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.
The only solace is at least the majority of AAA games coming out now are so ass that i don’t want them anyway.
Shortly after announcing that there won’t be anything else soon.
Should change the “buy” button to “rent”
The only solace is at least the majority of AAA games coming out now are so ass that i don’t want them anyway.
Pretty much all software EULA’s are like this. Anything you “buy a license for” certainly. Same as it ever was.
Just a reminder the Venn diagram of the G*mers spouting the “piracy isn’t stealing” and “valve is one of the good monopolies” and “support Palworld because fuck Nintendo” is a perfect circle
How is Valve a monopoly?
It isn’t, it is, and I don’t care about the third thing.
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.
Maybe write to them with certain unidentified substances enclosed first
I don’t get this you never owned your games even when buying a disc. The disc gave you a license to play the game.
Nobody was coming to take the disc away from you after the online store shut down
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.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn;t theft.
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?
I really hope Linux on ps5 happens in a more native way rather than the USB hacks recently brought to light. I’d love to turn my ps5 into my own device.
It being a custom AMD APU will certainly help.
It’s still probably easier than trying to get anything to run on an Arm SOC and fighting device trees.
🏴☠️
If buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing.
What is piracy then?
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”
The argument goes that stealing involves taking something from someone, whearas pirating produces a copy. If you take someone’s car, they don’t have a car anymore, but copy their game and now you both have one.
That said, I don’t think it follows from “buying isn’t owning” that “piracy isn’t stealing”. Its a pithy slogan that captures a mood, but I don’t think it really makes sense.
Your position, I believe, is more coherent: “I don’t care if it is stealing”. It might not technically be stealing, but its a breach of the terms of the sale that you tacitly agreed to when buying.
Something similar can be said for adblocking. People argue that it is “stealing” because there is a breach of the terms of use, and the ads fund the content. It might not really technically be stealing, but it is simpler to just say “I don’t care what it is, I don’t feel bad for giant corporations”. You can also say this about shoplifting.
What buying was supposed to be: owning
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.
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?
Open sourcing of operational licenses.
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.
If it wasn’t, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.
Okay? Good. Fine.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
It’s in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.
*laughs in open source*
The Service provides users of Ubuntu with a free subscription to use the Service on up to five physical Ubuntu systems with unlimited number of VMs or containers for the eligible Ubuntu LTS versions as designated by Canonical.
https://canonical.com/legal/ubuntu-pro/personal
Why would you assume to own software if you don’t even pay to use it?
You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes
To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.
That’s just Ubuntu Pro and it’s basically longer term kernel maintenance plus applies to the universe repo not just main. The only extra functionality is the ability to live patch the kernel. The base install works fine as is but some businesses require the extended support.
By all means, find me a single example of software you actually own…
Because that’s waaaaaaaaay fucking easier than me listing every open source eula one by one
Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.
They have a Terms of Service for the online services, which you can be banned from for misuse, but this does not prevent you from using the software. You can legally obtain it through any of the hundreds of mirrors, or even compile it from scratch.
Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.
Right, your link is about use of online services…
The following Terms of Service contain the rules for the use of the internet Platform Arch Linux, operated by the Arch Linux Team, accessible under the domain archlinux.org and various related subdomains (the “Platform”) and the respective Services, namely provision of the Arch Linux package platform, the forums, the wiki, the bug reporting tool and a reporting tool for security issues, Arch User Repository (AUR), Mailing Lists, IRC Channels, collaboration pads and the Bulletin Board System (the “Services”) of Arch Linux (“Arch Linux”, “we”) by you as a user (the “User”, “you”).
There’s no EULA, but after reading up on it, isn’t it even considered software?
Like, it seems to really just be a command line, that straps together a bunch of individual packages, which add up to a very very lightweight OS, and then even more can be added on.
Seems really cool, and I like the idea. But my understanding is the packages themselves have EULA’s on their own and function pretty autonomously.
I think thats going to the closest anyone gets tho, thanks for linking it.
You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes
To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.
You can, though? If you find someone stupid enough to buy it, that is.
All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.
Not, that’d be a violation of GPL, MIT, etc.
All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.
So…
They have to change it to legally sell it?
Then they didn’t own it.
Although, I guess thanks for explaining what a “bullshit fork” is, I thought that wouldn’t need explaining on here to be honest
Pirate all Sony games you like to play, maybe even those you don’t. Share. Got it.
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.
