Oh Sony...

Beastie7

Beastie7

If you're going to screw over your customers; at least open source your s***ty fork so I can put it on my PC and be done with your platform.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
 
kent_dorfman766 said:
Sony showed their true colors years ago with the Playstation/Linux fiasco.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've wasn't aware of that. It seems they've had a track record of this type of behavior.

If the backlash ends up hitting their investors; they had it coming to them. No physical media is just disrespectful.
 
If this is with respect to Sony's statement that players "can use a Digital Product in the ways described in the license but you do not own the Digital Product", I actually think this is simply being misunderstood by people.

If someone has a physical copy of a game on disc, whilst they "own" that physical property, they don't "own" the game in any true sense. That is, they have limited rights of distribution (making illegal copies), no rights to decompile the code or make modifications to it. They don't have those rights because someone else owns those rights. In effect, someone else owns (the rights) the game, not the player.

So Sony's statement was already applicable to physical media. Players were only ever able to use it within the ways described in the license.

What I've never liked though, is the idea that ones ability to play a purchased game is dependant on the whims of an online service. I can see how a sense of "ownership" can be muddled with that issue.
 
Bink said:
If this is with respect to Sony's statement that players "can use a Digital Product in the ways described in the license but you do not own the Digital Product", I actually think this is simply being misunderstood by people.
Click to expand...

Vendor/ecosystem lock in and stripping physical media is the main issue here.

Bink said:
If someone has a physical copy of a game on disc, whilst they "own" that physical property, they don't "own" the game in any true sense. That is, they have limited rights of distribution (making illegal copies), no rights to decompile the code or make modifications to it. They don't have those rights because someone else owns those rights. In effect, someone else owns (the rights) the game, not the player.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue. The issue is how the license is sold. If all games are gatekept behind a storefront; ownership of that digital medium can manipulated in whatever way they see fit. Sony simply used that statement as a BS justification to strip people of physical ownership in their next gen console. There are many benefits to physical ownership. We all know this.

On that note of DRM. DRM has no place on games. If I buy a physical disc - I should be able to do whatever I see fit with it, in perpetuity, without any restrictions on how I own the game. I gave you money, I own the game. If I don't own the game, then piracy isn't theft. Call it "renting" the game instead, not buying it. This is why I'd like open source OrbisOS; so I can kick Sony to the curb. Let gamers/game developers control the situation.

The bootlicking needs to stop.

Bink said:
What I've never liked though, is the idea that ones ability to play a purchased game is dependant on the whims of an online service. I can see how a sense of "ownership" can be muddled with that issue.
Click to expand...

That's a small part of the entire problem. If you're going to get rid of discs; at least put less restrictions on digital ownership of games.

Steam/GOG are good examples of what not to do. Many games do not require DRM to run (it's actually optional to the developer with Steam). With Steam you own the license to certain games, pinging into Steam isn't needed to run the game offline, Steam has a fair refund policy, Steam doesn't remove games from your library if they decide to a delist a game, Steam actually gives you good deals/prices on games. Hell, you can even move the executable out of your library folder, and run games independently.

You can't do that with a locked down appliance OS behind a storefront owned by a company that historically treats gamers like s**t. Not to mention the price gouging on a system with a CPU from 2019... 2019!

Where's the incentive in owning a PlayStation? Considering it's all x86 based now; I don't see a reason for one nowadays.

drhowarddrfine said:
I'm glad to see that at least Bink made an attempt to explain what this thread is about. Is he right?
Click to expand...

Hah. I forgot a lot of folks here aren't gamers.
 
Beastie7 said:
If I don't own the game, then piracy isn't theft.
Click to expand...
Purchasing a game is more accurately purchasing a license to that game. Acquiring that game without purchasing a license, you could say is in effect "stealing" a license. Simply put though, it's unlawfully acquired.

My context for the issue is clients who incorrectly believe they own my source code because they purchased my application. User "ownership" around software is more about licensing than it is about true ownership. I own the source code. They're granted a limited license to the compiled application.

That's just a little nit-pick of an issue that I've recently had to deal with though. I actually otherwise agree with all you've said in that last post. I see no reason to buy a console over a PC, with the freedoms and one enjoys gaming legally with Steam under Linux. Consoles can offer a lower cost of entry, but it's downhill from there.
 
When it is said that you get what you pay for, you should also be able to say that you only pay for what you get.

They want it that way? Ok. They don't want my money. Oh they do want it, but I'm not willing to part with that amount for what I get. Maybe 5%? Deal? No? Ok.

As long as people pay up, they will do this.
 
Crivens said:
As long as people pay up, they will do this.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
It's the same everywhere with everything in free markets.
If you want to improve things, stop complaining, just stop buying such things.
That's exactly how free markets are intended to work.
But since people complain and whine, only, but keep buying it anyway, why shall it change?
Changes cost time, effort and above all money.
As long as it's bought, nobody will change anything.
As long as money comes in, just let them complain.
 
Maturin said:
That's exactly how free markets are intended to work.
Click to expand...
Sure. With informed customers and sellers.
And this will not change, the industry needs an ET fiasco every now and then, which turns one big company belly up. So people learn that they have the power of the purse.
 
What does Sony have that's relevant? I might entertain PSVR2 depending on how it compares to Index, but I don't need a console for that :p

I feel Xbox Live is more for competitive gaming like CoD vs PSN feeling more like a requirement tacked-on for Store sales (I remember it PS3 days and free online); I'd play Halo and CoD all day and Xbox has both :cool:
 
All of this "digital distribution" is really just DRM. That was the entire raison d'être for platforms like steam. It's also why streaming of movies, etc exists.

Sony have made the move to abandon physical media first, the likes of Microsoft and Valve are seeing how that plays out and they will most likely do the same thing eventually. As others have said above, the consumers will complain, but inevitably still open their wallets. Others will simply claim physical is outdated and sneer at those complaining... it will ultimately result in sales continuing and profits rising as a tiny minority go elsewhere while the rest continue paying and new customers come onboard regardless.

What Steam, among others, did damage, was the second hand games market. Historically if I owned a legal copy of a game as physical media complete with the licence key I could drop that off at a charity shop and someone else could pick it up for a few pounds and effectively ownership of the licence transferred to them. If you pick up a second hand Steam game, and try to install it, you will be told the key has already been used and you have nothing but useless physical media. At least with Xbox you can buy second hand physical media and actually use it, for now.

Before that you had "copy protection" such as safedisc and securom. The latter was found to have severe security vulnerabilities and MS disabled the driver in either Windows 7 or Vista and removed it entirely in Windows 10. Meaning there are a lot of old games which now no longer function. The often touted solution is to go to GoG or Steam and simply buy the game again - an updated version with those removed - but if I have already paid for the game 20+ years ago, why should I pay for it all over again?

It's important to learn from that earlier fiasco, as history often repeats itself and I can see there being a lot of useless physical media around in the next 10 years or so.
 
Bink said:
Purchasing a game is more accurately purchasing a license to that game. Acquiring that game without purchasing a license, you could say is in effect "stealing" a license. Simply put though, it's unlawfully acquired.
Click to expand...

Then it should be called renting a license, not purchasing/buying a product. If there is no ownership in that purchase, i'm not "stealing" the game if acquired without a license. The concept of property isn't there.
 
Beastie7 said:
Then it should be called renting a license, not purchasing/buying a product. If there is no ownership in that purchase, i'm not "stealing" the game if acquired without a license. The concept of property isn't there.
Click to expand...
When you qualify for your drivers license (which usually involves some form of payment), you do not own the road, but it grants you use of the road. If you breach the terms of use, you may be fined, or your drivers license may be taken from you. One can not lawfully drive a vehicle on the road, without a recognised license. You are not renting the license, it is granted to you, conditionally.

Software is like the road.
 
If you personally wrote the whole application (and not as an employee), sure. You own it.

In almost every single other instance, a form of usage/distribution license is involved, even if it's a highly permissive one, like FreeBSD's, which still has conditions.

I understand that owning physical media feels like ownership of the game. Being able to use that physical media without the whims of online services also carries a sense of security. No one can take that from you. I get all that and I don't disagree.
 
Yeah, Apple follows the same playbook that Sony did, but nobody is bothering to call Apple out on that.
😒


Everybody wants my money, y'know.

Bink said:
If you personally wrote the whole application (and not as an employee), sure. You own it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, until somebody else makes money with a copy. You gonna go to court and pick a fight that some of that money is yours? Good luck, picking a fight in court (or even outside of law) is expensive af, something only a sovereign country ruler can even afford.

Would be nice if OP did some research and had a lengthier post that actually invited discussion and more info than just off-the-cuff, short post that frankly shows just how uninformed OP really is about the situation. This is not Reddit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top