this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
604 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

87742 readers
3618 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 220 points 1 day ago (3 children)

granted limited access to software that can be revoked at any moment.

If it is that, then it may not be called a purchase. Simple.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 149 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Turns out I was granting limited access to my money that can be revoked at any moment.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip 75 points 1 day ago (15 children)

It should be called renting (or something similar). But then, that would likely mean an expectation of a lower price tag and they wouldn’t want that. Who would rent a game for $80? Even if the rental is a decade or longer. Probably people out there that would and currently do this.

[–] Sickday@kbin.earth 62 points 1 day ago

I would agree, but most leases have stipulations that restrict voiding the contract "at any moment". You have to do something to violate the lease agreement most times so this is even worse than renting.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

But then, that would likely mean an expectation of a lower price tag and they wouldn’t want that.

In other words, they want to commit fraud with impunity. Because that's what lying about the difference between a sale and a rental is: fraud on Sony's part.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] micgerne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 177 points 1 day ago (7 children)

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

[–] Kaligalis@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago

Piracy isn't stealing either way. It's just copyright infringement.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 2 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Soon the game files will be on the cloud and the client on your computer is just a launcher. Then piracy will be over as well

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@thebrainbin.org 32 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Sadly, catchy slogans don't hold up in court. Better to buy from distributors who don't try to make that claim, like GOG - even if they won't put Nine Sols on the store to avoid offending many gamers.

[–] nyctre@piefed.social 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

What do you mean by gog offending gamers by selling nine sols? Is it because it's the same dev as devotion? Or some other reason?

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago

Sadly, catchy slogans don't hold up in court.

Idk, OJ floated by on his.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jsnfwlr@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I think in terms of the subscriber access to Xbox GamePass or PlayStation Plus, this is valid. But not for game purchases.

The store purchases have always been about buying a game. If I go to Amazon and buy a thing, it gets shipped to my house and I own it - the experience of adding an item to a cart, viewing the cart, and checking out are the same across game stores, for online and brick and mortar, whether digital and physical goods are being purchased.

If I don't own the item I am buying on the PlayStation store, why the hell am I paying a premium for it? I thought it was because I will always be able to play that game without having to worry about the disc getting scratched and in both cases I would own the item.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

If you buy a CD with software and it gets shipped to your house, you own the disc, not the software. It's always been this way, we are just now living in a world where the technology exists to take the software away from you after you paid.

[–] jsnfwlr@lemmy.ml 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Correct, I owned the license to it. It wasn't revokable though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] matmyfta@mastodon.uno 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

@Couldbealeotard @jsnfwlr sure, but you were also able to sell it eventually.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 61 points 1 day ago (15 children)

does anyone know why Sony is so intent on ensuring that I never become a console gamer and give them money?

like how does this benefit them?

[–] SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

... For everyone one of "us" on this thread, there's 10,000 that will shrug and conform.

You and I are not the target demographic. Clearly - look at where we're having this conversation :)

Ipso facto we need to make sure that we support those that support us (Indie devs, FOSS etc). Let Sony do Sony things.

[–] Napster153@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Untio the first 250 USD game hits the market and it's a choice between homelesness, starving and getting a digital product you don't own.

The smaller the customer base, the less money they rake in.

Sony's history of security breaches also doesn't give much confidence. Games like Concord and Marathon also prove nobody is too big to fail.

[–] SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Games are a luxury good that need to thread a fine needle.

With roughly fifty years of back catalog to draw from, free engines, and endless other distractors, a $250 game would need to be an epoch-defining masterpiece - or have true AGI baked in - to get my attention.

Then again, I'm not the target demographic: I built my own retro console from office e-waste and play retro games, older AAA and indies.

[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I worked for the major streaming company when the service was launched in Japan. Sony (among others) said that streaming would never take off in Japan because Japanese consumers are too tied to physical media. This was probably 2014. It's probably been the slowest place in the world to change, but it has changed. Sony understands the consumer preference for digital media as well as anyone. They just know that resistance and opposition will fade over time.

They are a fairly adaptable company (as Japanese tech companies go), and if they get it wrong, they will pivot, but there is nothing pro-consumer about the company. They didn't put Blu-ray players in PS3s because it was good for consumers, they did it because it was good for Sony's entertainment business. And people often forget that part of the Blu-ray spec was mandatory internet connectivity so that the content licensor could revoke content licenses. We haven't "owned" physical media since DVDs.

This is the company that brought you Memory Stick after all. They've been anti-consumer ever since the Walkman was a huge success. It benefits Sony by making people buy more copies of the same thing. You might not buy any, but if the optimization is right, enough people will.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

in the short term? It doesnt benefit them at all. it may actually hurt them.

in the long term? Bandwidth is cheap. especially at the scale that companies like Sony, Steam, Microsoft, etc, use it. So sell 6 million copies of a game, 10 extra bucks of profit thanks to no physical media/boxes/shipping/etc, per game.. Thats 60 million dollars in free money.

Plus, because you no longer own anything, they no longer have to invest in storage to keep old games up and running. So as new games release, they delete old games from their servers and from your accounts, So thats less investment they have to make in infrastructure, which is again more free money for them.

I wager Sony would love the day when people pay 100 dollars for a game that gets deleted in 6 months, that they have to rebuy again at full price to play again.

Cause remember, with no physical media, you have nothing but sony's closed garden marketplace to buy games.. Which means no competition for sony, which means no incentive for sales, no lower prices (not that 70+ dollars is a low price for a game 🙄 ), no nothing but take what sony offers you, and liking it.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

I wager Sony would love the day when people pay 100 dollars for a game that gets deleted in 6 months, that they have to rebuy again at full price to play again.

Oh, you wanted to play [AAA game] that you already bought and paid for? Too bad, it's shut down and gone. But you can buy the almost-identical sequel [AAA game 2] for just $90!

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

This will also affect history badly. Entire games will be lost to history forever.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 18 hours ago

Yeah, by the time copyright finally expires, it will be impossible to find a copy of it anymore.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. Linux PCs will run the vast majority of games and the handful of exclusives that don’t run yet will run on an emulator at some point.

[–] ksh@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago

I’m so old school I still prefer OpenTTD and OpenRCT2

[–] DrStanleyGoodspeed@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

Prove deez nuts biatchhhh

[–] danielfm123@lemmy.zip 90 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

If I don't own, I won't buy. Good luck.

Already lost my PS4 collection for not logging in 3 years.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lemmelemmy@feddit.org 2 points 18 hours ago

To prove their decision to ban physical was greedy? Are they trying to shoot them on the foot or just a rage bait title?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I wish them luck, because if you can't buy it, you can't steal it.

[–] tourist@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

um yeah, that's not hard to prove, you can check my torrent history

[–] kuiskaaja@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago

you still own them more than a psn store enjoyer owns their games

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 33 points 1 day ago

Going to court to prove they're arseholes. Nice.

If you want to stop it, write to your representatives. EULAs do not override local laws.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago

at this point, i have quite bleak view on anyone buying anything from sony. those people are effectively supporting this shit, which may spread elsewhere.

[–] halezinflames@lemmus.org 6 points 1 day ago

Lol Sony gonna Sony

If buying isn't owning... (just be careful not to get hit with malware if you do sail)

[–] AviAdi@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago

🎶🎶oh, the pirate's life's for me🎶🎶

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›