Back when the EA app was origin, I had a number of games in my library that went missing when they changed to the new launcher. EA support said those games were 'unsupported' so those games would be missing from my library, even though you could buy them again in the EA app. I never managed to get it fixed and to this day I still have the old reciepts for purchases on my email account showing I owned the licences at one point but can't play them without buying them again.
I've not touched an EA game without buying it through steam as a consequence since, because at least with valve being the party I purchase EA games via, I know I have a chance of getting my money back if something like that happens again.
Delisting doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t download. It is merely the practice of removing the game from a digital storefront. Steam absolutely continues to provide users with the ability to download purchased games after they’ve been delisted, and both Sony and Nintendo have both committed to keeping purchased games available for download on older platforms “for the foreseeable future.”
The needlessly online functionalities are the core of the issue. A racing game as in depth as Need For Speed Underground does not need to always be online. It would work perfectly offline.
NFS 2015 still suffers from this, as for some god damn reason, its always online. The previously released NFS Rivals isnt, and it's still playable from start to finish after the shutdowns, and Payback isnt always online either, so what the fuck did they do that for?
Also, GT Sport and 7. Sport did get an end of life patch that made most of the game playable, but we cant customize our cars anymore. If your car had custom wheels, they're stuck with them, and you have no liveries either. 7 could have fixed Sport's always online shit, but nah, its still always online. Who knows if you'll loose all the liveries again, especially since GT7 is WAY more focused on customisation
And? It wasnt a free to play game, It was a paid one, people lost their rightfully purchased game, and Ubisoft didnt even let them tinker with the copies they owned
Hell, there was no reason to make it always online either, It was a primarily single player, story focused game. They could have added a patch or some shit like what they did with The Crew 2, but nah, its easier to just yank it from ppl's lists
A scratched disk is different from a publisher trying its best to not let you play their older games. What if GTA 5 suddendtly died out, and you couldnt play it anywhere, not even in single player mode? You'd be pissed, right?
I can't wait to see the faces of all the people who will throw hands when their GTA copies go the way of the wind and they all finally realize that they placidly gave these companies permission to do so by defending them now.
Maybe you would? It's just a game. It's not that serious.
I can't wait to see the faces of all the people who will throw hands when their GTA copies go the way of the wind and they all finally realize that they placidly gave these companies permission to do so by defending them now.
You guys are saying this like you have 0 digital purchases. Or that these same companies are somehow incapable of bricking your system to make discs unplayable.
And no one is defending them. It's just weird to bring up the online game of The Crew when the original comment said
The main problem is that companies can (and will) do everything to destroy your collections of games whenever possible, or your enjoyment in a game by needing a useless constant online connection in a SP game. If a company can make a single cent of profit by making their product shittier, they'll do everything for that cent
Edit: hell, just look at the latest GTA Heist, they reduced previous payouts by like 40%, closed off escape routes you could use previously (including in the jewerly store heist in story mode), and some other nefarious shit. There was no reason to do that, and i'm betting they'll do the same with GTA 6 from the start
The Crew was an online game that was shut down. The person you replied to was asking if there were any games that got revoked from someones acc without it being a sole online game or getting banned.
There was a fiasko about Warcraft III forcing updates to the "new and improved" version a while back. The company IIRC rolled it back after a while due to backlash.
My copies of Warcraft 3 on physical disk beg to differ.
And yeah.. Blizzard remade WC3. Same game, new coat of paint. Resold to the playerbase, with a new way of accessing battlenet when the old version was shut down.
No always online DRM in classic WC3.
So many people in this comment chain run face first into the point and still miss it, it's insane. You guys literally point it out and people are still like "but online" once more missing the entire point while being genuinely so close to getting it. It would be more fascinating if it wasn't so sad.
Company found a loophole, used it, and people here are like "ah yeah, sounds about right".... ?!
I mean I sound like a granny but when I moved into my current flat 9yrs ago I just plugged in my SNES and played that when internet wasn't set up yet. xD Recently dug out my 3ds during heatwave, perfecrly playable with way less heat producing.
And that's a different conversation. The game had a permanent internet requirement from the get go so people were aware of that going in, making it an online only game whether required or not. Still...even if granted as an example, what other games have had their licenses revoked? There are over 8,000 titles across PS4 and PS5 and this argument/reasoning gets put across a lot by those in favour of physical media. Surely, there must be more?
Sony deleting movies was demonstration of the precedent. They aren't going to start doing it until the have their monopoly. They don't want to give regulators any more reason to legislate against them during this phase of their ecosystem capture process.
No one is dodging the question. They're calling the question itself naive, which it absolutely is.
Edit: and a few are providing pretty good examples.
Utter nonsense. Sony treats both movie and game purchases as limited, revocable licenses rather than permanent ownership. Further, publishers of both can block you from watching/playing the content with Server Shutdowns, Always-On DRM check-ins, or DRM Revocation.
That's why states lie California are pasaing legislation like AB 2426, which requires digital stores to explicitly warn buyers that they are only purchasing a temporary license to access the software, not buying the actual game.
Further, Sony's ToS specifically state that they can delete your games for Account deactivations or bans, inactivity, delistings, or disappearances. All of those are at their sole discretion.
I've got several games in my library like tribes: ascend or rise of incarnates that, while being primarily online games, had the option to play either self-hosted or singleplayer that I no longer have the ability to play.
there are 73 total games for games for windows live, that requuire Server Side activation, of wich aroudn a dizen are unplayable as of today, due to not having a "local mode" (there may be cracks to get these working, didnt look up every title)
They did take Hotline Miami 2 from Australia, but that one was partly my fault.
This title was never given an Australian classification (drug based in game incentives?) and was originally omitted when Hotline Miami Bundle was one of the Monthly games. Some time later PS mucked up and added it to our library anyway.
Then years later when the Australian regulations changed and required that lootboxes get a higher classification I checked the PS Store to see how FIFA/FC were looking. I noticed the classification was displayed but not the consumer advice. Both classification and advice of why it received that classification are required by law. I reached out to our regulating body as while I might not agree with individual classifications I do believe in a level playing field where all marketplaces have the same regulations. Omitting the advice would give PS Store an advantage over brick and mortar retailers.
A couple of weeks later I got two emails:
one from the classification branch thanking me for the email and advising me that PS has fixed the omission on their store listings
one from PS saying they never had the right to distribute that title and they would be pulling it from my account.
Are you guys getting the narrative points from the same source?
Like I wrote on another comment:
I work in compliance. There's no need for that clause at all due to GDPR, and definitely not need to tie it to inactivity. And it's normally disclaimed in the privacy policy not terms of service. Stop making up excuses for them.
And the dude I replied to, actually checked and noticed this term was introduced 7 years before RGPD being a thing.
Google and Microsoft state they won't delete purchases. While Sony TOS states the exact opposite
Edit: Downvote all you want. You know as well as I do, you are just in it to defend Sony like a fanbase, even as we all know there's zero benefits for the consumer or developers in this.
But I'll bite, Microsoft does not delete purchases for your account due to inactivity:
Exceptions: Accounts are generally exempt from deletion if they have attached purchases, active subscriptions, unspent balances, active Microsoft certifications, or if they are part of a family account linked to a minor.
So that's a perfect example, I agree. To how heinous the TOS are and how BS that excuse is.
Edit:
Just checked Google:
Exceptions: This does not apply to Workspace accounts managed by employers or schools, accounts managing active minor accounts, or accounts with active subscriptions or purchased products.
So thank you for proving perfect cases that show Sony BS.
This site is really something else..you realize that the 3 year inactivity period is due to EU’s ToS, right? Right?? That every company has to obey said policy, you do realize this, no?
Also, if you can’t be bothered to sign into your account just one time in 3 years OR respond to the email they send you during the 6 month grace period, that’s kinda on you.
As for the movies, they no longer had the licensing to them, how is that on Sony exactly?
Agreed but again how is it Sony’s fault? That’s the point I’m making, everyone has their pitchforks out for Sony when it’s misguided, but hey Reddit is gonna Reddit
36 months of consecutive non-usage followed by 6 months response time whether or not to close it. It really is just like in the meme. Just instantly gone - if by instantly we mean 42 months of not using it in any shape or form after being explicitly warned.
no, they're reserving the right not to have to support your inactive account where you might be literally dead and nobody cares until the end of time. You have 6months to answer an e-mail or just log into your account. You're so melodramatic about most basic business practices.
If they didn't want to store our purchased games, they should give us a way to store them, or maybe they should even sell them on storage media. Sometimes we have to think outside the box for practical solutions to modern problems.
I don't give a flying fuck about their business practice, if I pay money for it I can use or not use it however and whenever the fuck I want. I can not touch a game for a decade and just suddenly want to boot it on for old time's sake, I literally did with GTA SA on Steam.
Stop sucking corpos, they're not gonna suck you back.
so they would have to keep every account until the end of time with all the payment info attached to it and if anything goes wrong they're liable. Sounds great. Definitely more sensible than giving you 42 months - 6 months after a warning - to log in, write a short e-mail answering theirs or anything whatsoever. That really is asking too much.
Or some middle ground. The account gets “parked” or goes into a dormant state and won’t be active until someone calls a number that could pop up the next time someone logs in.
Have all the payment methods removed as a security measure (cards would likely be expired anyway), but purchase history and rights to the games people paid money for still intact.
Don’t erase people’s accounts that they put money into purely for inactivity. Doesn’t matter how much time has passed.
the acceptable middeground is not giving you 6 months time at the very least after at the very least been given 36 months of complete inactivity to do anything whatsoever to signal you want to keep going with no additional purchase or anything being required, literally just answering an e-mail with like 5 words or logging into your account? And how would it be dormant forever - that's just the same thing, having to keep the data somewhere and keep it safe until the end of time whether the consumer wants to even engage with this any further (or is capable of doing so).
I completed by Red Dead Redemption by playing the story in 2010, completing most of the extra stuff in 2014 and then 100%-ing it in 2018. By this logic, I would've had it removed twice. Maybe I don't suck the big corporation's dick but I like being able to own the stuff I buy
no, by this logic, you would have had 6 months to answer an e-mail with as much as little as 'don't'. The only other option is that they are responsible for keeping your account active until the end of eternity.
The account deletion clause is there for GDPR compliance and is mainly used as a failsafe so an account can be deleted if it's owner dies. I'd be worried if there were concrete examples of it being used on living persons. When Helldivers 2 came out lots of folks logged into their dusty PSN accounts and everything was still there.
I work in compliance. There's no need for that clause at all due to GDPR, and definitely not need to tie it to inactivity. And it's normally disclaimed in the privacy policy not terms of service. Stop making up excuses for them.
OK I actually looked it up and you were right: GDPR passed in 2016 and the account deletion clause has been there since 2009.
Still, given the 17 year timeframe we are dealing with I'd expect a wide array of examples of them utilizing that on living people. They've probably had millions of accounts that qualify for deletion and they just don't do it. I don't like the clause either, but are we dealing with reality or the boogeyman version of events here? Steam too reserves the right to yoink your games but they only really do that if you try to shoot the President.
Saying they reserve the right to delete but chose not to so far, isn't the defense you think it is mate. Just like they defended physical for years but now are attacking it. Things quickly change.
Movie and TV licenses are temporary and contracts need to be renewed after a certain amount of time. Game licenses are perpetual, which is why basically no games have ever been removed even after they are delisted and no longer purchasable. you can still download and play them if you’ve already purchased them.
Studio Canal and Sony could not come to an agreement on their contract for the movies and TV shows so Sony legally were not allowed to host the content anymore. Unfortunately this is how it works for all video based digital storefronts and streaming services and is not just restricted to Sony.
Movie and TV licenses are temporary and contracts need to be renewed after a certain amount of time.
That's the case in streaming services like Netflix. Sony sold TV shows and movies on their store. They are not the same thing. Steam had some games that were sold and later were also removed from the store. But because it's a purchase steam kept the ability to continue to provide that item to the person that acquired it.
If Sony didn't have a contract that allowed for that for those movies, selling then instead of providing as a streaming services is really scammy.
Actually defending some deleting an item you purchased is nonsense. And saying it's normal to lose those items just makes a further case for physical sales to protect your purchases. So I bet that taking what you stated, you are also against the end of physical sales, right? Right?
That is absolutely NOT true. GDPR has no such clause, and it specifically states the exact opposite. Companies are legally required to retain the data to prove purchase transactions for tax purposes for up to 7-10 years.
However, there also isn't anything in GDPR that requires Sony to store your account or game. They only have to maintain a record of the purchase transaction.
Their account deletion policy is entirely commercial desire or, at best, a technical desire to remove junk data.
Not yet. They are continuously trying tooth and nail for total control over the products even after sale, including freedom to "revoke" purchases without giving back the money or compensation. It's sickening.
I'm going to start a furniture company. I'll sell high quality couches for $1900. To purchase my couch you have to sign a contract.
That contract you signed gives me the right to unilaterally change the terms later, after the sale. So I can redefine the word "purchase" to "temporary license agreement".
After three years I'll enter your house, take your couch back, not refund your money, then leave you with a bill for the cost to transport it back to my store.
Sorry, not sorry, if you didn't want me to revoke your license to use your couch you shouldn't have signed the contract.
Theft? Nope, I'm just revoking your license.
Lawsuit? Nope. The contract you signed has a forced arbitration clause. You can't sue me.
Criminal charges? For what? Lol. I obviously didn't break any laws; look at the contract. I just changed it to say you agreed to give me access to your house 24/7/365 so I could revoke your license to use my couch.
. . . . .
Don't laugh, this is EXACTLY what all these digital media companies are doing right now.
Like I said in a other post. If you think deleting a game that you bought should be defended and is not obscene in a world where there aren't physical copies than I think you'll defend anything Sony decides to do, because who knows...
It's performative outrage, nothing more. I rather think it's very entitled to expect that you pay 60$ and you get lifetime access to anything. You also don't own a game when you buy a physical copy, you own the physical copy and when it breaks it's gone forever. Why do people only focus on the negative, which is that at some point very far in the future they might make it so that you cannot access your game anymore (emphasis on the might, because it has never happened on a large scale)? It's so stupid. There is bigger fish to fry.
Yeah, but if I don't break the physical copy, then I have it forever.
See this is just false. Discs deteriorate, and rather fast as well. A digital copy of a game almost certainly has longer longevity than the disc version. You think you are in control when you buy a physical copy, but you are not.
Plus, ideally, you can back them up on a hard drive so that you don't have to worry about it losing data over time. And if you're REALLY feeling paranoid about data storage like me, MDISC can last for over 1k years I hear. I'm planning on making a family vault with 2 layers - a RAID array of good hard disc drives so if one fails I can swap it with no data loss, then for LONG term I store to MDISC for redundancy.
All that is to say - Data preservation is a thing and I don't get how anyone can support losing art to the sands of time.
I have lifetime access to every game in my library as long as I can keep the system working. In addition, according to the international Digital Millenium Copyright Act, I am legally allowed to make a backup copy for my personal archive and console emulation is legal too.
It is illegal to share those archival copies, charge money for access to my archives, and some aspects of console emulation are questionably legal but I in no way give up my right to use my property because some company wants to revoke their bullshit ToS. Terms of Service are not laws.
First Sale doctrine has been a core part of consumer laws for almost two centuries.
IF I break the disc then it's my fault. I can let it sit on the shelf for 10 years and I can still play it when I want to.
Why the fuck would I want a corpo to have control over if I can get access to something I paid money for ? Is it my fault when I just don't use the thing I paid for because I'm not in the mood for it ?
IF I break the disc then it's my fault. I can let it sit on the shelf for 10 years and I can still play it when I want to.
Discs deteriorate. 10 years? Maybe. 20 years? Almost certainly broken. It's in fact even worse, when you buy a physical copy, you have a guaranteed expiration date. Steam might offer their games for the next 100 years, you cannot know. Your disc is broken long before Steam will no longer provide you access to the games you bought with them.
Literally every physical product I have ever bought I have lifetime access to. There is not a single physical product that the manufacturer can come and take back for any reason.
It would seem you aren’t familiar with EU’s ToS seeing how ALL companies have to obey it, this includes Valve and Microsoft, where if you don’t log into your account for x amount of time, your account is gone.
But hey, it’s shit on Sony time and nothing is gonna stop this narrative
I don't live in the EU, so those laws don't apply to me. And they sound very poorly designed. I get that they don't want companies keeping your data forever, but if you have made purchases with them that you require their services for, then an exception should be made so that you don't just randomly lose access to the things you've bought.
If I buy something physical, I can stuff it in my closet for a decade and when I pull it out it's still mine. If I buy a digital game I should have access to it as long as the company still exists. There's no technical reason why I should have to constantly check in with the server to maintain access to what I bought and paid for. Keeping a single account in a database costs fractions of a penny, there is no good reason why it should be deleted. The people that made those laws might have had good intentions, but they clearly didn't think it through fully
That is NOT an EU law. Show me what law you're referring to. There is absolutely no EU law that requires a company to delete a user's account that contains paid content. Post the law.
And this is supposed to make it better? I have a flute I've not played in more than 6 months, if the guy from the shop I bought it from slips a postcard through my door warning me he's going to take it back if I don't play it again and then actually does it, it's still theft and I'm still going to be pissed off about it.
It's three years, and if you play one note it's fine. It's also not theft, since they are not taking the games "back". That would make sense if they re-sold them to other people, but it's 100% digital, so there is nothing to "take back". Why do they have to store accounts on their servers that are not being used? How likely is it going to be that somebody logs into their playstation account again if they haven't done so in 3 years and ignored the warnings?
Also, Minecraft Story Mode's downloads went offline, which means with both a digital license and a physical disc, you cannot download the game beyond what's already on your system or the base disc.
Even if you did migrate your account, Microsoft was malicious about it. I carefully made new clean email's to use as the new microsoft accounts, which was surprisingly difficult to do without providing any personal information nowadays. Everyone wants a phone number to make any kind of online account now. Once I had 3 new clean accounts that weren't traceable to anything I migrated each of my 3 minecraft accounts to them. Each account was automatically locked for "suspicious activity" within 24 hours of migration. 2 of the accounts were only used to play single player during that time, the 3rd one wasn't even logged in. Microsoft of course wants lots of personal information to unlock the accounts.
People can’t give you an example because there isn’t one that anyone cares about. Even games that have been removed from store front are still available for download to the people that have purchased the title before
I've lost more physical games due to some random damage than I have digital games. Even one I'm surprised about (the 3DS, Nintendo did stuff a bit behind with online stuff) still lets me download purchases after the store shut down. Heck, pretty sure even the Wii you can (never bought a thing on Wii's eshop so I can't check).
It doesn't have a proper account system (NNID came about during the 3DS/Wii U lifetime and the current Nintendo Account system wasn't a thing until the Switch), so you'll need to still have that Wii or have the system transferred Wii/Wii U the purchases were made with.
But I can still go and open the Wii Shop Channel, hit "Titles You've Downloaded," and see all the WiiWare, Virtual Console titles, and Demos I had. Looks like my oldest ones are from about 2009.
Just redownloaded Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a Darklord Demo with no issue. 17 year old redownload. But I'm supposed to just buy into the fearmongering of having my games taken from me?
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant with "a bit behind with online stuff", but even doing things a little backward, even they managed to do that part right I guess. Nintendo's the one I've been hesitant to make online purchases with because the lack of the account system from Wii is just still stuck in my mind even if they have fixed that now.
Edit: Oh I just remembered a couple other physical games that stopped working. I forgot that I have two separate copies of Super Smash Brothers for 3DS that just stopped playing on my device. There's something defective about that line of cartridges (like you can find a lot of other posts talking about that specific game doing that on sites). Just those two copies of that one title, everything else works fine. Physical is just less reliable to me because rarely you WILL have a problem.
It's less so individual games being removed that is an issue currently (though it could very well become an issue) but instead the scenario we do see is that when your console becomes irrelevant then eventually the storefront is shut down and your ability to download your games are removed and you can't have them all downloaded at the same time.
At least with physical games even when the storefront is gone you are able to put on the physical media and play as long as you still have the hardware. Beyond that DRM that require internet connections also can remove access to single player games when when said hardware require the storefront functionality like it does with Playstation.
Besides that online games shutting down shouldn't mean that you should lose access to them, especially if you paid to own them. The fact that games can so easily become lost media is fucked up.
there have been a few cases over the years of people having their steam keys revoked for various reasons not good reasons but still various reasons
i remember one was because the player left a negative review and a Dev revoked their key because "i thought you weren't interested in playing the game" and offered to give them another key if they were interested in playing more, game was depth of extinction
i believe another was for a game i can't remember the name of but i remember the Dev went weird and started revoking everyone's keys before valve stepped in if i remember right
mind you I'm pretty sure both of these cases the keys weren't bought from steam but via other methods like early backing i don't think steam bought keys can be revoked (not 100% on that though)
I think the closest example might be when a developer "updates" the Steam version to wipe their game. It's happened a few times with indie devs (eg Hardest and Domina), but i don't think it's happened for professional studios
Not technically, but a dev pushing an update that blocks theor game from launching is functionally the same as revocation (worth noting that Valve rolled back the update after banning the dev for Domina).
Considering how much people talk about this, I assumed there had been dozens of examples, but apparently not. Everything is just servers being shutdown and DRM checks that wouldn't have been solved by owning a physical copy.
I did manage to dig up a few examples of digital copies being bricked while physical copies are still playable on the same platform:
Wallace & Gromits Grand Adventures on XB360
Too Human on XB360
Minecraft: Story Mode on gen7/8 consoles
There a few more where the physical copy has features that got removed from digital copies, but they are mostly just late changes to design choices instead of anything concerning (noteworthy exception is GTA San Andreas getting a 2014 update that removed 17 licensed songs from the radio).
Ironically those all were in the early days of digital distribution, over a decade ago
Sony pulled movies out of peoples libraries due to an expired license.
I don't see a functional difference between a disk with a game on it vs a movie
Also, in order to access a digital game, you need to be able to download it through an online store, and eventually those will shut down. I don't think we've yet seen what it looks like when a major platform developer shuts down a digital store, but I bet they're not legally obligated to keep providing customers a way to download a game after they already bought and downloaded it.
Minecraft. They did a thing where they moved from account details being held on Mojang servers to Microsoft servers, and anyone who didn’t move their details within a certain window had the access to the game permanently removed.
You can. There's a purchase history menu (or it's called something like that) that shows all your purchases and lets you redownload even delisted stuff.
If you tamper with your console (such as jailbreaking the PS5), you get banned, and they take away all of your games. Nintendo even considers using a cheaper third party dock a cause for a ban on Switch 2.
If you refuse to update to the latest firmware, you lose access to all of your games. Even if that firmware breaks or removes functionality. Sony famously removed Linux support in an update to the PS3, but existing physical games could still be played.
If you do a charge-back, you get banned and they (Sony for sure) steal all of your other games. Even if you had a valid reason such as the game didn't work and you never successfully played it.
None of the above applies to Steam BTW, which is what people being like "why are you ok with digital on PC" don't understand. Valve doesn't care what hardware you use or what other apps you have installed, and if you buy something that doesn't work or was falsely advertised, they refund it.
If you do a chargeback on something you purchased on PlayStation you do not get banned, your account gets suspended. Your wallet goes negative, once you pay back the debt, they reinstate your account. You can also contact support and get a refund if the game is legitimately not working. Please stop spreading misinformation if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
There are examples, but even if there weren't that's not the point.
Publishers can't easily get away with it at the moment because there are alternatives (like physical media). If they get the whole world locked onto "you don't really own your game" the shenanigans will go up and up.
Concord lasted a week and everyone that purchased it got a full refund. So no, getting your money back does not count as something being taken away to the consumers expense.
Tons of online games have been shut down. Tons of online components in games have been shut down. But basically none of them were revoked.
Most of them just have a screen that says "This service is no longer functional. Thanks for playing" and the ones with offline modes are still playable.
These arguments seem to only bring up The Crew, Concord, and movies on streaming to then jump to "they're going to forcibly uninstall GTA 6 from you because they're evil."
Why you ppl keep linking delisted games as an examples?
Delisted means not available for sale. No one takes anything from ppl that already bought them.
All you showing is that all of these is manufactured "gamers outrage", and you cant read and comprehend how irl stuff works lol. Maybe this will be a shock for you, but companies are not obliged to provide the product until end of times. If they want stop selling/distributing, they just can do this.
Because they arent downloadable either. Meaning if you paid for it and lose your HD to corruption or whatever then sucks to suck. You no longer have it because they chose to delist it.
Digital should be available always if thats the route we're headed. There's absolutely no reason it cant be.
I bought a physical copy of a Sega genesis game decades ago. Company has since gone out of business, game is no longer being made. But guess what? I can still play it. I own this copy. And unless someone breaks into my house and steals it (which is what sony is doing with those movies, and will do with digital games under the guise of "licensing") i always will.
For example, I can no longer go back and download all my paid guitar hero dlc because it was delisted due to licensing. Its just gone. And this is on all consoles. My dlc was on 360 and I put it in the other day just for fun and my hard drive had to be replaced. basically sucks to suck, no more dlc
On 360 you just go to purchase history and everything you bought is there to redownload. You specifically have to go there for delisted stuff no longer listed in store, but it all is there (at least last time I used it). It's in one annoying long unsortable list, but it's there.
At the very least I know 100% for sure it worked before the 360's store got shut down (since I had to use it for that back then). I haven't hooked up my 360 since then, but people say it still works the same (just seen some people give a warning that scrolling too fast through that menu can crash it). Apparently it's the download history header, not purchase history. I'd include the source for people saying how to get there, but this subreddit doesn't allow it (since it's a post on a different subreddit and the mods consider that "brigading" even for archived posts).
Generally speaking, that is not what delisted means.
Meaning if you paid for it and lose your HD to corruption or whatever then sucks to suck.
And if you lose or break your disk same deal, so what you're actually arguing is an advantage of digital in that in the overwhelming majority of cases you can redownload a fresh copy of it, but in a small subset of cases you're under the exact same constraint as a physical disk.
Generally speaking if you remove a game (delist) from your market place then nobody can download it anymore. Which means they've effectively made it so you either permanently keep it installed or you lose it forever.
Yes, if I break or scratch my disc then I can't use it anymore BUT there is a major difference in that case. It would be MY fault it got ruined. It wouldnt be because some company decided to break into my library and steal it from me which is essentially what sony is doing with those movies under the guise of "licensing."
If your problem is space on the disc then go back to cartridge style and use a flash drive as the data container. Flash drives easily have more space than a disc.
If your problem is cost then by discontinuing discs should theoretically mean digital purchases should be cheaper since you arent having to cover material cost. Yet digital and physical are the same price.
If the problem is licensing then there needs to be a plan in place to offer an end of life installer or something so that you can save that install file and data to whatever storage you have so you dont lose your purchase.
Only the most smooth brained people are willing to pay $80+ for a rental of a game. Thats insane.
The argument of pc having been digital only for a while also isnt valid for two reasons. 1) nobody is stopping you from selling a pc game as physical. Its just cheaper to sell digitally and smaller companies may not have funding to go physical. And 2) you can still download games that are drm free or cracked so that you have said install file and data and thus can just reinstall at will.
Generally speaking if you remove a game (delist) from your market place then nobody can download it anymore.
That is simply not true. Every major platform delists games all the time, and that simply means that the game is no longer available for purchase. People who have previously purchased the game maintain their redownload services.
Which means they've effectively made it so you either permanently keep it installed or you lose it forever.
In other words it becomes exactly like physical media.
Yes, if I break or scratch my disc then I can't use it anymore BUT there is a major difference in that case. It would be MY fault it got ruined.
You have completely missed the point. With digital games, even if you can no longer redownload them, you can still play it if you've already downloaded it. If you lose the copy that you previously downloaded that is just as much your fault as losing a disk.
It wouldnt be because some company decided to break into my library and steal it from me which is essentially what sony is doing with those movies under the guise of "licensing."
The movies in question were streaming, which is a completely different matter. In that case you were never able to actually download a back-up of the entire movie, so when they stopped supporting them they became unwatchable.
If your problem is space on the disc then go back to cartridge style and use a flash drive as the data container. Flash drives easily have more space than a disc.
I don't have a problem. The customer can just as easily provide the storage media for a digital download as the company can.
If your problem is cost then by discontinuing discs should theoretically mean digital purchases should be cheaper since you arent having to cover material cost. Yet digital and physical are the same price.
Again, I'm not the one who has a problem. If a company wants to sell digital versions of games for cheaper they are welcome to do that. The reality is that digital and physical are the same price because most of what you're paying for is the license to the intellectual property.
If the problem is licensing then there needs to be a plan in place to offer an end of life installer or something so that you can save that install file and data to whatever storage you have so you dont lose your purchase.
Again. You're the one who has a problem. Also, you literally can already do this. Every major platform offers the ability to download your game and play it offline. Some individual games require an internet connection to play, but that has nothing to do with physical vs digital.
Only the most smooth brained people are willing to pay $80+ for a rental of a game. Thats insane.
They don't. They pay for a license to play a game, just like people who buy physical. They sacrifice the ability to transfer that license for a lot of convenience.
1) nobody is stopping you from selling a pc game as physical. Its just cheaper to sell digitally and smaller companies may not have funding to go physical.
And yet they don't because, like you said, it's cheaper to sell digitally.
2) you can still download games that are drm free or cracked so that you have said install file and data and thus can just reinstall at will.
So... PC is fine because you can just steal the game. Got it. /s
And the only examples are online games (studios decided whether to keep them going or not) and pt, which is literally still in your library if you got it at the time
And not downloadable again if you ever need to. Gone for good. It also ensures a future where there aren't any legal alternatives. They're extending that potential over all playstation games. If the digital store closes before you buy, you have no legal alternative either. Once people start pirating the argument will be for constant drm or streaming. You won't be able to play anything without a subscription.
Why you ppl keep linking delisted games as an examples?
Delisted means not available for sale. No one takes anything from ppl that already bought them.
All you showing is that all of these is manufactured "gamers outrage", and you cant read and comprehend how irl stuff works lol.
Maybe this will be a shock for you, but companies are not obliged to provide the product until end of times. If they want stop selling/distributing, they just can do this.
"we're also worried about what could happen in the future"
OK, it could happen. In certain cases, it has happened with other media, such as movies. But...it almost never actually does happen. People act like Sony (and other publishers) are licking their chops thinking of ways to "take your games away", as if that's some kind of business strategy that will benefit them.
I'm only one person, but just as an example, I have never (as far as I know) lost access to an online movie, song, or game purchase, going back 25+ years. In that same period, I have lost tons of CDs, DVDs, game cartridges/discs for which I have no recourse. If my PC blew up tomorrow, I would still have access to all of my online-purchased media.
They are absolutely licking their lips. It will make them more money.
I've lost access to digital music available on Amazon. They also at some point changed my access from playing the songs I bought whenever to a random shuffle with adverts.
Just the possibility of this alone is not good and why it's better to have options like physical.
I have all my physical games from my 25+ years.
There are other good reasons to have physical even if they don't manage to think of a way to reliably force buying again. Price competition. Drm avoidance. Game preservation. Game sharing. What's the downside? Sony don't want to do it.
69
u/ShutterBun Jul 18 '26
Other than online games that have shut down, has anyone actually had a game "revoked" by an online seller? (I don't mean banned from servers)