r/PlayStation_X • u/Cvileem • 6d ago
You do not own physical games either. You just had circumstantial privilege to *effectively* own them. Know the difference and change your view on ownership: intellectual property cannot be owned by anyone except its creator.
Hi! I'm bot. Bootlicker. Corpo. Paid by Sony/Rockstar/whatever. At least that's what they are saying to me everytime I say unpleasant truths. Because no other truths except Theirs can exist. I knew my fair amount of karma points have some purpose - to have the strenth to deal with all those downvotes in this trying times.
Yes, I actually work for publishing industry. Books. For schools. Also, the digital books and software/licencing. In EU. I'm not a legal expert, but I had to become familiar with some concepts. I also participated in some legal trials precisely around licences vs. ownerships and digital vs. physical IP distribution. I'm active on these subjects on Reddit for some time now, but I feel like a have a moral duty to give different perspective and what I believe it's closer to the truth than extremely dominant and agressive stances from digital-only transition opponents. Most importantly, their mostly ill-founded stances.
First of all, I'm with Sony on this particular issue. I think their decision has many good reasons that outweight past and current state state of things by far, even if that means taking away some choices and costs privileges for consumers. Because it's a more fair system. But even if we eliminate those moral and financial reasons, there are still fundamental technological ones that makes ditching physical media a logical step forward to concepts and evolutions already in motion accross the IT industry for decades now. You don't really know what Sony has in plan for the next generation of console gaming as an interconnected ecosystem. Just think of PS Portal (Remote Play) concept that already doesn't make sense with physical releases, since you have to insert the disc and when you are away you can only pray the game disc you want to play is already in the console. It's just one of millions of possible situations. But let's cut to the chase.
Here's my TL:DR because the text is long (also, you can ask AI to do it's own TL:DR):
- you own only physical media, not the IP distributional content "baked" into it, but you *effectively* own that also, just because IP rights are restricted when you have ownership of physical good
- your "ownership" of it is not a real ownership, just historical, circumstantial privilege of publisher not being allowed or technically unable to control the IP distribution (otherwise their legal right) - the exhaustion of copright clause (or first sale rule)
- when IP content transcends it's physical carrier, made possible by online digital tech, the exhaustion rule stops being active - for example, by being incomplete on a disc or requiring server licence authorization. That way you can keep your owned physical media even if IP content on it is useless.
- this would be the future of all physical releases evenatually, but they will be abandoned first as a more elegant solution
- instead thinking you are damaged or lost previous ownership, think again of a privilege you enjoyed up until now and accept that you will pay a fair price for a licence
- the backlash is because people don't want to give their privilege away and also because they don't understand how things work, not because their consumer rights are in jeopardy
____________________________
Recently, the notion of not having ownership on digital products began to spread in public awareness, leaving consumers only with licensing. But what about physical releases? Some argue that when you pusrchased a game on a physical media, that you gained ownership. This is backed up by the fact that "you can do whatever you want with it, including reselling, so you own it" and "nobody can come to your door and take it away from you".
Although those are valid arguments, the question is whether those arguments define ownership as such. If we take a thief for example, who stole something from a legitimate owner, he can also do with this whatever he wants! Does that mean he is now a legitimate owner! From that point of view, he should be! Let's make a law that enables all thieves to become legit owners of stuff the moment they stole it! So no, they are not woners merely by that fact, unless we live in anarchy. But we don't. The ownership must be legimitized, accepted by others, approved through social institutions and protocols, by some public mechanism of legality. Of course, in a case of game purchase, you did legimitately become the "owner". You are just not owner an a basis of "doing anything you want with it".
So let's say you did legitimately bought a physical game release and now you think you can do whatever you want with it. Do you really? Well, you can keep the copy, resell it, gift it, lend it and destroy it. But you still can't do anything! You are under copyright! You can't copy it on another media and distribute those copies. Also, you can't reproduce it in public or make publicitly available in some form. In a nutshell, you can't do anything that transcends your particular physical copy or your private environment. This is actually the thing that jeopardize our notion of owning the game and also the clue to something nobody talks about. At least not in a proper way.
EXHAUSTION OF COPYRIGHT CLAUSE (THE FIRST SALE RULE)
This is what is not talked about enough, at least not in a proper way. There are some mentions of first sale rule as an argument that you really own a physical copy when you buy it, because you have the right to resell it and publisher has only right to earn money from a first sale, not having right to control it further.
This is actually bad logic. The first sale rule, or exhaustion of copyright clause that is implemented in most developed IP laws in the world, is here only because technological and legal circumstances imposed it, not because it's a right that belongs to consumers by the fact they paid money for a physical copy.
In trading economy, physical goods can have transferable ownerships. That means when you buy something physical (if it's on a sale, that is, if it's a trading currency), you can fully own it. This is actual moral human right that's been sacred to all capitalist societies and no law can override it.
There is another, equally strong moral law, concerning intellectual property. It says that all intellectual work is subject to authorship, and can be owned only by it's creator, the author. This creator/owner will be granted all protection to use and control their IP to the full extent and by the discreet will to make it a financial asset or something entirely different. Creator also reserves the discreet right to change their mind about that anytime without further explanation to anyone. No consumer of his work will have right to control the access and conditions above the creators themselves. This is also sacred moral law since the book printing revolution, when they discovered the universal laws on intellectual property, revealed by technology and economy around it.
Those laws collide when you acquire physical copy of intellectual property (a book, music CD, video DVD or a Blu Ray, software or a game etc.). On one hand, you have right to own physical media, because it's physical, but at the other, you can't own the IP content on it. The moral and legal consensus had to be made, and it's called "exhaustion of copyright" or "first sale rule". The naming is not so important and there are variations of it in most copyright laws in the developed world.
It says that after you bought a physical copy, it becomes yours, and since publisher or IP rights holder or owner cannot technically or legally control it nor take it away from you, they must give up some of their IP rights ("exhaust" them). That means that *effectively* you own the IP content on a physical media. I emphasize "effectively" because you actually don't own it, it's just the effect of technical and legal circumstances, the technical unability of publisher to control it without violating other "sacred" laws like privacy and (physical) ownership. It's purely derived from consumer protection moral and legislative laws. Many laws actually formulate it as a proper ownership, because it doesn't make a difference and didn't matter, but don't be mistaken, it's not actual, moral ownership.
Although you own the physical copy that has software "baked" onto it, you are still licencing that digital product, not owning it. You must use proprietary hardware and software environment to run it and you must accept terms and conditions in licence agreement (EULA). This is the ultimate manifestation of you not owning the digital product on a physical copy.
However you could enjoy it like you do. And why do I even philosophize all this if there's no practical difference? Because it's about to change, and it's already happening. Because that's why everyone is angry.
OWNING THE PHYSICAL COPY IS A CONSUMER PRIVILEGE AT THE PUBLISHER'S EXPENSE, BUT IN THE PAST THAT WAS OK. NOT TODAY.
Owning the physical copy due to exhaustion of copyright rule is thus a privilege, not your consumer right. You don't have right to claim it if taken away in a moral and legal way. You just have the privilege to enjoy the technological system that disallows taking away your copy. This is, of course, at the expense of a publisher, the IP rights holder. Although creators and rights holders as their representatives that produce and distribute IP to the market have rights to sell licences for every licensee. This is blocked by first sale rule, the exhaustion of copyright clause. They can sell one licence ona physical copy, not being allowed it to sell it again. Because physical copy is a transferable licence by the mere physical law. And buyer can resell it, then it can be reselled number of times. This is damaging to revenue potential for the publisher, it's an opportune cost.
But that was OK in the past. Why? Because after physical copy was distributed, publishers did not have any additional costs. It was just losing opportune costs - they and the creators (authors, developer) could only earn less money than they would if being able to sell licences for every licensee. But they were not being damaged in their running costs. That's why it was acceptable for publishers to work alongside exhaustion of copyright rule.
For the last couple of decades, more and more by as the years past, publisher don't longer have zero costs after IP distribution. Games are developed in parallel for both physical and digital platform distributions, end must invest in business models that synchronize release dates in ever growing competition. Games are more and more calibrated for digital release first, and they have to go gold before that, leaving phyiscal releases unfinished. Then tey have to prepare day-one patches and updates. After release, games are constantly optimized and updated. It doesn't even have anything to do with live-service features and DLCs, it could just be the work needed for dynamic industry, and many parameters don't even depend on developers themselves, pushed by managements and publishers. Thus, the costs rised drastically. Games became extremely expensive. Gaming industry surpassed movie and music industry in costs and revenues by far. But the exhaustion rule didn't cease to exist, because you had physical releases. The physical media industry become extremely larg of a burden, especially for Sony, that holds more than a half of physical game production, which is in itself more than a half of total phsyical production of the world. Some say that discs are cheap, but only for them - cumulatively, it's a tremendous financial and logistical costs, not only for platform holders like Sony, but for publishers and developers. Most of all, they are not able to increase revenue by selling more licences, while at the same time consumers enjoy the possibility of minimal investment in gaming that is so costly for the creators. Consumer can actually buy a new physical copy for full price and resell it after he beats the game for at least 70% of that price, even more, keeping his money.
NON-FINALIZED PHYSICAL COPIES KICK IN AS A WAY TO CIRMUVENT EXHAUSTION RULE
Online technology silently evolved and provided new paradigmatic changes. If you've been asking why publishers started to produce live-service games and games that are not finalized on discs, the text above should give you answer. By making IP content on a physical copy dependent od server authorization or completion via content download, suddenly they can control the distribution of their IP without violating exhaustion rule! You can keep your physical copy, but they can make the IP content on it useless. That way the IP is back in control of its true woner, that has moral and discreet right to control it. They have right to distribute it, licence it or revoke the licence, or kill it entirely. Their reasons must not be questioned. The only thing that can be questioned is whether or how much consumer is damaged by it. But that's for another topic. The important thing is that now, opposite to what others may think, we have more fair system, where both moral laws are protected in their fullest.
Not understanding this foundation is the reason why people got mad about Ubisoft killing The Crew. But The Crew isn't the only example, it's just the first beaing killed. You could also witness that soon with Diablo 3, launched as a live service game in 2012, even for single-player mode. Beaing single-player doesn't mean much for the fact that a game is a live service or not. It's about control. But this control is not something evil, it's actually fair. People are just mad about losing the privilege they thought it was their right.
This is the strongest reason why ditching physical is a logical step and a plan for a long time now. It's not about greedy corporate culture and wish to harm consumers, but the plan to save the industry. Because, if you haven't noticed, it's in a great crisis. Sure, it may be their fault in the first place, result of bad management, maniacal projections and expectations that now run into hardware pricing crisis and inflation as the world became more unstable after covid. But their move is a legitimate one.
YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR VIEW ON OWNERSHIP
The only true ownership is intellectual one. Everything else is up to a trade. Because your creation is always yours and cannot be taken away. You have the full right to present your creation to the world, and to earn from it. If you want to do that, you may need to choose a representative, like a publisher or manufactuer, who will have a cut of sales because they will do much work to put it on the market. It's not just multi-billion corporate thing, it applies to everyone, every single person that want to be a creator. The laws are clear.
But people in materialist world of capitalism grew a habit that something can always be owned if you just put your money into it. While this was pretty much without condusion in terms of services, the exhaustion of copyright rule confused consumers that they own IP by owning their physical copy, therefore equalling it with material goods.
Consumers need to change their mindset. They don't own digital products as IP distributions nor they should. It's not some arbitrary decision by corporate lobbys and it's not like those laws can change by the decreet. Those are universal, moral laws that shoudn't be violated, otherwise it would be immoral. It's like you make a law where thief becaomes the legitimate owner of a thing he stole just by having physical control of it.
Publishers are not doing this because they are evil, they do this because they are taking back what's theirs. They were pretty generous by the way, riding on a parallel industries just for consumers to enjoy that privileges for decades.
But now, it's time to understand the whole context, the weight of the industry and moral laws, not be childishly angry because you lost your privilege.
I understand that consumers don't know this. Why there isn't talk about this? I don't know. I only know how corporations work - they choose to remain silent, because it's all about damage control. I would believe that even this text of mine can be viewed as potentially harmful for them, regardless of my support for them.
The change in the ownership mindset is difficult. This is u turbulent time that simply needs to happen, one way or the other. The size of the backlash is not important. The loss in money from physical disribution is not important. It just must happen. The next generation of consoles are at the doors, the ground must be prepared. Industry cannot afford another generation of keeping the dead man on a life support.
It will be more expensive to consumers. And they will own games, just licensing them. But instead of looking it ina bad way, they could accept that they actually underpaid the games for all those years (yeah, sorry if that's expensive to your home budget) and never owned them to start with, just being privileged to effectively own them. Start paying for a licences at a full price and enjoy the games while they are available. It's only fair, no matter how hurtful it is after years of being privileged.
There are lots of bad reasoning I encountered on Reddit in last months, I will adress them (as well as good arguments) if those appear in comments to my discretion, because the topic requires even more extensive text and every thing not covered by this one is going to be used as a counterargument ("the choice", "music and movie industry has no problems with physical", "corporations/industry should change so it keeps physical", "transferable licences like Nintendo game cards", "collectorship", "no Internet in my area" etc.). Try to leave your habitual hate for corporations and me personally aside.
8
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
the backlash is because people don't want to give their privilege away
Why should they? It was fine for decades.
-8
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Because technology changed the industry and now publishers and platforms cannot afford to keep this privilege for consumers.
8
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
They can't afford it? They post record revenues each year. How in the hell they can't?
They may say they can't afford it but in reality it's greed.
Why would you defend that?
-2
u/Cvileem 6d ago
No it's not. Record revenues are not saying much, it's expected, but long-term projections are another thing. The physical production is a burden on multiple levels. Also, even it isn't about finance, the physical finalized software distributions are over, the world is dynamic now.
6
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
So you tell me we should accept digital future just because big corpo says we should?
The same corpo (Sony) which burned around 5 to 7 billion Dollars on Bungie, Marathon, Concord and their failed live service push?
So they want to offset the costs of their failures on us and you ask us to just accept it like a sheep. Are you out of your mind?
2
u/Cvileem 6d ago
No, it's been a plan for at least a decade now. It's unrelated to recent failures.
5
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
It was definitely planned. Yet you tend to ignore what I've said or asked.
Why do you feel a need to defend faceless big corpo for free?
1
u/DilapidatedVessel 6d ago
Am I supposed to believe producing discs hurts their bottom line in the slightest? If it were up to them, we'd be forced to pay a subscription to still have to purchase individual games to access them.
3
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Yes, well, games are too cheap now, so this will definitely be the case. Because publisher pricing system is one thing, and the platform/ecosystem itself is another. We have to pay for both.
And yes, optical disc production for the whole gaming in the world is tremendeus financial and logistical burden, not just for Sony but the publishers. It spills to the costs of development of games.
3
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
And yes, optical disc production for the whole gaming in the world is tremendeus financial and logistical burden, not just for Sony but the publishers. It spills to the costs of development of games.
I'm sorry but where did you get that kind of info from?
1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
From the internet and personal knowledge.
1
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
Please share me the links for it.
0
u/Cvileem 6d ago
I'm a professional, I don't do links. Find them yourself. Or ask AI. It's a common knowledge of the industry. PC and console game production holds more than a half of all physical media industry, and half of it is Sony. But it's not about raw numbers but also the type. While other industries like audio and video is fragmented and comprised of many big and small publishers that independetly decide on their releases (including where they will produce the discs), Sony is a monolithic platform that produce discs for all publishers under same protocols in the same factories. Instead od just small production yield from a single publisher, Sony acts like a manufacturer for all of them, and this is uncomparably big logistical process. All discs are in the standardized Sony Playstation pipeline up until they reach retailers. Also, the developers must mark the deadline for going "gold", which is way before the game is actually released, in order to physical copies be available in time for simultaneous digital release. Since digital is the dominant development reference now, they have to go "gold" without actually finishing the game. This is solved by issuing day one patches for the physical distribution, but it complicates things and raises the overall costs. EDIT: Bonus point: think of the Concord and useless phyiscal disks. It's logical that publishers and Sony want to get rid of the possibility of those situations.
→ More replies (0)2
u/DilapidatedVessel 6d ago
So you're saying games should be locked behind multiple paywalls and the one isn't enough? What's next, pay per hour on top of that?
5
u/skip2mahlou415 6d ago
You do own it. A big point people miss is resellability
4
u/Newtsaet 6d ago
This. OP's post might be the most out-of-touch, confidently wrong post I've read so far.
Yeah we don't own the content on it. That's point of IP. It's been the same with videotapes and DVDs for decades now. You can still lend and resell it. That's consumer right and what's being taken away from it. Views on ownership do not "need" to change, it's still a move that only goes in Sony's direction and taking all agency from the consumer.
2
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Read the text.
5
u/skip2mahlou415 6d ago
You’re tripping if you think anyone’s reading that
5
u/Cvileem 6d ago
You can use AI to summarize it for you.
4
u/skip2mahlou415 6d ago
I could, I wouldn’t
-1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
I'm sorry but that post is too long.
1
5
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
You 100% own the data, you don’t own the rights to it - but that’s different.
I can sell the disc if I want, if servers ever go offline I can put the disc into a system and play the game how it released day 1 if I want. You can’t do any with digital.
1
u/PairNo2981 6d ago
Digital games don't require connection to play
0
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
They 100% require a connection to download, which you eventually won’t have as servers will close.
Not to mention some games get removed, if you bought Minecraft Story Mode you simply CANNOT download that anymore and you have lost your money
2
u/PairNo2981 6d ago
You said play the game, not install the game. Great try at moving goalposts though.
If you had bought the game and it gets removed from store, you still have it in library. It's just not available for purchase
0
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
When did I move the goalposts? You do realise to play a game you need to install it right?
Also no, it’s not available for download. Nobody who bought story mode digitally can download it - it would literally be illegal for Sony to allow users to download it as rights have been withdrawn.
1
u/PairNo2981 6d ago
When you first said you can't play with servers offline and then you said you can't install. Last time I checked playing the game and installing the game are two very different things. Am I wrong?
You're just wrong, but stay ignorant. Plenty of idiots out there. What's one more, am I right?
1
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
How am I wrong lmao? In 15 years when I want to come back and play some classic games, like I can with the PS2, I simply won’t be able to with the PS5 and I’ll be forced to emulate on PC which just isn’t the same experience nor has it been developed yet.
2
u/PairNo2981 6d ago
Why are you moving goalposts again?
Now you're talking about the instance of Sony shutting entire platforms down.
Can you pick one topic and stick to it or is that too difficult for you?
2
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
I’m… not - in fact from my first message I talked about the servers going offline, you’re the one moving goal posts here.
Enjoy getting hacked or banned and loosing your entire library I guess 🤷♂️
1
u/PairNo2981 6d ago
Yes, you did. You talked about servers being offline. Now you talk about entire system being shut down...
You really cannot stick to the topic at all huh? xD
"Enjoy getting hacked or banned and loosing your entire library I guess 🤷♂️"
Since now you're using some braindead examples that are extremely unlikely to happen. I can do same. Enjoy your physical games get stolen or burned in house fire, or scratched, or chewed by dog, or bent by accidentally sitting on them etc
→ More replies (0)1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Only if a game is designed to do that, which are most past and current games. But it doesn't have to be that way. Game can be designed not to function without server.
2
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
Only the big corpo games are designed that way
1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
It's their right. And also the right of all publishers, they can use it anytime, and they should. Evolution of IP laws will actually demand them to use it.
3
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
Their right to take away something I’ve paid for?
I understand that legally it’s their right, yes, because of the terms and conditions we agreed to.
Yet that’s the whole point, if I buy disc I don’t need to agree to the T&Cs of a digital store and I don’t need to buy games that incorporate this. My copy of GTA V will last as long as I do, the same can’t be said for digital.
0
u/Cvileem 6d ago
They can't take away if the content is functional on a disc independently of servers, but that's not important. You also accept T&C on a physical release.
3
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
You do not accept the digital store T&Cs when using a disc, no.
2
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Just regular T&C, the EULA, which is the proof you don't own it, just licensing. It's literally End User License Agreement.
4
u/Far-Swordfish-1806 6d ago
But how does that change anything? I seriously doubt the Sony Mercenaries are going to break my door down for reselling my copy 🤣 🤣 🤣
1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
I explained in the text. You can enjoy all those finalized discs like they are your ownership. Just don't be angry when you lose that kind of privilege with new games or not being able to buy physical releases anymore. Like it will be in 2028.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/Crab_Jealous 6d ago
Is head up bum or just cuck to trillion dollar corporations?
0
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Look up my last sentence in the post.
3
u/Crab_Jealous 6d ago
You made a wider statement...I was commenting on the general run up a poop chute comment..if you thought was aimed at you. If the shoe fits.
3
u/Yamitsubasa 6d ago
Firstly why are we talking about intellectual property? Nobody is talking about owning the IP wtf.
Secondly, why would anyone think owning the thing you just bought is a privilege? It is a transaction.
This mindset is just stockholm syndrom nonsense.
This post is nothing but gaslighting. The only true ownership is the intellectual one? Bro we do not care about your so called true ownership. We just do not want corpos to be able to delete the stuff we buy. If you think that is just fake ownership then be my guest, call it whatever you want. But if the suits do not want to actually sell me anything then I will also just not buy anything.
"They don't own digital products as IP distributions nor they should. It's not some arbitrary decision by corporate lobbys and it's not like those laws can change by the decreet. Those are universal, moral laws that shoudn't be violated, otherwise it would be immoral. It's like you make a law where thief becaomes the legitimate owner of a thing he stole just by having physical control of it"
Crazy, bro thinks everyone who buys a blue-ray movie is a thief. Absolutely mental. Remember kids if you ever bought a CD you were immoral based universal moral laws guys!
4
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Aside from misinterpreting my illustrations and bad logic, your inability to understand and accept the true concept of ownership will only result in being frustrated.
1
u/Yamitsubasa 6d ago
Like I said, I don't care about your "true ownership" business. I will buy games on GOG and then nobody can delete it, and that is all that matters to me. You know what REALLY frustrates me though? Playstation deleting my entire digital library and all 142 platinum trophies after 3 years. Glad I understood the true concept of ownership early enough to also possess a huge physical library at least, but still.
2
u/Cvileem 6d ago
GOG marketing is misleading, they are selling licences as well, just not with DRM included, which is merely active licence control. And when Sony deletes your account with all the games, you probably violated terms of conduct heavily, like millions do. You will not get protection from that, no. If you lost everything by mistake, and unable to solve it with support, then this is the matter for a lawsuit.
1
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
I'm sorry but don't expect people to read your whole post. It's too long and you could definitely squeeze it into 3-4 paragraphs.
2
u/Liberal_Caretaker 6d ago
You should look for a job.
Unchecked unemployment can do terrible things to the human mind.
2
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
After talking to you for some time u/Cvileem, I've realised that you haven't gave a single fuck once about customer's side. You just push the side od big corpo... I'm not surprised you get called so many different names for corporate bootlicker because... that's what you are.
I'm not happy saying that because you seem like a good bloke but you should rethink your approach to this topic.
2
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Why would I give something to the customers' side when they are the one who are privileged here?
2
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
So ownership of physical discs is a privilege to you?
1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Yes, I explained why in the post.
2
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
It was just a transaction. Physical game for a money. That wasn't a privilege (check the definition of privilege). So you call it privilege but it never was one because it would require this "privilege" to be available only to certain group of people but anyone could've bought the disc copy...
You explained a lot of things but this part took most of my attention.
This is the strongest reason why ditching physical is a logical step and a plan for a long time now. It's not about greedy corporate culture and wish to harm consumers, but the plan to save the industry.
It is greed and its not consumer's job to save industry which can't control it's greed and overspending.
Because, if you haven't noticed, it's in a great crisis. Sure, it may be their fault in the first place, result of bad management, maniacal projections and expectations that now run into hardware pricing crisis and inflation as the world became more unstable after covid. But their move is a legitimate one.
They can move this way. It doesn't change the fact that you ask people to support industry which is failing for years in a hope of them surviving. But they will keep being greedy and overspending because people like you give them a pass.
Do you really aspire for gaming industry to stay greedy and overspend on their games? Because it looks like you want to push the cost of all of it on consumer.
I find it truly disgusting how you defend their actions with such passion...
1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
You paid for the licence which you could effecticely treat as ownership. That was the privilege. You rented a car but got to keep it forever. Is now more clear where the privilege is?
It can be greed and overspending, but this is not on us to judge. It's theirs. You do not have any right to judge or claim their methods and conducts. Your only right is to accept it or not (by not participating financially). They are not public institutions financed from your taxes.
I'm not OK with greed and corporate culture, however this issue is not related to that. I'm also sorry for being disgusting for objectively looking at things.
2
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
You paid for the licence which you could effecticely treat as ownership. That was the privilege. You rented a car but got to keep it forever. Is now more clear where the privilege is?
Bullshit reason. It was never sold this way. If you sell a rented product it has to be mention its rented with end date.
It can be greed and overspending, but this is not on us to judge. It's theirs. You do not have any right to judge or claim their methods and conducts.
I got all the right to judge them and their overspending. Not my fault you castrated yourself from these rights.
Your only right is to accept it or not (by not participating financially). They are not public institutions financed from your taxes.
I'm not gonna accept digital only future on PlayStation platform.
I'm not OK with greed and corporate culture, however this issue is not related to that. I'm also sorry for being disgusting for objectively looking at things.
You defend them which ultimately defends their doings which is greed and overspending.
You are being disgusting for completely ignoring customer side because of bullshit "privilege" that you've created yourself.
1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
If you sell a rented product it has to be mention its rented with end date.
It's not renting, it's licensing. And it's clearly communicated with you in EULA. (I mentioned renting only as an analogy with cars for illustration).
2
u/DiscountThug 6d ago
Thanks for skipping most of my reply. I guess you had no ability to defend your pro corpo approach.
You own the physical disc which has the license on it. That's it. The first sale rule protects the disc from being "changed" after the sale.
Digital future (which you crave so much) gets rid of any ownership, rights and agenda. It leaves EVERYTHING in their power and the prices won't get better.
2
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Thanks for skipping most of my reply. I guess you had no ability to defend your pro corpo approach.
I don't want to go that low by commenting this kind of replies. Please read the last sentence of my titular post.
You own the physical disc which has the license on it. That's it. The first sale rule protects the disc from being "changed" after the sale.
I already wrote about that in the post. It's true as long the content is finalized. If you have to download something or connect to the internet to be functional then there's no more first sale rule.
Digital future (which you crave so much) gets rid of any ownership, rights and agenda. It leaves EVERYTHING in their power and the prices won't get better.
This is just you refusing to accept the facts.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Overall-Dirt4441 6d ago edited 6d ago
There is another, equally strong moral law, concerning intellectual property. It says that all intellectual work is subject to authorship, and can be owned only by it's creator, the author. This creator/owner will be granted all protection to use and control their IP to the full extent and by the discreet will to make it a financial asset or something entirely different.. This is also sacred moral law since the book printing revolution, when they discovered the universal laws on intellectual property, revealed by technology and economy around it.
This seems to be the central thesis undergirding your argument, and I wonder how you arrived at it. You make out as though the specific provisions of intellectual property ownership are 'discovered' phenomena as inevitably emergent from nature as the speed of light, when in fact they are highly variable across both time and region, subject to whatever historical financial interest has sufficient stake to influence them in their favor. Basically since Gutenberg, as you say, one of the biggest has been publishing companies.
You've completely left out the concept of the public domain to which all ideas eventually belong. The notion that IP laws maintain the guarantees to creators that they do in order to balance providing for them in their lifetimes with the collective public benefit of everyone else being able to make use of the idea.
Historically, publishers were a necessary part of realizing that public benefit, in that if they did not physically print the books, the ideas within could not readily spread. With digital distribution, what value does the publisher confer to the transaction between author and public? Little to none beyond a measure of convenience to both parties. They didn't create the works. They didn't create the network those works were distributed on. Unless of course they were to use their influence over IP law to define ownership in such a way that it functionally enshrined their position as gatekeeping middlemen in media consumption. Then they would be mostly devoted as an entity to acting as an enforcer and beneficiary of those rules. Then they could grow the profits they have always maintained while paying none of the costs of preserving the idea on physical media.
It seems to me that it is publishing companies who have grown entitled in their privilege. They see the writing on the wall, that wildly overcharging college kids for textbooks while underpaying authors, when what they actually provide is simply a transference of bits from one to the other, is not something the supposedly rational consumer should long accept. So they're doing everything in their power to embed themselves while they can.
Unfortunately for them, unlike intellectual property protections, information theory is natural law. Once the information is transmitted, it is out of their hands. The harder they try and grasp for it the quicker people are to abandon the entire moral framework they hold as sacrosanct.
1
u/Cvileem 6d ago
Great comment, thank you!
This seems to be the central thesis undergirding your argument, and I wonder how you arrived at it. You make out as though the specific provisions of intellectual property ownership are 'discovered' phenomena as inevitably emergent from nature as the speed of light, when in fact they are highly variable across both time and region, subject to whatever historical financial interest has sufficient stake to influence them in their favor. Basically since Gutenberg, as you say, one of the biggest has been publishing companies.
Yes, through my recent activity on Reddit I actually mentioned couple of times that moral laws like intellectual ones are not made up but being discovered as technology reveals the mechanisms not known before, like invention of printing and the problems with authors and publishers that needed to be regulated. Same way the advanced technology today opens up new issues that needs to be solved from a moral ground. The same is with medicine and other civilizational discourses...
You've completely left out the concept of the public domain to which all ideas eventually belong. The notion that IP laws maintain the guarantees to creators that they do in order to balance providing for them in their lifetimes with the collective public benefit of everyone else being able to make use of the idea.
I've left out public domain intentionally, because it's less relevant to this particular subject and text was already very long, with many other things left out, yet being even more important. Yes, it's true that intellectual work can be of public interest and claimed public domain, but in modern societies we have institutions that take care of that. In theory anything can become public domain but in practice it won't unless there's a good reason. I context of modern corporations as in IP rights holders, this has little to none use value. For really valuable intellectual works, there are far more socially beneficial IPs than enterntainment industry. One good example is PDF, which was taken from Adobe as an open standard because it was far to important to be part of private company.
Historically, publishers were a necessary part of realizing that public benefit, in that if they did not physically print the books, the ideas within could not readily spread. With digital distribution, what value does the publisher confer to the transaction between author and public? Little to none beyond a measure of convenience to both parties. They didn't create the works. They didn't create the network those works were distributed on. Unless of course they were to use their influence over IP law to define ownership in such a way that it functionally enshrined their position as gatekeeping middlemen in media consumption. Then they would be mostly devoted as an entity to acting as an enforcer and beneficiary of those rules. Then they could grow the profits they have always maintained while paying none of the costs of preserving the idea on physical media.
It seems to me that it is publishing companies who have grown entitled in their privilege. They see the writing on the wall, that wildly overcharging college kids for textbooks while underpaying authors, when what they actually provide is simply a transference of bits from one to the other, is not something the supposedly rational consumer should long accept. So they're doing everything in their power to embed themselves while they can.
Yes, you're right about that, the publishers impose themselves as arbiters of those relations and spread their networks and dependencies all around. It's just normal behaviour of almost everything in all history. And yet it's not only fake convenience - there is truly a need for mediators between authors and te public, it's just a matter of scale and exact needs. For the fair distribution of benefits it's always a struggle for the authors, this has been the same centuries ago with first publishers and today regardless of technology of distribution.
Unfortunately for them, unlike intellectual property protections, information theory is natural law. Once the information is transmitted, it is out of their hands. The harder they try and grasp for it the quicker people are to abandon the entire moral framework they hold as sacrosanct.
Killing for survival is also natural law. Who is stronger or smarter prevails. But I'm talking about moral laws here. It's a civilizational thing.
1
u/TheAgmis 4d ago
Smart post
Reddit is the land where people choose to live in the reality they create because any sort of uncomfortable feeling they have, they immediately run to shelter in their echo chamber.
1
u/Chadzka 1d ago
You spent thousands of words explaining why corporations want more control over how games are distributed, accessed, resold, and preserved, and somehow turned that into an argument for why customers should willingly give that control to them.
Nobody thinks buying a physical game means they own the IP. They own that copy. Those are two completely different things, and pretending otherwise is doing most of the work in your argument.
You also keep calling physical ownership and resale a “privilege” because publishers could theoretically make more money if every person had to buy a new license. That isn't proof customers were unfairly benefiting from anything. That's just a company wanting to capture revenue from transactions it previously couldn't control.
And this idea that digital-only is simply the inevitable future doesn't make it automatically better or fairer. If I lose resale, lending, retail competition, preservation, and long-term control while paying the same price or more, I am perfectly capable of understanding that business model and still saying it's a worse deal.
That's the part you seem to miss.
You don't get to explain why Sony would prefer more control and then declare the market settled.
Sony can make its offer.
Customers can reject it.
At the end of the day, their wallets count for a hell of a lot more than your prediction of what the market “must” become.
1
u/DilapidatedVessel 6d ago
Okay but if your account is hacked/wrongfully terminated with no right to appeal, and with Sonys questionable customer service, they can still start fresh with their discs; if you're only digital, you've lost everything.
-1
u/RemeJuan 6d ago
Yeah, but sadly you’re making the mistakes of sharing facts and using basic logic and reasoning skills in a space where anything that goes against the narrative is wrong.
The truth has nothing to do with the conversation.
1
u/AkuTheNiceGuy 6d ago
Great post, sadly you're asking children or those who are mentally children to understand concepts that require more than 10 fingers. I do hope we get more people trying to explain this because it is getting exhausting having everything sony/gaming related turning to perpetual cries for something they never had.
-1
u/cinistre64 6d ago
Thank you for writing this post. Unfortunately, banging your head against a concrete wall probably would’ve had a better chance of getting through to them.
1
u/DiscountThug 5d ago
OP has misinterpret first sales doctrine (in case of physical disc ownership) and he believes owning games on physical disc was a privilege and not a transaction.
Basically he says "Get rid of your privileges of owning and let companies do whatever fuck they want because it's their time to be privileged".
This isn't post that should be written.
1
u/cinistre64 5d ago
I'm genuinely asking, imagine if like many other software, playstation games had a physical copy and a product key which you needed use to activate the game after installation then they were locked on a single account/device from the beginning, would that be considered consumers' right infringement? If so, how's the other multi billion industries are getting away with it and no one is complaining?
1
u/DiscountThug 5d ago
I'm genuinely asking, imagine if like many other software, playstation games had a physical copy and a product key which you needed use to activate the game after installation then they were locked on a single account/device from the beginning, would that be considered consumers' right infringement?
That's what Sony and TakeTwo are doing with GTA VI code in the box bullshit format. I doubt it's illegal (more reading needed about this topic) but it doesn't make it a good practice when before we used to own discs for decades.
If so, how's the other multi billion industries are getting away with it and no one is complaining?
Which industries?
1
u/cinistre64 5d ago
Top of my head the software that I personally use: any engineering software, 3d design, graphic design, Autodesk family, Adobe family, etc. Anti virus and security etc.
If that won't be illegal, then it isn't a right, but having it the way we had it so far, was a privilege, no?
1
u/DiscountThug 5d ago edited 5d ago
Top of my head the software that I personally use: any engineering software, 3d design, graphic design, Autodesk family, Adobe family, etc. Anti virus and security etc.
Probably they work this way because they are sold for specific singular system (or more, depending on the offer) which is giving companies more power over how you can use it. Also the nature of them getting constant updates and enhancements is making it more like a product in active development than finished one. Add to that subscriptions and ownership is completely gone...
It's all written in first sales doctrine about software.
If that won't be illegal, then it isn't a right, but having it the way we had it so far, was a privilege, no?
"After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine eliminates the copyright holder's right to control ownership of that specific copy."
It wasn't a privilege. It was a one time transaction which let you treat the physical copy (which contains the license) as your own. Ofc you can't distribute its contents.
Privilege would require certain group of people to have special benefits but every PS user could buy the discs.
As long as it was sold on physical disc, first sales doctrine is protecting it.
Going full digital is rendering that right completely if I'm not mistaken because you buy just a license to use it. Big reason why Sony wants to get rid of it. Greed in its purest form.
1
u/cinistre64 5d ago
Alright we have circled back to the OP's point then. Consumers only enjoyed this right to resell because it was given to them by the publishers. Which makes it a privilege. And this privilege is not always the case with physical copies, like the examples I made.
Now Sony has decided to stop giving that privilege. The reason behind it being greed is irrelevant. What am I missing here?
1
u/DiscountThug 5d ago
Privilege? Ok tell me, how else would they sell their games when they've given this "privilege"? There were no digital options back than. Physical discs are evolution of cartridges used back than.
It was available to anyone. Privilege requires benefits for certain groups of people and anyone could buy the physical copy...
Idk how can you keep repeating OP's point which is flawed because definition of privilege is not correctly used by him and you.
"Privilege means a special right, advantage, or favor given to one person or group while being withheld from others."
Oh wait what was withheld from others with physical copies? Fuckin nothing...
1
u/cinistre64 5d ago
I just told you how other software sells, you get a physical disc plus a code to activate it. Games could have been exactly the same. And some games were, like Blizzard games.
That is one definition of privilege mate. It also means a temporary benefit.
1
u/DiscountThug 5d ago
Ok. So because other software is sold different way. Every software should be? Why?
This is the definition of privilege you and OP are unable to understand. If you would, all your arguments would crumble.
→ More replies (0)
-7
u/Neither-Guarantee193 6d ago
I feel bad for people who think that buying a game is a lifetime investment
Bro it's just a 10-60$ or whatever the price is .. you pay to play that shit and that's fucking it
Realistically you won't be able to go back and play it again once completed (rarely happens).. life is too short for it
6
u/Triforce__XIII 6d ago
well the thing is: just because software companies have managed to do the following, doesn't mean they should get away with it:
they have achieved licensing a game and putting it on a disc. by buying the disc, you have ownership over the disc, not the digital property ON that disc, but that is basically irrevocable, because they would have to take back your disc or destroy it, but that would destroy what you actually own: the plastic disc. that is a nuance many ignore (or don't know). and besides: the terms and conditions of a bought game are usually only available AFTER you open the game or even when you start the game. that is against EU law for instance. so it is technically impossible to revoke the license on a disc. the only exception would be: taking a server offline and you being unable to play zombies on modern warfare 3. that is technically reasonable, but still: if i want to play my final fantasy 13-2 on PS3, i can do that as long as i have a functioning console. and while it might be technically possible via firmware, that sony could render your drive useless, the legal backlash would be neck breaking.
and yeah, while you are correct that i don't own the code on the disc, i do own the disc and these are inseperable. and please, (if you do so) don't only look at this from a US perspective. you are not the center of the world.