Then stop calling the button purchase and call it rent.
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
658 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
87643 readers
3539 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't buy PlayStation, got it.
It's in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.
If it wasn't, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.
Because that's what actually owning software means.
And video games are software.
PlayStation:
The Software is licensed to you, not sold
Windows 95:
The software product is licensed, not sold
https://www.scribd.com/document/478767349/Windows-95-License-Agreement
I know it's a joke no one ever read them...
But you all really never knew this?
Edit:
Don't make me wheel out the 1980s CRT TV for the class...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI
There's always been freeware and shareware (yes, they're different) but if you as an individual paid money for software at any point, you've never owned it.
Businesses can't even justify the expense of "owning" basic stuff like Microsoft Office and collectively spend billions. "Owning" software is fucking expensive, and usually means you coded it.
It’s in the EULA for every piece of software,** including physical.**
Bolded for those that aren't getting it.
Even if you buy a disc, that does not guarantee you can play the game in the future. Often games have to be authenticated on install, and if that authenticating server is no longer online, you can't play the game--even if you have all the files required to play it.
Europe had a whole "Stop Killing Games" initiative that would require companies to unlock games they are no longer supporting, but that mysteriously vanished from the legislative docket after meetings with game companies that organizers weren't invited to.
Stay mad, but you need to be mad at the right things.
load more comments
(11 replies)
I think a lot of the issue is when companies no longer respect their customers and abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers. Valve has the exact same agreement but (most) people don't have an issue with it because they're much better at ensuring you have access to the games you've bought for as long as possible.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
if buying isn't owning the piracy isn't stealing.
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?
then exactly what social contract are we upholding
The one where criminals, thieves, scammers, and pedophiles are free to commit whatever crimes they want, as long as they operate on behalf of capital.
If buying isn't owning...
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Yeah, first you have to have representatives that write laws in your favor.
load more comments
(3 replies)
If buying isn't owning, piracy isn;t theft.
This is why the stop killing games movement exists
If you pirate the games, you actually own them and they can't take them away from you. Funny how that works.
"Within their legal toolbox to take them" and "practical ability to take them" are wildly different.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Arr me hearties.
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.
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.
The only solace is at least the majority of AAA games coming out now are so ass that i don't want them anyway.
Sad really. Been a PlayStation fan since I was a kid. PS1 on Christmas w/ Metal Gear Solid is easily one of my favorite core memories. As with everything else in modern era, these companies have really lost their bearing and the spark / soul that made them cherished through most of our lifetimes.
I've switched to PC gaming long ago so I'm not really in their target audience anymore, but when the day comes that I want a machine for the living room it'll certainly not be a PS.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Simple solution: Piracy. If they won't sell it to you, then steal it.
🏴☠️
They are going to stop using 'buy' and 'own' in their advertising then, right?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Luckily the EULA doesn't apply when obtaining it through unauthorized means since the EULA would never have been accepted upon a purchase that didn't happen.
(It is though copyright infringement, but you still have more ownership over the bytes on your own disk since DRM would have been removed or neutered)
load more comments
(7 replies)
license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use
Does "non-commercial" mean all those people who make money by playing games on a monetized livestream, posting monetized gameplay videos, or playing e-sports for prizes are filthy pirates?
Nintendo's tried arguing this for decades
load more comments
(3 replies)
Steam users: First time?
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.
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
load more comments
(2 replies)
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)
Sony can go fuck themselves. Honestly if they are going to make purchases this restrictive then I guess I won't buy them anymore.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Should change the "buy" button to "rent"
Pretty much all software EULA's are like this. Anything you "buy a license for" certainly. Same as it ever was.
Just a reminder that this goes for the OS on the PlayStation too.
You don't really own hardware that you don't control either*.
* yeah, you do own the hardware, but if you can't use it without a software license is it really yours?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Reminder that the same EULA applies to the software on a physical disk, too. The difference is you will still have the disk if they decide to revoke your ability to run that disk.
load more comments
(4 replies)
True. I don't own any Sony games. But that's because I don't buy Sony games in the first place. Not because I got rug pulled.
Sony’s EULA has always said this.
EULA's have been saying it since before discs were invented...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement
If any EULA didn't say that, everyone who bought it could sell their own copies for $1 less then they bought it. Eventually the price of every piece of software no matter what it was, would be the hosting costs based on sheer size.
What's wild is so many people never knew this, and are hyper fixated on the wrong part.
Back in the day updates just weren't really a thing. There may be additional software (DLC except you bought it physical) in between editions, but for the most part the program was the program. So as long as you kept your install discs, you could always install that program.
That is what you were buying, the physical means to install the program, and that has always been just a license and definitely not duplicatable. Selling used games/software was valid because you're handing over the physical means to install/run that software.
The parallel would be selling a "used digital game" and it disappears from your library. And Sony could even take 10% or whatever as a fee, even tho it would cost money.
Consumers could trust that any used game was 100% the exact same as new tho, there's be zero advantage to every buying new if a single used license was cheaper.
That would be free market capitalist software, but the oligarchs don't want.
To the seas. How does this conflict with the digital media copyright protection acts
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›