5 ms·

I maybe should have phrased that better since I do understand their announcement around disks and removing the movies is a reason why they are the current targe

by nerdjon 13d ago

I maybe should have phrased that better since I do understand their announcement around disks and removing the movies is a reason why they are the current target. I just find it hypocritical, people keep saying they are going to move to xbox or pc next gen and its like. Their policy is exactly the same. You have the same risk and not really ownership. And I am not defending Sony, they have a long history of getting cocky with their consoles and pulling some shit. But in this particular case they are following the trend that we allowed by going all digital on PC and buying digital games on consoles. Sony isnt going to be the one that changes this, the only way to expect change would be targeting all of them including Valve. But everyone, like this article, just seems to gloss right over that and seem to imply its only Sony that is the problem here.

nemomarx 13d ago
Nintendo still has pretty good physical. Move to them if you can imo
- greenowl 13d ago
  and much better franchise
antiframe 13d ago
> You have the same risk and not really ownership. You don't, though. When I download a game on Steam or GOG, I have the files on my PC. I can back them up. I can modify them. Yes, live service games still have an online component I don't control, but I do still control the files on my computer. I don't on a console. Actually, I don't own any consoles for reasons of software freedom but I hear they are much more difficult to do things like back up your data, etc.
- dcow 13d ago
  Yes, you do. When you play a digital game on Playstation you also download the files... It may be harder like you say but the law doesn't really see it any differently PC vs Console if you want to archive/backup your digital game media.
  - PenguinCoder 13d ago
    How do you backup game files from a console, to an external drive/location that you own; and ensure the validity of that backup will still be usable on the console later?
    - dcow 13d ago
      By inserting storage media into the removable/external media port and copying or moving the files.
  - TuxSH 13d ago
    On consoles in general, backing up digital media (if even possible) requires full-system exploits, thus bypassing DRM, and decrypting them also requires breaking DRM
    - dcow 13d ago
      Woah, we're not talking about cracking your games. I think every console from at least the last two generations has supported copying game files to external/removable media.
      - ndriscoll 13d ago
        Disabling DRM is required for basic archiving if the issue is someone else having the ability to decide the thing you bought will self-destruct. Copying doesn't matter if it doesn't produce a usable backup. If you remove the DRM, then you do actually own the thing for practical purposes. And non-ownership of things you buy is unjust, so entertaining the law here is silly.
        dcow 13d ago
        > Disabling DRM is required for basic archiving if the issue is someone else having the ability to decide the thing you bought will self-destruct. Don't move the goalposts. The only thing I am conceding is that conceptually it still ownership if you own the encrypted bits but they work fine with some other hardware that has the keys to decrypt them. I can backup my games on one playstation and play them on another. Otherwise, we agree ideologically. At the same time I'm rhetorically supporting the point at the top of the thread that this has been a problem long before Sony decided to go digital. I am copyleft and anti-drm and whatever else you can imagine. It doesn't change the fact that there's a precedent that consumers will purchase drm games that require a rootkit to run under ambiguous terms that make it clear they don't own the bytes and it's a true observation that for some reason people allow this to happen on PC but when Sony does it it's the end of the world. I think to make progress here you need to address the root of the issue legally, not attack Sony for doing what society has condoned for decades.
applfanboysbgon 13d ago
> Their policy is exactly the same. It's not, though. Their ToS is the same. They reserve to right to deny you ownership of your games. Only Sony has been stupid enough to actually do it. Every ToS in the world is designed to screw the signee over as much as it possibly can, so you'd need to go live in the woods if you wanted to escape it, but there is a tangible difference between how much companies actually abuse the provisions in their ToS. I don't know how you can say "Microsoft reserves the legal right to drill a hole in my skull" and "Sony is actively drilling a hole in my skull" are `exactly the same`.
- nerdjon 13d ago
  So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too? Instead of actually trying to fix the issue we just hope that Valve never has to do the thing they are legally allowed to do because we agreed they could. I honestly don't care who has done what, I don't care what company is supposedly better than another company. Overnight Valve, Microsoft, whoever could just as easily remove access to a bunch of digital purchases. How about instead we just don't excuse any of the companies?
  - dataflow 13d ago
    > So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too? Two things can be both "not fine" but one can still be worse than the other.
    - nerdjon 13d ago
      Of course, I am not arguing otherwise. But if your core problem is not the removal of content but what Sony is arguing right now. You should have just as much of an issue with Valve as you do Sony since you are signing up for the same legal risk. Just because one has done it and the other hasn't is a technicality to me since that could change overnight. The point that I am trying to make here is that it is insane to me that all of this is focused on Sony. And frankly I don't have a good solution here, but just arguing that one TOS is better than another because one company hasn't done the thing yet but could is not a good argument. How many times have we seen management change, companies being bought, whatever and suddenly something really bad happens. I am just getting really frustrated by Sony this, Sony that. Boycot sony, etc when if all we do is move to another platform with the same policies do we really expect anything to change?

by nerdjon 13d ago

nemomarx 13d ago

Nintendo still has pretty good physical. Move to them if you can imo

greenowl 13d ago
and much better franchise

antiframe 13d ago

> You have the same risk and not really ownership. You don't, though. When I download a game on Steam or GOG, I have the files on my PC. I can back them up. I can modify them. Yes, live service games still have an online component I don't control, but I do still control the files on my computer. I don't on a console. Actually, I don't own any consoles for reasons of software freedom but I hear they are much more difficult to do things like back up your data, etc.

dcow 13d ago
Yes, you do. When you play a digital game on Playstation you also download the files... It may be harder like you say but the law doesn't really see it any differently PC vs Console if you want to archive/backup your digital game media.
- PenguinCoder 13d ago
  How do you backup game files from a console, to an external drive/location that you own; and ensure the validity of that backup will still be usable on the console later?
  - dcow 13d ago
    By inserting storage media into the removable/external media port and copying or moving the files.
- TuxSH 13d ago
  On consoles in general, backing up digital media (if even possible) requires full-system exploits, thus bypassing DRM, and decrypting them also requires breaking DRM
  - dcow 13d ago
    Woah, we're not talking about cracking your games. I think every console from at least the last two generations has supported copying game files to external/removable media.
    - ndriscoll 13d ago
      Disabling DRM is required for basic archiving if the issue is someone else having the ability to decide the thing you bought will self-destruct. Copying doesn't matter if it doesn't produce a usable backup. If you remove the DRM, then you do actually own the thing for practical purposes. And non-ownership of things you buy is unjust, so entertaining the law here is silly.
      - dcow 13d ago
        > Disabling DRM is required for basic archiving if the issue is someone else having the ability to decide the thing you bought will self-destruct. Don't move the goalposts. The only thing I am conceding is that conceptually it still ownership if you own the encrypted bits but they work fine with some other hardware that has the keys to decrypt them. I can backup my games on one playstation and play them on another. Otherwise, we agree ideologically. At the same time I'm rhetorically supporting the point at the top of the thread that this has been a problem long before Sony decided to go digital. I am copyleft and anti-drm and whatever else you can imagine. It doesn't change the fact that there's a precedent that consumers will purchase drm games that require a rootkit to run under ambiguous terms that make it clear they don't own the bytes and it's a true observation that for some reason people allow this to happen on PC but when Sony does it it's the end of the world. I think to make progress here you need to address the root of the issue legally, not attack Sony for doing what society has condoned for decades.

applfanboysbgon 13d ago

> Their policy is exactly the same. It's not, though. Their ToS is the same. They reserve to right to deny you ownership of your games. Only Sony has been stupid enough to actually do it. Every ToS in the world is designed to screw the signee over as much as it possibly can, so you'd need to go live in the woods if you wanted to escape it, but there is a tangible difference between how much companies actually abuse the provisions in their ToS. I don't know how you can say "Microsoft reserves the legal right to drill a hole in my skull" and "Sony is actively drilling a hole in my skull" are `exactly the same`.

nerdjon 13d ago
So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too? Instead of actually trying to fix the issue we just hope that Valve never has to do the thing they are legally allowed to do because we agreed they could. I honestly don't care who has done what, I don't care what company is supposedly better than another company. Overnight Valve, Microsoft, whoever could just as easily remove access to a bunch of digital purchases. How about instead we just don't excuse any of the companies?
- dataflow 13d ago
  > So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too? Two things can be both "not fine" but one can still be worse than the other.
  - nerdjon 13d ago
    Of course, I am not arguing otherwise. But if your core problem is not the removal of content but what Sony is arguing right now. You should have just as much of an issue with Valve as you do Sony since you are signing up for the same legal risk. Just because one has done it and the other hasn't is a technicality to me since that could change overnight. The point that I am trying to make here is that it is insane to me that all of this is focused on Sony. And frankly I don't have a good solution here, but just arguing that one TOS is better than another because one company hasn't done the thing yet but could is not a good argument. How many times have we seen management change, companies being bought, whatever and suddenly something really bad happens. I am just getting really frustrated by Sony this, Sony that. Boycot sony, etc when if all we do is move to another platform with the same policies do we really expect anything to change?