Don't buy PlayStation, got it.
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
658 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
87786 readers
3614 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
Pirate all Sony games you like to play, maybe even those you don’t. Share. Got it.
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, piracy isn;t 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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
If you pirate the games, you actually own them and they can't take them away from you. Funny how that works.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Then stop calling the button purchase and call it rent.
They are going to stop using 'buy' and 'own' in their advertising then, right?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Luckily the EULA doesn't apply when obtaining it through unauthorized means since the EULA would never have been accepted upon a purchase that didn't happen.
(It is though copyright infringement, but you still have more ownership over the bytes on your own disk since DRM would have been removed or neutered)
Old school was "shrinkwrap eula".
When you took the literal shrinkwrap off the box, you agreed.
Then it switched to "use eula" and the box that pops up containing the EULA that says "click to accept" and there's no other option but to accept...
That's the point you agree.
I don't think it's ever been "at purchase" at least in America. Because obviously gifts are a thing and purchasers aren't always users and more importantly users aren't all purchasers
A cracked game might circumvent those popups and/or screens, but I honestly don't know why they would put the effort in or if it would matter. And if it mattered probably varies a lot by country.
EU is very adamant that you can only present contractual terms before entering an agreement (purchase) not after. All those EULAs showing up in the game before you are shown the main menu are void in EU.
If the EULA is instead embedded in the purchase flow with an "I agree" checkbox then the UsedSoft vs. Oracle case is likely still precedence to argue that you own the copy. Reason is that the purchase flow uses the "Buy" terminology and nowhere outside of the EULA it mentions rental/lease/limited/etc. This would breach the "reasonable consumer expectations" as the storefront didn't make it clear in their purchase experience that it was only a limited license you obtained and that a normal consumer doesn't expect "limited" when reading "Buy". This part has though not been tested in court yet but most legal scholars agree that this would be the likely outcome should someone bring it up.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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
load more comments
(3 replies)
if buying isn't owning the piracy isn't stealing.
Sony can go fuck themselves. Honestly if they are going to make purchases this restrictive then I guess I won't buy them anymore.
Afaik this a fairly standard software licensing model. Pretty much all paid videogames are like that, physical or not. Sony just started to act on it in the hopes of making even more moneyz
🏴☠️
Sony’s EULA has always said this.
EULA's have been saying it since before discs were invented...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement
If any EULA didn't say that, everyone who bought it could sell their own copies for $1 less then they bought it. Eventually the price of every piece of software no matter what it was, would be the hosting costs based on sheer size.
What's wild is so many people never knew this, and are hyper fixated on the wrong part.
Back in the day updates just weren't really a thing. There may be additional software (DLC except you bought it physical) in between editions, but for the most part the program was the program. So as long as you kept your install discs, you could always install that program.
That is what you were buying, the physical means to install the program, and that has always been just a license and definitely not duplicatable. Selling used games/software was valid because you're handing over the physical means to install/run that software.
The parallel would be selling a "used digital game" and it disappears from your library. And Sony could even take 10% or whatever as a fee, even tho it would cost money.
Consumers could trust that any used game was 100% the exact same as new tho, there's be zero advantage to every buying new if a single used license was cheaper.
That would be free market capitalist software, but the oligarchs don't want.
Reminder that the same EULA applies to the software on a physical disk, too. The difference is you will still have the disk if they decide to revoke your ability to run that disk.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The only solace is at least the majority of AAA games coming out now are so ass that i don't want them anyway.
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.
One thing I'm sure is that I'll never buy a Playstation again. Even if they backtrack.
I'm so glad I never got a PS5. I sure as shit won't now.
I have one and every game I own is physical, like every other console I own. Now whether the games are in a workable state in the future without access to patches is another story, but I can lend, sell, trade my games and also never use PSN again if I want. From the state of things, it looks like I won't every be buying another console and I can live with that.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is why the stop killing games movement exists
To the seas. How does this conflict with the digital media copyright protection acts
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
Arr me hearties.
Pretty much all software EULA's are like this. Anything you "buy a license for" certainly. Same as it ever was.
Should change the "buy" button to "rent"
view more: next ›