right, just before going digital only. it’s a bold move cotton…
What even is the point in video games anymore. Many are super locked down, they die after 6 months, they spend 6 years building something and release it so buggy and broken that it’s hard to call it anything but garbage.
At this point, support your local board game store. They at least let you purchase a product.
Easy, don’t buy games that do that. Plenty of games come out feature complete with no expectations of taking more money from you.
There are some. Bless super giant games. But I have found myself spending more time on 20 year old games than anything else.
if buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing.
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
They tried that (Google stadia), performance is crap. They need a datacenter with beefy GPUs need everyone to keep latency low, so the infrastructure costs aren’t worth it.
Unless it’s the only option and they raise the prices. Then you either play Indy games which will resist and still send you the files or if you want AAA you accept the new normal.
Piracy isn’t stealing either way. It’s just copyright infringement.
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.
Sadly, catchy slogans don’t hold up in court.
Idk, OJ floated by on his.
deleted by creator
There’s a technical aspect to it too. Downloading over HTTPS covers your butt in a way that you need a good VPN for if torrenting.
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?
No crime where’s no judge.
we don’t need to resolt to piracy just to have our digital ownership
no, but it’s morally acceptable to pirate things released by hostile corporations
I suppose, but I don’t think that piracy is the true answer, and we should instead be fighting more for digital independence instead of piracy
2 things can be done at the same time just like 2 things can be true at the same time
Imagine how well digital games would sell if they showed up in your cart like: 1 x Revokable License for God of War $69 See Terms and Conditions* [Confirm Payment]
- Terms: we will do whatever the fuck we want. Conditions: whenever we want.
There’s a reason they say “Buy” instead of “Pay”.
It’s been going on for generations, but it’s no less dishonest for all that. Software sellers write complex EULAs for which the only valid answer is “Agree” because the store won’t take an open box back and the software won’t install unless we pretend to agree, so even us legitimate software enjoyers are pirates in our hearts. Meanwhile normies don’t even think about it that much. Fuck this whole system, but double fuck an online service that says “purchase” but will steal it back later. Fuck that.
1x temporary license to play. Duration of license unspecified.
Pretty sure in the past it was at least considered a lifetime license.
In the past it didn’t matter, because you had the whole file structure for the application when you purchased it. You either downloaded it in whole as an install file or archive, or you had it on the physical media that you purchased it on. Maybe there was a license you had to input or some other rudimentary DRM system, but you had that too. No remote access from the company, no forced additional downloads or internet connectivity, no phone home. So they could say whatever they wanted, but you actually had the product.
Now with media files that only play with proprietary tools that phone home, or applications that phone home, your computers are backdoored. And if you have a system that’s backdoored, it’s not really yours, it’s just something you can access for now. That’s what your Kindle is: a backdoored computer with an e-ink screen and proprietary software that can open proprietary files that other software isn’t supposed to be able to open. Which is why no one should buy one.
You should stop buying that shit then.
Also isn’t the kindle fine if you just download offline files? Its been a very long time since I used one though.
*Lifetime for the time the product/service is alive
If they end the thing, they can just pretend they did a rewrite and invalidate the current version/not develop it any further and maybe offer a migration discount (lol).
I’d prefer the model of “Buy version X for at least x years of feature updates and Y days of security updates”.
Seeing G*mers get upset and try to boycott Sony for this.
Then go on to pump money into Helldivers and Palworld on Steam.
Absolutely brain rotted.
Don’t forget glazing the GTA 6 trailer
wtf does Palworld have to do with Sony?
Apparently they’ve signed a deal with Sony to help them expand the franchise
Nothing “apparently” about it.
There was a lot of coverage about it.
Apparently is used when the person speaking wasn’t previously aware of something, regardless of how much coverage it received within it’s own niche.
So yes, it was. You can now go find something else to uselessly and incorrectly pedant over.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apparently
According to this that definition only applies to simplified American English.
Sorry the world doesn’t all follow your backwards country. Go cry in Lake America
Your source.
used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was:
Do they not teach reading comprehension in whatever country you hail from?
used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true:
Apparently it’s going to rain today.
Apparently he’s had enough of England and is going back to Australia.
used when the real situation is different from what you thought it was:
You know I told you Alice’s party was on the 13th? Well I saw her last night and apparently it’s on the 14th.
She looks about ten, but apparently she’s 10.
I thought they were married but apparently not (= they are not married).
Do you not see the difference?
Starting the sentence with “Apparently” is you casting doubt over the proceeding information.
Using it mid sentence after giving information as a correction would meet the definition you cherry picked. Which would mean you do know about the Sony deal.
But who am I to try and correct and Yankee, clearly you lot are the absolute authority on everything. And it’s my fault for not instantly understanding what you meant (despite it following zero established rules)
2024 around the time of the game’s release. It was announced that the Devs and Sony formed a joint venture.
I don’t need to read the article to know that they’re making the same argument as Amazon and Apple. When you “buy” a show on one of the streaming platforms, you aren’t actually buying anything except an extended rental.
Digital music for purchase as well.
Not quite true anymore, publishers have pretty much given up on DRM for purchased music :)
Neither Apple’s iTunes store nor amazon’s store (although to be fair, I haven’t used amazon, so I’m not 100 % sure about them) use DRM on purchased music, so you can just take the music files and use them in any way you want. In my personal opinion though, rather than use the iTunes store or amazon, I’d recommend you to try the qobuz store, which is DRM-free and is the only one I know of (ignoring bandcamp, which doesn’t get music from regular distributors) that provides lossless audio.
Bandcamp lets you download .mp3 which are DRM free. They probably are tagged in the info but its just a text field
MP3 is a horrible non-free (well, not anymore, because the patents expired; but still), outdated format. bandcamp also lets you download as FLAC, which is none of that and lossless.
FLAC does not work with alot of devices
Then transcode it to whatever other format you need yourself. Point is, the thing being sold ought to be the highest quality possible.
Which ones don’t support it? It’s a very old format at this point. Every Android device in existence can work with it for example.
HDtracs also sells some stuff losslessly. Though one thing I’ve noticed I’ve noticed on both Qobuz and HDtracs is tha, in addition to only having some stuff losslessly, the availability of lossless varies by region. The same album might be sold lossless in one region and only lossy in another region.
Didn’t know about them before, thanks for sharing!
The same album might be sold lossless in one region and only lossy in another region.
That’s weird, since as far as I can tell, qobuz doesn’t offer lossy downloads at all (I’ve heard they used to, but stopped. Maybe there are some regions where they’re still offering it?)
Hmm, maybe I was misremembering. On second thought I think it was actually 7digital I was thinking of that did the regional lossless, I forgot about that one. For example, the same album on Swedish and American stores:
This led to a lot of good discussion around various places to buy digital music. My comment wasn’t so much drm focused as it was about licenses being removed. I’ve encountered that on Qobuz actually. Not many, but a few items are no longer available to be downloaded. I have already downloaded the files when I purchased the music, so that’s certainly something different than a movie or game that can’t be downloaded and used as such. That’s all, just the fact that the license can still be removed.
Ah, didn’t expect you to already know qobuz 🙃
But yeah, that’s definitely a problem. I remember them sending the email where they announced this could happen now (although weirdly enough, they never sent an email for when purchased items were taken down any time after that again), and had it happen a few times as well. Luckily, I’ve also saved everything locally, so I haven’t lost anything. Still annoying. Also sometimes, an album that’s suddenly gone just seems to reappear a few months later, as if they were just reorganizing their library, but really, I have no idea what’s going on.
That’s good to hear some items have returned. I also wonder about things like relistings, if items have or will get moved around. Good discussion!
Then the button should say “rent” and not “buy”
Consumer protections are for the weak. /s
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.
Turns out I was granting limited access to my money that can be revoked at any moment.
threadiverse is about to learn what tickets are🤦♀️
Please don’t cake it the threadaverse
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.
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.
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.
It should just be called License. Put that there instead of the buy button. And clearly visible the minimum expiration date for the license. Reserve the buy button for actual perpetual licenses where not having access to the licensed good is a breach of contract good for money back.
Physical media also comes with a license.
Licenses are a copyright concept, but this isn’t a copyright issue. You’re buying a copy of a game, and you should own the copy after the purchase (which of course, means the company who sold it to you shouldn’t be able to revoke your access at will). That’s the part that sony is apparently not willing to do. But copyright-wise, it would be a license either way, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to confuse people with only tangentially related concepts here.
copyright(n.) c. 1729, “the exclusive right to make and sell copies of an intellectual production,”
license(v.) c. 1400, “grant formal authorization to do what would be illegal to do without it,”
Yeah… I don’t think you are right about that…
I don’t really see what that has to do with what I said? Unless you are saying that licenses exist for other things than copyright (in response to “licenses are a copyright concept”). That’s definitely true, I oversimplified to make my point, but I’m also pretty sure that copyright licenses are the only kind of license that are relevant here in the first place.
Copyrights are a type of license not the other way around.
Copyrights are rights. A license grants others (parts of) that right. A copyright isn’t a license.
licenses are a very IT central idea.
I have to buy licenses of Windows, Acrobat, etc… It lines up with what Sony is trying to say too
licenses are a very IT central idea.
No, that’s just the implementation you’re most familiar with. Licenses are a copyright idea that IT adopted and made digital. Every physical movie and game you own also comes with a license that authorizes your retail use of it, but forbids your commercial use of it. You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people, nor can you charge admission to people to watch Shrek at your house, nor are you allowed to make copies of your Shrek DVD and sell them, for example.
Care to back that up? You wouldn’t need a license to do something that copyright laws already allow you to do on their own. For example, making additional copies for your own personal use is perfectly legal, if allowed depends on your local fair use or private copying exemption law (provided you do it without circumventing DRM, e.g. via the analog hole), even though of course the movie studio wouldn’t give you a license for that.
Of course, DRM is the real issue here, as due to anti-circumvention the movie industry controls who can legally make players for movies on DVD/Blu-Ray (unlike on VHS and CD).
You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people
That’s literally how Netflix got started.
Netflix had a different type of license they negotiated with the rights holder. They didn’t just buy DVDs retail and start mailing them around.
Silly consumer. The subscription is for the software’s lifetime, not yours.
🤣 Well I’m a vampire so jokes on them.
Rent. It’s rent.
They are not wrong tho
They are wrong, you can buy digital downloads from other platforms like GOG, Itch.io, Humble Store, and keep the files forever. There is no DRM on those purchases, no way for the seller to revoke it in any way. Sony could operate their store that way too but choose not to.
The courts still need to weigh in on this. If you purchase a license to use the software, the company shouldn’t have the power to revoke that license without cause. The license should last as long as the copyright/patent/etc. does.
There may well be a valid argument that they don’t make it clear enough at the point of sale too.
Its crazy how everybody got used to rental prices as high as physical copy.
Most people don’t know they are rentals
With how shitty the owning and freedom situation on consoles is already, this really doesn’t change much. People who are still using consoles just don’t give any fucks. They happily swallowed the PSN subscription. They will happily swallow the next toad too.
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.
🎶🎶oh, the pirate’s life’s for me🎶🎶
If I’ve already bought it I won’t even hesitate to pirate it.
Having backups of owned digital media is just good practice.
Ah I see Playstation seems out of its wild teenage years and is now so overconfident it’s poke the bear time!
This should be fun.
To prove their decision to ban physical was greedy? Are they trying to shoot them on the foot or just a rage bait title?
