Post

I feel like there are a lot of folk who are being wilfully obtuse about the language here. You can hold two opinions at the same time: 1) It sucks that in a digital-only ecosystem your ability to play a game can be taken away 2) I do not legally OWN my games, I own access to COPIES of them

VGC@videogameschronicle.com

Sony says "reasonable consumers" know they don’t own the digital PlayStation games they buy. It argues that it's "not plausible" to suggest that when they buy a digital game they actually believe they're "obtaining ownership" of it. www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sony-sa...

It says “get something” on that definition, if we want to get technical there are plenty of things you buy that you don’t “own”. I am not defending Sony, I am describing the language that has been used to discuss “game ownership” for years. It should be looked into! It sucks that you can lose them!

0 reposts2 likes

Maybe that’s a fairer term. Or whatever term you might use for a day at the theme park, like “you can buy a finite experience”. Again, not defending how it’s implemented, just stating the way it is and has been described before by not just Sony but other entities too.

True. Tho in a theme park you technically buy the ticket, you own that. That gives you access to the park. I guess there are instances where it works out for both parties. No one is reasonably thinking they own the park with the ticket, that's not the same reality in game sales and digital stuff

But that’s where complexity comes in - buying a ticket is based on the (gentleman’s?) agreement that you don’t photocopy the ticket and give it to friends, or that parts of the park might not be available, or the knowledge that it will eventually close that day (ofc in games we don’t want that).