Support NeoGAF

[aclar00]

Off topic...but wait until tou have to rent AC in your car after you've "bought" the car....

Shit, one day youre gonna have to start paying for day one patches probably. Most game companies are publicly traded and ate beholding to investors so they have to nickel and dime the consumer any way they can.

Shit, dont want to give them ideas, but watch 1080p/30fps be the standard when you buy, i mean lease a game and then you have to pay a premium price for 4k or 60fps

 

[midnightAI]

Yeah, Sony is super transparent that you're not purchasing digital software.

You are purchasing a copy of the software and rights to use it. It's no different to music or movies in that regard, you don't own the underlying code, art or music that's why you can't (legally, depending on the terms) copy it and sell (or even give away free) those copies.

Basically, they are covered on the terms and conditions which you should read before making purchase (nobody does, but that's where the legal jargon is and they do tell you to read them first, you are agreeing to them by clicking Purchase, SouthPark did an entire episode on it about Apples terms. They are annoying but legally it's valid)

 

[Sinfulgore]

This law seems pointless. Almost every game on a digital storefront can be permanently downloaded so this law won't apply to most games. Even most games that get delisted from a storefront can still be downloaded by people who purchased them.

 

[Draugoth]

Damn, companies must have paid lawmakers some really good money for this

 

[Sooner]

So some line will be reworded in the ToS that none of us read anyway.

 

[Buggy Loop]

This is sooooooo convenient! We now have confirmation that we own nothing and pc gaming master race says we love it!

But on PC if they would ever remove my ownership of my digital goods... I have other means..

 

[Physiognomonics]

and they can patch it in to future backwards compatibility and remove that.

hell, they can update your existing OS on PS4 or PS5 to prevent the system from booting older games if they REALLY wanted to. even if you have them as physical media and are running them in offline mode. They could put the patch in as part of a regular, non-game specific update and it would be there waiting until you try launching the game. Digital or media. Online or offline.

They did that for P.T. at launch. The game was working on PS5 before the first day one patch.

 

[Shtef]

I would love to go back to physical media but nowadays games are coming out incomplete and require so many updates I am not sure if its worth it.

 

[Bojanglez]

But on PC if they would ever remove my ownership of my digital goods... I have other means..

This is why they want streaming to become popular

 

[ResilientBanana]

This is what I've been saying for forever. YOU DON'T OWN SHIT. Disc or not.

 

[Syphon Filter]

This is sooooooo convenient! We now have confirmation that we own nothing and pc gaming master race says we love it!

the gog store sells games with no drm and pc gamers own those games. steam is drm but there are other options on pc.

 

[Bojanglez]

A digital license can be revoked at any time, plus the store could pull it down or just disappear, the licence on the disc is yours forever.
Nice try though

A disc license can be stolen or lost in a house fire at any time.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

This is what I've been saying for forever. YOU DON'T OWN SHIT. Disc or not.

You DO OWN DRM free games though. You can download your DRM free games from GOG and then you can make backup copies and store them on a thumbdrive or any other external device for years.

Same for physical games, I dare those MF publishers come to my house and try to take the copies of the games that I physically OWN.

 

[Esppiral]

A disc license can be stolen or lost in a house fire at any time.

Dude just give up, really

 

[Arachnid]

Honestly? I don't even really care.

Singleplayer games are one-and-done to me, so they can revoke my license after I'm done with the game for all I care.

Multiplayer games are a bit different, I suppose, but it comes down to the same thing.

It's a single player game. Why does it even need a server? For dumbass leaderboards to show who finished the quickest? I would shit myself if someone took my Resident Evil 4 away and I couldn't replay it anymore.

Glad it works for you I guess. They've been slowly trying to push this in for a decade+ and it seems to be taking.

On the plus side, at least loot boxes are dead and gone.

 

[ResilientBanana]

You DO OWN DRM free games though. You can download your DRM free games from GOG and then you can make backup copies and store them on a thumbdrive or any other external device for years.

Same for physical games, I dare those MF publishers come to my house and try to take the copies of the games that I physically OWN.

Technically you are still purchasing a license. But DRM free is nice.

 

[SmokedMeat]

But on PC if they would ever remove my ownership of my digital goods... I have other means..

Yep. PC has the ultimate option if things get ugly.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

One of the reasons I only buy digital at heavy discount. I take into consideration the lack of resale value and risk due to any digital purchase basically being a long term license rental.

Any console platform that completely abandons physical media will lose me as a customer, and it's fine because my current backlog is so huge, I'll never be able to get through everything before I die.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Yep. PC has the ultimate option if things get ugly.

Well, technically you could hack your console. I know people who hack all their old consoles once support ends

 

[ReBurn]

PS4 and PS5 can be played completely offline. You don't even need a PSN account if you never connect it to the Internet

With the introduction of PS5 slim(mer) this is no longer exactly true. If you put a disc drive in the PS5 slim you have to connect to the internet at least once to be able to use the drive. It's completely offline after that unless you install a different drive.

 

[FoxMcChief]

wow err nice thank you?

How about laws to ensure digital preservation instead?

Where’s the profit in that? They would rather sell you a remaster.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I think the Switch doesn't need accounts for any physical games, just plug and play.

That's mainly the only physical I buy these days and a few PS5 games here and there.

There are some switch games that require downloads because the game developer decided to be cheapskates and only order the smallest game cartridge for their game.

 

[Sinfulgore]

It's a single player game. Why does it even need a server? For dumbass leaderboards to show who finished the quickest? I would shit myself if someone took my Resident Evil 4 away and I couldn't replay it anymore.

Glad it works for you I guess. They've been slowly trying to push this in for a decade+ and it seems to be taking.

On the plus side, at least loot boxes are dead and gone.

It's not about need. When you create or finance a product you get to decide everything about the product because it's yours. The consumer then gets to decide if they want to buy it. That's how it works.

 

[Bojanglez]

Dude just give up, really

It's true though

 

[Arachnid]

It's not about need. When you create or finance a product you get to decide everything about the product because it's yours. The consumer then gets to decide if they want to buy it. That's how it works.

Does the person who "created" my mug still own it? What about the author of my physical copy of A Game of Thrones?

The only reason this shit flies is because some people are willing to overlook it due to it being digital in nature. The only reason it's overlooked is because 99% of people won't read the little clause that say's "you don't own this, give me $70 idiot". Most people don't know they aren't buying to own, which makes it easier for companies to pull this. It's the flimsiest shit.

Either way, I'll just pirate or wait for a $10 sale for most games. It's annoying, but it's a super easy fix for me.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

There are some switch games that require downloads because the game developer decided to be cheapskates and only order the smallest game cartridge for their game.

And by god I hate them for it!

 

[FoxMcChief]

And by god I hate them for it!

Yeah. It was always bullshit. I don’t personally own a game like that. It tends to be the greedier publishers like Take-Two.

 

[LostDonkey]

It's not gonna change anything, just means they have to be clear about it now. It's been this way for years but people were in denial it seems.

It's the whole point of digital stores and service games, you don't own anything so when they switch it off you're forced to move onto the next thing or completely go without.

Sad but true. (Also a great song that)

 

[Gexxy1]

Owning physical discs in 2024 doesn’t mean you own anything either. Not when you need accounts for everything. Ownership has just been an illusion for the last 15+ years.

I can sell or freely give away a disk whether it's playable or not.

 

[aclar00]

You are purchasing a copy of the software and rights to use it. It's no different to music or movies in that regard, you don't own the underlying code, art or music that's why you can't (legally, depending on the terms) copy it and sell (or even give away free) those copies.

Basically, they are covered on the terms and conditions which you should read before making purchase (nobody does, but that's where the legal jargon is and they do tell you to read them first, you are agreeing to them by clicking Purchase, SouthPark did an entire episode on it about Apples terms. They are annoying but legally it's valid)

Dont know how things are now and im more going off memory, but in general werent you able to make a back of toyr music CDs as long as it wasnt for resell and it was for personal use (U.S.)?

Im all for making distinctions clearer, plain and simple. Not exactly a great analogy (maybe if Tesla though?), but id like to think of it like buying or leasing a car, except you dont exactly know the length of your lease agreement with software. Technically could be a day or two.

 

[Nydius]

Honestly, this is something out of California that I agree with. Most digital stores already tell you it’s just a license you can lose at any time but they bury that shit in tiny print, several paragraphs down into the terms of use that people usually skip.

Make that knowledge front and center so people understand. I doubt it will do much to change people’s purchasing habits but they shouldn’t have to dig through endless legalese to understand their rights (or lack thereof).

Dont know how things are now and im more going off memory, but in general werent you able to make a back of toyr music CDs as long as it wasnt for resell and it was for personal use (U.S.)?

Yes. Still can. BUT this only applies if you maintain ownership of the original copy. If you get rid of the original copy, you’re supposed to destroy any copies as well. Not that anyone followed that, mind you, but that’s the way the law is worded.

 

[Sinfulgore]

Does the person who "created" my mug still own it? What about the author of my physical copy of A Game of Thrones?

The only reason this shit flies is because some people are willing to overlook it due to it being digital in nature. The only reason it's overlooked is because 99% of people won't read the little clause that say's "you don't own this, give me $70 idiot". Most people don't know they aren't buying to own, which makes it easier for companies to pull this. It's the flimsiest shit.

Either way, I'll just pirate or wait for a $10 sale for most games. It's annoying, but it's a super easy fix for me.

Questions like those are pointless because ownership has different meanings depending on the context. The reason companies can do this is because for most people "ownership" in this context isn't important. Doesn't matter if you buy a physical copy of Starfield, play it through gamepass, buy it digitally through steam or "borrow" a copy from a friend, the experience with the game will be exactly the same and that's what people care about it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

And their $999 and below law let's people say, "I'm just forever borrowing it, not buying it."

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yeah, Sony is super transparent that you're not purchasing digital software.

Your purchasing a license. Even above the Confirm Purchase button, it lists a link to the terms. Now could the font be bigger, yes, all companies are guilty of this.

 

[aclar00]

Your purchasing a license. Even above the Confirm Purchase button, it lists a link to the terms. Now could the font be bigger, yes, all companies are guilty of this.

Now it will say "Confirm Lease" lol. May actually help to reduce blind purchases.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Now it will say "Confirm Lease" lol. May actually help to reduce blind purchases.

Or, Confirm License Purchase

 

[Arachnid]

Questions like those are pointless because ownership has different meanings depending on the context. The reason companies can do this is because for most people "ownership" in this context isn't important. Doesn't matter if you buy a physical copy of Starfield, play it through gamepass, buy it digitally through steam or "borrow" a copy from a friend, the experience with the game will be exactly the same and that's what people care about it.

That's exactly my point. The fact that ownership changes based on context is stupid, because most people buying here don't actually understand that context or implications. They don't know they don't own the game they're dropping 110-200 dollars on for the ultimate collectors edition.

When they buy that mug, they know it's theirs. They associate that with all major purchases that aren't subscription based. The companies sell games to you under a less transparent context so you associate it with buying that mug, and they know it. It's underhanded as fuck. Especially since that wasn't even the case a few years ago. It was a quiet change. You don't see how shady that is? There's a reason this law is passing to make that more transparent.

These companies will pull whatever they can get away with.

EDIT: Hell, xbox straight up says "own". How does the context make sense here? It's a flat out lie.

Also, if we're buying a license, licenses expire. They should make that expiration date completely transparent. THAT would fit the context of what their doing. Do you think any of these companies will tell you "buy this game for X amount of years"? Obviously not, because they're banking on ignorance. Hell, down the line if this becomes the norm, they can use it to justify re-releases of the same game since no one owns it past a certain date. This could and would get progressively worse.

 

[poppabk]

Does the person who "created" my mug still own it? What about the author of my physical copy of A Game of Thrones?

I mean sort of? You can't read the book you 'own' and record it and then sell the recording. You can't even legally read it to a large group of people for free. The author or publisher owns the content of the book, you own that physical copy.
There are different types of ownership, digital has just made that more apparent because the vistigal physical copy is completely removed.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I would'nt celebrate this too much, everyone. Look how it's worded.

The legislation will force digital storefronts to tell customers they’re just getting a license to use the digital media, rather than suggesting they actually own it.

This can have the potential to put more power in the hands of big-tech where they can yank your "license that you don't own" at any time.

At least before, where the language was that you owned that license, they were covered by laws that prevented that from happening, now, it seems all the power is in the hands of the licensee, since you as a consumer don't own shit via this new law.

You'll own nothing and be happy.

 

[Crayon]

Add to your wishlist

See store page

Try free demo

Acquire rights to use the Software are granted by license only, and you are not granted any ownership rights, title, or interests in the Software. SIE and its licensors retain all intellectual property rights in the Software. All use of or access to the Software is subject to this Agreement's terms and applicable intellectual property laws. Except as this Agreement expressly grants, SIE and its licensors reserve all rights in the Software Now! $69.99

 

[Mattyp]

Why do digital bros always need to feel the need to defend themselves to death. Do what pleases you, you own nothing it’s fine.

 

[sachos]

Can you imagine playing any Xbox/PS game without a patch? Seems like at least the last 10 years no game had actually shipped finished and worked properly on the duo after going “gold.”

Having the game on disc and the option to play the console offline doesnt mean people are actually playing them offline or not updating to latest patch. It is just nice knowing you have the option to play your games even if Sony servers catch on fire.

Also obligatory link https://www.doesitplay.org/ in every thread about physical/digital games to stop the misinformation spreading. Most physical games run fine offline. If the game is fully complete on disc/cart then you own it, period.

 

[Sinfulgore]

That's exactly my point. The fact that ownership changes based on context is stupid, because most people buying here don't actually understand that context or implications. They don't know they don't own the game they're dropping 110-200 dollars on for the ultimate collectors edition.

When they buy that mug, they know it's theirs. They associate that with all major purchases that aren't subscription based. The companies sell games to you under a less transparent context so you associate it with buying that mug, and they know it. It's underhanded as fuck. Especially since that wasn't even the case a few years ago. It was a quiet change. You don't see how shady that is? There's a reason this law is passing to make that more transparent.

These companies will pull whatever they can get away with.

EDIT: Hell, xbox straight up says "own". How does the context make sense here? It's a flat out lie.

Also, if we're buying a license, licenses expire. They should make that expiration date completely transparent. THAT would fit the context of what their doing. Do you think any of these companies will tell you "buy this game for X amount of years"? Obviously not, because they're banking on ignorance. Hell, down the line if this becomes the norm, they can use it to justify re-releases of the same game since no one owns it past a certain date. This could and would get progressively worse.

It's not stupid. It's common for words to have different meanings in different contexts. If someone pays for the ultimate edition of a game to get all the content the ultimate edition comes with and they get all of it, where's the issue?

The mug example is silly, buying a mug(a physical item), is not the same as buying a digital item.

It's not a lie at all. You can access that game through gamepass or buy it to own it. Ownership of digital items works similarly to financing a car or buying a house. Do you own your house when you buy it? Yes, but ownership is based on the terms and conditions you signed. Don't pay your mortgage or car payment, you lose ownership. While the terms and conditions for digital goods are different the concept is exactly the same. You own the digital item based on the terms and conditions you agreed to whatever they may be.

And again none of this matters because the average gamer doesn't care about any of this. The average gamer just wants to buy a game and play it. Whether you want to label that as ownership or renting or licensing or whatever is not important.

 

[Nydius]

This can have the potential to put more power in the hands of big-tech where they can yank your "license that you don't own" at any time.

They already had that power. This changes nothing except where they have to disclose it’s a license. Currently they bury it in legalese. Now they’ll have to put it front and center.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

... a step in the right direction, but what they should be doing is fighting to ensure that digital games aren't merely just "licenses"

They will always be licenses. If you actually had ownership of the game you could do whatever you want with it such as make an unlimited number of copies and give them away or even sell them. How do people not understand this?

 

[64bitmodels]

If you actually had ownership of the game you could do whatever you want with it such as make an unlimited number of copies and give them away or even sell them.

Like this isn't a common thing with physical games

 

[BlitzerRadic]

Like this isn't a common thing with physical games

Are you suggesting you own the game because its on a disc?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Also obligatory link https://www.doesitplay.org/ in every thread about physical/digital games to stop the misinformation spreading. Most physical games run fine offline. If the game is fully complete on disc/cart then you own it, period.

That site doesn't include a lot of releases that require internet. It's a great resource for checking if the disc you're purchasing comes with caveats, not very good for using in internet arguments.

 

[PendekarRajawali]

if buying isn't owning pirating isn't stealing™

 

[DeepEnigma]

They already had that power. This changes nothing except where they have to disclose it’s a license. Currently they bury it in legalese. Now they’ll have to put it front and center.

Currently you own the license in the purchase. Meaning, they can't take that license away unless they refund you. More often than not, they won't revoke the license, ever, since you purchased ownership of said license.

This law now opens up the language that you DON'T OWN the license, merely renting it. It can seemingly now be revoked even without refund.

It's no longer a purchase, but now a lease the way they're describing it.