The relevant section is blunt. “The Software is licensed to you, not sold,” the EULA states. “You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for.”
The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony’s EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.
Then stop calling the button purchase and call it rent.
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.
Kind of funny how Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem and they’ll be here after it’s all done. You put that cartridge into your console, and you can play it. It may be version 1.0, but you can play it. And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them. It’ll cost $70 a decade from now, but it’ll run after you pay it lol
Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem
Because NES locked it down at propertiary carts and still do…
That drastically increases the cost of Ninetendo games, because Nintendo is the only one legally allowed to make the blank. Even gamecube used tiny discs.
If you wanted to sell a NES game, you had to buy X amount of blank copies from Nintendo, then pay Nintendo to put the code on the blank, then pay Nintendo a licensing cut to sell…
Like, it’s not like Nintendo had consumers best interest at heart, they just nickle and dime developers at every step, which is why Nintendo versions costs more.
Oh yeah, I never said they had good business practices. We’re well aware of that. But, at this point, holy fuck. All they have to do is exist while Sony and Microslop repeatedly blast themselves in the balls. Luigi wins by doing absolutely nothing.
deleted by creator
I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.
The difference is more that they’ll be useless in 25 years or whenever Nintendo pulls the plug on the download servers.
I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.
Being able to sell/trade a specific copy of digital media kind of is the one functional use NFTs could be used for (if companies would be willing to treat digital media to be treated like physical media which they obviously like the current setup). Would also kind of need a universal industry blockchain (or some other ledger system) with better scam protections, and be used for the “new” sales for the trades and “used” sales. Which is way more effort than digital media companies would ever care to figure out (especially now) and were able to get away with not being required to treat digital like physical. And the major players don’t have to care about making their stuff DRM-free.
In the case of video media it is worse since there are so many set-top devices that don’t allow offline downloads like the mobile versions of the same apps (mostly since the boxes don’t have storage for it) or ability to use on a home media server (Plex/Jellyfin). So you may have a license to a movie/show but not have access to it if networks are down. And digital audio media has been reverting since a lot of new music can’t be purchased and only streamed. Which is sad since I had some early hope that the digital video stuff would follow how audio was working with a lot of DRM-free options Apple and Amazon managed to “legitimize”. I will give some level of credit to the UV/Movies Anywhere system that allows retaining a supported movie/show if you have accounts on multiple services and any one of them shuts down. But that still requires that stores/studios support it, AND that the core system isn’t the thing shutdown.
Yeah, like I said,
And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them.
Nintendo is pushing for digital very aggressively in their marketing to gear people towards digital only.
Give them a generation or two more and you’ll have them doing the same shit Sony is doing now.
All the switch 2 physical games are empty, the games are all digitally downloaded
This is not true at all. Where… did you even hear this? Kind of reminds me of the nonsense that was being parroted a year ago.
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.
This. Is. A. FUCKING. Lie.
If I buy and own a physical copy of a book. I am not then entitled to set up a printing press and sell my own word-for-word copies of said book. Same applies to ownership of digital goods.
If I go to GOG and buy a DRM free game (aka I would then own that copy) I still wouldn’t have the legal right to distribute copies to other people.
That’s because copyright laws exist, and they apply to both situations I described. Shame on you for mindlessly repeating industry lies.
Never ever owned software. Even physical disks has something like buying this gives you a license to use this software. Great examples is movies. It gave you a license for private viewing only. Showing a movie you had a copy if to a group of people technically broke that.
You’re an idiot. You didn’t address anything I said
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.
abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers
A lot of it is widely outside of PlayStation or Valves hands…
The puclishers have the same deal with them, and developers have the same deal with the publishers.
If that wasn’t there at every link of the chain, then that next person no longer has to pay anyone earlier in the chain.
We kind of see the same with in-game music. That has to be licensed from the owner of the master, and possibly a couple more people. They don’t like doing licences in perpetuity out of principle. If the Beatles let a game use a song and that game eventually sells for 10¢ or free, then that’s a loss sale even 30 years from now in the way licensing works. So after 5-10 years, songs disappear.
Or like how it took Kevin Smith forever to get actual ownership of the movie Dogma due to Weinstein being involved and everyone else just wanting to bury what he’d touched.
EULA’s and ownership is a lot deeper than software. Like, you can sell a used game of monopoly, but buying a copy doesn’t mean you can make you’re own and sell, the physical material is just associated with the license for the intellectual property.
Like ship of thesus shit, if you start with a legit paid game of Monopoly, replace every single piece over 20 years, you can still sell it as a “used Monopoly game” because at some point you bought the license. If you made every piece the same way and then sold it, that’s not legal
deleted by creator
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…
None. Literally none. Just corporate greed
If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing.
What is piracy then?
What buying was supposed to be: owning
And if buying isnt owning, that means you’re paying 70+ dollars to rent a game that can be taken away from you at any time… with no refund or recourse.
Would anyone be stupid enough to rent a game for 70+ dollars? especially under those conditions?
But you’ve never owned movies or games. Purchasing let’s go really far back VHS gave you a license to watch the movie. Always has been this way.
Coming from that era myself, buying a VHS tape absolutely gave you ownership of that copy of the movie. Same with music, which is why homemade mixtapes were such a popular and permitted thing.
Studios didn’t like it, but no one went after the guy with the little vinyl briefcase of 100 different mixtapes for every sort of occasion.
Open sourcing of operational licenses.
It’s definitely stealing. I don’t understand why people on here can’t admit it to themselves.
My guess is people here think that stealing is wrong, no matter what. They also think that piracy is moral. Because of that, they incorrectly deduce that piracy isn’t stealing.
Look up any definition of stealing, and it always boils down to: taking something that you don’t have permission to take.
No, this isn’t limited to physical items. Companies steal our data all the time.
I think people need to shift from “Piracy isn’t stealing” to “Fuck the corps, they don’t wanna play fair I’ll steal their shit and they won’t see a penny”
I know but why do people care. I don’t their massive corporations if I’m stealing from them in don’t care.
Absolutely! Corps can eat a dick
It’s definitely stealing
It’s definitely denying money to someone who is asking to be paid.
But since they, nor anyone else is affected by the copying activity I don’t think it can be called stealing.
How about
“Fuck the corps, they don’t wanna play fair I’ll
stealuse their shit and they won’t see a penny”You can make up definitions all you want, it’s still stealing.
Piracy doesn’t fit the definition of stealing, because the owners still have the property.
That’s literally wrong. If I stole all your personal data from your laptop, you’d still have it.
Companies steal trade secrets from each other all the time. That doesn’t mean the knowledge just leaves the other company.
Stop making up definitions and just accept that it’s stealing. Just because it’s stealing doesn’t make it wrong.
If you copied all my personal data from my laptop, I’d still have it.
If you stole it I wouldn’t.
Companies steal trade secrets from each other all the time.
If you copy a secret then it is no longer a secret, so something has changed for the original owner.
Stop making up definitions and just accept that it’s stealing.
You are the one changing the definition of stealing to try and apply it to piracy.
stealing /ˈstiːlɪŋ/ noun
the action or offence of taking another person’s property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.
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.
Or have enough money to
bribelobby for laws in your favorNot only that, but make sure that those laws are enforced
Maybe write to them with certain unidentified substances enclosed first
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.
Actually, they can take them away.
They don’t have enough tanks
Ẃ̵̧͝ͅÉ̴͕̟̿ ̶̗̗̊R̶͍̃͝E̵̩̗͝͠Q̶̮̒Ų̴͋̃I̶͈̼̓Ȓ̴̢̼Ḙ̶̓͗ ̵̛̪̤̆M̷̰̾O̸̻̽R̵̲̉̉E̵̱̎ ̶͎̀V̴͖͐̂È̶͓̻S̸̝̱͠P̴͖̤̈Ẽ̷̢̤N̵͚͙͋̀Ȩ̷̽ ̷̧͖̈G̵̛̰̘͑A̶̬̎͝S̶̤̍
I’d like to see them try that.
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.
Same. I loved the PS1 and PS2.
It’s been easy enough to set up a gaming PC in the living room for both desk and couch gaming (my gaming rig automatically switches to the TV if the TV and receiver inputs are on). Sony exclusives just aren’t what they used to be, and I haven’t really cared much since the PS2/PS3 era. I sold my consoles in 2012 and haven’t looked back, still more games than I’ll ever have time to play.
3rd’d, sort of. Too young for PS1 but Sony consoles have been my primary since PS2 days. I’ll probably be switching to PC next week.
🏴☠️
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
By the plain text reading, yes. Would be nice to see PS streams fall to 0, but people ignore the terms and Sony doesn’t enforce them until they want to. Doesn’t matter what any of this BS says until they drag you in front of a judge… I mean private arbitrator… and say “look, plain as day, subsection 18.XXVI.xix D(13a) on page 47 where it clearly says we get to move our VP into his spare bedroom and shoot his dog”
We seriously are overdue for putting limits on so-called consumer contracts.
Yeah they leave those non commercial lines in there so they have the “legal backing” to shut down anyone that’s causing them problems.
Is that the subsection that is in the locked filing cabinet with the sign reading ‘beware of leopard’?
