to normal copyright law (see e.g. 17 USC 117).

If I buy a game - i.e. I am on a store page title "Game Name" not "Limited Revokable License for Game Name", and I click "buy", then I expect to own a copy of the game or the right to a copy of the game (in perpetuity), not a limited revokable license to play the game.

Yes, Sony can revoke a license. It is right in the terms of the license.

We own nothing but the right to access the game so long as the rights holder chooses to permit it. This means I could buy a game on Tuesday and the rights holder could render it unplayable on Wednesday with no recourse.

The "Buy" versus "License" question doesn't really resolve this. Sony is right in one sense that we all know we are licensing. What needs protection, probably requiring new or revised laws, is some sort of consumer right to get value out of a game license before the vendor renders it unplayable.

The difference is that no license holder can force you to give them back. You. Actually. Own. Them.

You might think, like, you've had some eureka moment, but it's all corporate BS.

You can BUY a license to something, but it's still a license. You don't own the actual game unless you buy the rights to it from the publisher. The rights to a game can cost millions, and only then, do you truly, ever own it.

It's actually an interesting question there. Because I've been wondering if I buy something in taking ownership of it, whereas if I steal something I am still taking ownership of it without compensation. However if I'm not buying something but merely licensing it the wouldn't that mean that technically I'm not stealing it I'm only violating the terms of the license of it, which is now a civil not criminal matter.

Arguably, piracy has never been theft as "theft" means to deprive an entity of their item/copy and downloading does not destroy the original. The usual counter-argument is that piracy deprives them of a sale, but that is not necessarily true and it doesn't really fit the meaning of "theft".

Don’t worry, DRM eliminates the possibility of piracy since the content is gated behind an account.

Go ahead and copy/distribute the game client, even reverse-engineer the server and launch a private instance.

You still don’t have the content.

In my view this is faulty logic --

Buying in this case is "buying", and is a redefined term inside the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony accepts your money for a license to access their published video games, and so, it does not mean buying in the mundane sense of physical goods.

I would suggest this workaround: If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's, you must proactively declare -- in your mind at the minimum -- and accept without two-way agreement on behalf of everyone else whom you steal from, that theft means what you choose to define it as at any moment. Do that, then that logic is solid.