'Reasonable Consumers' Know They Don't Own Digital Games, Says Sony

0 days since Sony's last f**k-up.

One bad word in a voice or text chat can get my entire account, including all my digital games, removed from my access temporarily or forever.

I think we’re all aware that it’s STUPID that these are indefinite rentals, and that Sony has zero credibility as far as continued access to things we paid for goes.

Good luck revoking access to my owned discs.

Ahhh so only the stupid don't understand? Thats a pretty gross statement from Sony really and i'd argue that the vast majority of people don't actually realise they are buying a license for the game.

BUT if what they say is true, then they should be legally made to change the store wording from Buy Now to Purchase License, and because nobody owns their digital products then they should be much cheaper since access can be reoked at any time.

When did Don Mattrick secretly take over?

This is a case in California based on Californias new-ish laws surrounding these digital sales.

Basically companies are required to use "plain language" and tell their customers that "what they pay for is a license to access the digital product, which might be withdrawn or lapse." The law also aims to reduce the use of words such as "buy" or "purchase" in digital sales since in real life, a user does not even own the right to claim ownership over products bought.

Steam has already changed its checkout messages to reflect this, and no doubt Sony will too (in California)

@dskatter
okay sorry but what bad word is that and why do you want to say it without repercussions?

'Reasonable consumer' is a legal term and an insight into how guarded Sony is in the language they're using communicating their anti-consumer attitude.

sometimes I think I people are being disingenuous on purpose, we all know its a license, people are just mad that its called that and not something else but the reality that other than the rare case where something is delisted (and should therefore absolutelly result in a refund) once you buy a digital game, its yours forever.

Sony hatemaxing like crazy

What a screwed up time when companies dont understand the concept of owning consumer goods… Im going back under my rock.

I would say 80% of playstation owners, the people that aren't terminally online or that take hardcore gaming as a hobby, are not aware of this.

Okay, let's be calm and reasonabl here (or at least try).

I agree that most reasonable people don't believe they own Grand Theft Auto 6 (as in the overall product) when they buy it off the PS Store.

What I don't think is reasonable, is the belief that consumers think they're just buying a glorified rental. I think when most people buy a digital game, they view it as THEIR COPY of the game.

I'm watching a bunch of Law and Order right now, and I purchased them all with the belief that those seasons are MY COPIES of the show.

People need to realise that owning a license to is entirely fine in a digital landscape.
We do need to fight for a better digital landscape always, but if your purchase is respected and you have acess to the game indefinitelly. you effectivelly own the game even if legally you dont.
Really, do people honestly expect sony to be like "nah bruh you just own the license but you cant play it anymore"
If you own the license, you can play the game, its your, simple as that, I know that legal jargon is too much for your average joe but cmon people its not that hard.

I remember early in the PS5 era I bought Cyberpunk 2077 digitally. Sony somehow pinged this as a “$5 chargeback” on a full priced game and locked my account.

After speaking with support multiple times, showing them my bank statement and showing them I had way more than needed to cover the purchase they relented. In that time I had no access to my game library and we’re talking multiple weeks. Over 5 bucks.

I think I’ll always be digital but unless they really really fix their online capabilities in almost every way this will never work in this communities favor.

@ShadowRJ
but it is effectivelly their copy of the game.
we REALLY cant let sony get away with the crap they pulled with the delisted movie and series stuff, but as long as the digital videogame licenses are respected, its yours.

As I have said before, even for the majority of disc-based games, they are just licences these days.

I don't care that I have licences. My main concern is around the rules of how and what can be taken away, rather than what a purchase is called.

To make it clear, though, licences are not rental. A rental product has a fixed timeframe, while a licence does not and typically can last a lifetime if not revoked (much like a driving licence).

@dskatter has that actually happened, though?

Weird. I thought it was reasonable that when I pay money for a video game, I own it. Up until very recent history, that's the way it has always been.

Guess I'm unreasonable.

@PaperAlien if that's truly the case for everyone, including Steam Microsoft and Nintendo, should only GOG be able to have a "buy" option?

Which is why I feel like asking for proper digital ownership rights is a huge hurdle, especially when the majority of the digital-only market is shaped like this where you actually own nothing. GOG may be doing it right but it's pretty obvious that's the reason big publishers aren't flocking to it immediately with new releases.

And sure Sony ain't wrong with what they're saying right now, but damn they either don't know how to read the room or just don't care even if portions of it are still burning right now and every word they say about it just adds more fuel to the fire.

Tsk Tsk.

@Random_play05 I don't think they're supposed to read the room when it comes to court cases, but other that every single other case of communication (or lack thereof) has been horrible the lack couple of months.

@LordOfTurnips Nice try, fed.

There are a LOT of words you can say online that will get your account banned if someone reports you. Insults that don’t even use “bad words” have the potential to get your account banned.

Not to mention the vast number of hacked accounts by bad actors out there. Half the time Sony doesn’t lift a finger to help those folks. I used bad-word-banning as the first example that came to mind, not as an all-inclusive.

@LordOfTurnips With that I agree with. However I have no trust in Sony not pulling their games from our accounts if they feel like it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying their going to nuke our game libraries, but anything with licensed content? If the Spider-Man games have their licenses expired, and Disney wants to move on, and pressure Sony to remove the games, will Sony put up a fight?

@dskatter
"One bad word in a voice or text chat can get my entire account, including all my digital games, removed from my access temporarily or forever."
Nah most of the time it's deserved because it's just plain ol'e racism, sexism or any other kind of toxicity you should rightfully be banned for. And it's also mostly for repeat offenders. 99% of the time it's definitely NOT the situation you are describing.

"I think we’re all aware that it’s STUPID that these are indefinite rentals, and that Sony has zero credibility as far as continued access to things we paid for goes."
That's entirely your incorrect opinion. I think that out of all 3 Sony is the most trustworthy. They are the only ones who have kept the 7th console generation online store open for as long as they did. MS and Nintendo shut down their stores years ago.
And I can still play all my games I've ever purchased. I've never in my entire life lost access to any digital games I bought. I don't know where this narrative that Sony would take away your games comes from.

IF WE CAN’T OWN IT THEN HOW CAN WE STEAL IT YOU STUPID GREEDY $@#&$#@ !!!!

@naruball I understand about the court room case, I'm referring to previous steps they made like sending emails to playerbases reminding many of such similar distasteful sentiments.

Though I guess the proper way of saying it is that Push Square publishing this news is what added more fuel to the fire.

@Mindless_Demon The narrative comes from a few days before the initial story broke, where PlayStation took down a bunch of paid for movies on their service. Meaning that you were unable to watch them, even if you paid for them.

The logic is that if Sony can do that to films, why can't they do that to games? Now personally, I think Sony will fight at least a little harder to keep their games on their service, but the very possibility of it has people worried.

They really don't help themselves at the minute, do they

@darylb24 That much is true, licenses can last a long time. However the very idea that they can be revoked for things not in the player's hands is what's so concerning.

@rjejr You can still steal something you don’t own. You can’t buy the Mona Lisa right now, but you sure as hell can be prosecuted for stealing it.

That old adage is pointless. Stealing is still stealing no matter the ownership availability.

But I appreciate the sentiment. The regulations surrounding digital games does need to change, and I look forward to some court cases hopefully making some headway in that regard.

@ShadowRJ
You do realize Playstation had entirely no say in the matter and that those movies were taken down because of the license holder right?

I’m a 90% physical customer, but I do pay for some digital indie or smaller games if I’m that desperate to play them. The truth is I’m not willing to invest a thousand odd pounds buying a console and who knows how much into games that can be taken away in an instant. I don’t think that’s being an unreasonable consumer, and I’m simply going to find something else to invest my entertainment budget in.

@Mindless_Demon at the very least, they could have offered a refund to all the people affected. I'm sure it wasn't many.

@Mindless_Demon I'm very much aware of that, but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow. What's to stop Ubisoft or Disney or Microsoft to do this with games? Right now, it's that you have discs, but on a digital only system? Presumably one that will need internet authentication every other day?

@Mindless_Demon you do realise that a tactic hackers use is once they have your account they post remarks that get you banned so you cant even use it if you got it back again

@naruball
I won't deny that.
And while it sounds like an excuse, who was actually buying movies through Playstation? Maybe like 5 people. Yeah those 5 absolutely deserved refunds, but still.

@darylb24 Physical games have always been just licenses, ever since the NES days. Unless by licenses you mean that their just glorified download keys, which in that case, that is not the truth.

Most PS5 discs have the full game on the disc.

@Mindless_Demon "And I can still play all my games I've ever purchased. I've never in my entire life lost access to any digital games I bought. I don't know where this narrative that Sony would take away your games comes from."

Concord answers all three of your points. Sony even deleted copies from the PlayStations that had it installed without the 'owners' consent.

And P.T. (Though admittedly that was a free thing.)

if PlayStation ever went out of business everyone's digital games would all be lost

where as peoples physical games collection could still be played

@PaperAlien

Ahhh so only the stupid don't understand?

I didn't get the impression this was a comment about intelligence, to me it seemed like it was aimed at the terminally online drama queens. Either way, I agree that most people are likely unaware of the licensing agreement, but I also think most don't actually care, they just play what they bought and get on with their lives.

@ShadowRJ
Well for starters the games industry and movie industry have different laws and rules. What works for film won't always work for games and vice versa. So saying the exact same thing will happen is too hasty
And it's not like physical media didn't exist for film too. But that industry moved away from physical media too.

If it is a lease, it needs to be called that. If I am purchasing or buying a license then I should be able to resell that license.

@dskatter only if someone reported u saying that bad word in chat or text lol

@StrickenBiged
I didn't buy concord though.
And I doubt anyone else did either or they wouldn't have pulled the plug almost immediately after launch. And as far as I know they offered refunds for that game.

P.T was entirely on Konami and Sony was very likely legally obligated to remove it.

@StrickenBiged Concord live service game there was no single player game and Sony refunded everyone for Concord

So many shotguns to the face. Please make it stop! Their already dead! hahaha!

This is what happens when a company loses it's biggest competitor. They don't have to act like they still care, they just do as they please.

In fairness to Sony, the use of "reasonable" here is lawyer-speak. They're using "reasonable" in the same way that the "reasonable consumer" can also be expected to read the EULA before they create an account, and every update that they get emailed about, etc, or would sit around wondering "huh, how come Sony can sell the same game twice, that doesn't make any sense, because then I'd have it and Bob couldn't have it, so therefore it can't be a sale, it must be something else that happened." In other words, the "reasonable consumer" is a fictional character, used in the making of a legal argument, he doesn't really exist.

Technically, all creative works are licenced. A book is produced under licence from the copyright holder. Sony is licenced to print discs containing someone else's software, or make that code available via PSN. Apple is licenced to make sound recordings available via Apple Music or Podcasts. Etc, etc. But I don't think it's reasonable for anyone other than IP and commercial lawyers to have had to think about any of that.

@Mindless_Demon Point one. Physical for film and television still most certainly exists. In a few months time, I will most likely have the new Spider-Man blu-ray on my shelf. I even own the Hawkeye season 1 DVD, which I watch at Christmas on a yearly basis.

Point two. Yeah, I agree that the two are completely different industries. The movie industry is terrible with being overregulated. That said, the threat is still possible, and the very idea of that threat existing is enough for me to think this is a terrible idea.

Put it this way. I can still play Super Mario Bros cartridge on my NES. If a console and game cannot outlive either of those in this day and age, then I consider it a disgrace.

Sony needs to change from calling it "Your Game Library" to "Your License Library". Yes, really. This would make matters much more clear to gamers, aka license buyers. My real life book library contains books I own and don't need a license to read.

Is Sony’s entire PR department on permanent vacation or something? Regardless of where you stand on physical games, they aren't even pretending to manage the fallout or give any sort of olive branch to gamers. It’s the corporate equivalent of ignoring a kitchen fire because the problem technically resolves itself once the house is reduced to ashes.

I'll be honest I think most reasonable consumers that just aren't completely plugged into gaming would assume you own at least a permanent license to a game, if not own it. For something like a productivity app that you get a license to, you are explectly told when that licence expires ahead of time because they make it clear it's temporary. This is not the same case

There desperately needs to be a gaming market crash.
It will probably never happened since gaming became mainstream the purchase power of normies just wanting to play newesr COD slop can sustain SONY for years to come.

In a meantime im probably going to build a PC again instead of buying RentStation6.
Steam isnt perfect, but its thousand times more customer friendly than SONY and theres always GOG, whixh is the one and only way to truly own your games.
PS5 was my first console since NES and it will likely be my last.

@dskatter not even that - imagine being hacked. Look at the guy from Sacred Symbols and the strings he had to pull to get his account back. Imagine all the people without his platform that this happens to.

Years ago I noticed someone bought a PS3 game on my account. It's a US account but I live in the UK, and I couldn't get through to customer service online without a VPN.

That is a ridiculous hoop.

@brakeman90
If I wanted that SNES cartridge right now I'd have to likely pay 10x or maybe even a 100x the MSRP for it. Same would be the case for any other physical game if I wanted to play the game 20+ years after launch. But with digital I can just buy again without having to pay scalper scam prices.
The fear of them revoking licenses is not entirely unwarranted but honestly it's blown way out of proportion. It's reasonable to assume that most of Playstation's library from PS4 and onwards will accessible. They stopped making unique processor chips and whatnot and switched to AMD because they likely had BC in mind from the start

@StrickenBiged you got a refund stop being disingenuous

@species ah yes if I can't have my little chunk of plastic the whole thing needs to burn. What a joke.

@super84trooper
Honestly why should they acknowledge it? Any kind of reaction that isn't a total walk back and apology will just get them more flack. And even if they do they'll probably still get flack because apologizing on the internet, especially on X, is about the last thing you should do.

Gamers like myself might know this but the regular joe sure doesn't.

Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then.

What an insane strawman argument. We're buying copies of the game, not the effing source code. When I buy a music CD, record companies don't argue that they can't sell another copy because I own the songs now. These are different things. WTF happened to Sony? It's like they genuinely disdain their customers now.

@PizzaX3 Not really, im mostly a digital user.
But theyre really screwing us hard. SONY basically doesnt have a competition and it shows.

Ideally a crash would lead to a new legislation concerning digital media, but again, its not going to happen.

I feel most people assess the cost of games. Very few people will ask, “How much does a licence for this game cost?” Maybe we should all start saying, “The price of the licence for this game is £xx.xx.” I wonder if Sony would prefer the discussion of its store to be about the licences, and not the games, it actually sells.

The one thing I'd petition to change would be to reword the buy button on PSN to rent. According to their own words this definitely wouldn't confuse consumers.

What they are doing is called dual-purpose communication, you the customer see one angle and the investors see confidence in the product, it's a very common tactic but customers are rarely this reactive. The product this time is more than a product it's a passion and Sony are using those same tactics on a customer-base that they seem to just not understand anymore. Market Signaling can and does work, usually the product isn't a way of life. It's unfortunate but it's also the reality of business on this scale.

I do want to keep supporting the ecosystem, enjoying whatever tech is around the corner, and I would love if physical were more economically viable, however there comes a time where you have to accept that things are the way they are and enjoy the fact that we have those games in the first place.

@wildcat_kickz What is this meaning 'strawman?'. Thank you in advance, I never heard it before.

@species
If any company is going to go crash and burn it's going to be Steam. Steam is the only private company among the 4, meaning if Gabe dies the company will likely die with him since he has no successors primed(his kids refused the company). Meanwhile Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo will just keep going on because they are publicly traded companies.
The one company where you should actually fear losing everything is Steam.

So you called bye a game like gta 6 at 80 pounds and you could lose it a week later and have to pay 80 pounds for it again
I will admit what I'm seeing is most digital lovers will keep paying for it willingly

I truly genuinely believe that most consumers do not in fact realize that. If that's Sony's argument they should lose the case because they definitely do not communicate that fact clearly. Unless by clearly you mean fine print you aren't required to see and therefore no one reads while also using terms like 'buy' and 'purchase' on shop buttons that rhetorically imply ownership.

If they just changed the purchase button to 'buy limited license' or something similar it would end all confusion.

@naruball With the exception of GOG, all digital storefronts should be worded to actually reflect the purchase your making and no more of this cloak and dagger wording. When a button says "buy Game" most people think they are buying the game to own when infact its the opposite, its underhand and wrong.

If the future is digital, then there really does need to be a standard set of rules for all digital platforms to adhere to otherwise these companies will just get away with whatever they want.

"Reasonable" companies would know that if they irk the consumers too much, they will take action, class action that is...

Let's not forget they are ultimately selling temporary licenses at ownership pricing. "They" being all of them, not only Sony.

Only by pushing back "en masse" and demanding laws to combat this "entertainment control takeover", can we hope to put an end to it.
Else in 5 to 10 years they will sell us games at 100$ apiece with a 30 days time limit in toe - want more time, pay more!
I'd wager that's the ultimate goal, enforcing smaller time limits while having complete pricing control - and it needs to be stopped.

We’re talking about several things here though. Discs used to have the data on them. So we had games with multiple discs. That data was either downloaded or used by the console, without the need for separate storage, without any internet connection for a license check. You put the game in, no internet, and the official release version is there.

“Reasonable consumers” lived like that.

Now, it’s a whole different landscape. The discs don’t have much data in them but a license. Then you download the actual game off of the internet. You’ll need the storage space for your library and internet for the download + the license checks.

Storage is a bit of a problem nowadays. Can’t have a vast digital library without storage. Hope that GTA6 alone doesn’t eat all of it up, otherwise you’re playing musical chairs with your 80 GB games….and the time it takes to constantly re-download those games. Storage isn’t infinite, it gets worse with use. I’m not seeing the “convenience” in that. I’m seeing gamers putting all their eggs in a broken basket.

@Mindless_Demon Thats actually a pretty good point, also something most people dont realize.
Small semantic - think you mean Valve, Steam is just a platform.

Im personally not worried, i made my peace with the fact that i can lose any game i “purchase” at any given time. Us few who care about this cant change it. Like i said, too many normies involved today.

The games i really want to keep forever i buy on GOG.

@AdamNovice Back again like clockwork with the “leave the corporation alone” comment.

Yes, all digital storefronts are the same yet I don’t see Steam massively removing licensed content like Sony did with movies a few weeks ago, and I don’t see Steam or Microsoft gaslighting its audience rubbing in their faces they own nothing right after announcing the end of games you could actually own…

@Mindless_Demon I don't think racism or sexism really deserves a platform. However, it definitely deserves access to the purchases it made fair and square.

If they're going to revoke all your digital licenses upon an account ban, they should at least refund you. Or maybe just eliminate the account's access to voice chat, and the like.

@Mindless_Demon you are right in that there are a lot of gamers to whom this is a dealbreaker and that’s it. But to all the others, by not saying anything it still makes them look like they don’t care and that there is nothing good that can come out of this (which is a really depressing vision for the platform). Nothing about an improvement plan to PS Store, refund policies or terms of service, basically anything that says something other than ”we win, you lose, deal with it”. Like Xbox and their disc to digital plan: it’s not the same but the immediate perception it creates is that they at least pretend to care about their customer base.

A reasonable person might say it should be abundantly clear you're exchanging money for a revokable license and the store's wording needs to reflect that.

And in a few months 50 million people will be playing GTA 6 on a Playstation. I would say all I wanted to right now if I were Sony. Air it out, bruh.

Here's my view: I bought Halo MCC on disc for xbox one years ago. I then bought Halo 3 ODST and Halo Reach digitally. MS took away my digital copy of Reach for reasons to this day I still don't understand. It took me over 8 years to get my digital purchase/licence back after much complaining and showing my digital receipt over and over again. An all digital future sucks conkers

@brakeman90
Why assume bad faith? Like I said in an earlier post they've never given me a valid reason to suspect they were going to rugpull me so there's no reason really to suspect it now besides pessimism.
As for the physical games, the only games priced like that are either the really bad ones or the ancient non Nintendo first party ones. I doubt a first party Nintendo game from the N64 era or earlier will lag that much behind a new game's price.
Those digital only PS3 games should still be accessible for now because the store is still up but when it shuts down like with Wiiware just sail the seven seas. Unless you bought the games and consoles at the time they were still available normally you're going to have to put on the hat and eyepatch at some point if you want to play retro games. I hacked my Vita and the only reason I haven't hacked my PS3 yet is because it's a super slim and I already bought basically all the digital content I'd ever want on it.

And yes you entirely misread me.

I guess I'm unreasonable for thinking BUYING something means I own it and can use it as I please.

@For-Kier I don't know why this would matter. Millions smoke, but that doesn't mean there's no point to warning labels and PSAs.

Its NOT a lease, its a Licence to access something that is owned by the Publisher/Developer as its ALWAYS been. They have always had the right to stop the sale, to stop selling Licences etc to their Software. The fact that you can 'choose' to keep or sell a Physical licence and for some games, owning that Physical licence may well grant you 'permanent' access to that software on specific Hardware. For example your PS3 discs ONLY work on PS3 so if you bought a Licence to play Killzone 2 on PS3 Disc, it won't let you play that disc on a PS5 and they 'owner' of Killzone has determined you cannot play the Online portion anymore. It doesn't matter if you own the Disc to Destiny or Marvel Avengers, that Licence won't let you play those games anymore and if you 'stop' paying for PS+, you'll lose the ability to play a number of games and online content regardless of whether or not you paid for a Licence to access that content!

Just because you bought say Super Mario 64 on Cartridge and can sell or even play it today (if you also preserved you N64 and Controllers), that didn't give you the right to play it on Game Cube or any other Nintendo - you bought a N64 Licence to play SM64 on N64 and they distributed 'their' software on the Cartridge so you could access it. They still own SM64 - which is why they can bring it back for Switch or for whatever other Hardware and sell you another licence to play it again because you ONLY bought a Licence for the N64 version.

Owning some games on Disc may let you play that software on the Hardware you bought it for but its no guarantee the owner of the Platform, the owner of the Software etc will let you keep playing their game or all its content. Try playing Destiny or the entire content of Killzone 2 or 3 on disc.

Discs, certainly since the PS4 days, don't run games as the disc is too slow to run games. They need to be installed to the Hardware to run and they don't need to supply their Software on disc and even when they do, its more likely to be the bug ridden early build version that you wouldn't really want to play, certainly not the 'version' you expected to play.

Whether you or I like it, its been this way for many many years and the owners of the Software have spent years and years and years to protect 'their' Software. Break the terms of service, and they can 'revoke' your licence - which is why they can also ban you from playing games if you 'cheat' for example or be insulting over chat etc

They’re all like this. But Sony said it so they’re the only ones people are mad at lol. And yeah, we’ve always known this. So why is everyone acting like this is new news?

Ouch! This is what happens when businesses think they're gods. Looks like another one is about to fall.

Is this argument any different to any other digital storefront? As others have said, no. But let's not forget, ever since the original tinderbox announcement on physical games manufacturing ending we still have yet to hear one iota from Sony regarding PS Store changes or improvements.

No backwards compatibility or any similar "disc to digital" style program of customers physical games libraries. No Steam style refund system, no gifting system etc.

But whilst Sony continues to engage in comptemptous silence with its customers they're quite vocal to investors & the likes of Wall Street Journal they're keen to monetise the current PS5 player base further in expectation of hardware sales declining beyond any GTA sugar hit. 🙄

They've had every opportunity to respond to customer concerns....with the financial suits well & truly calling the shots now, feels like they really intend to maintain the status quo.

@RoomWithaMoose
Just looked it up but they have 3 kinds of suspensions. Account suspension, communication suspension and console suspension.
Console suspension is the only one that takes away your access to your games as well. The other 2 are basically variations of what you said.
That said I very much doubt they'll whip out the console ban unless it's for "serious criminals".

@Neuromancer I forgot I made this for you a couple of nights ago after seeing that name over and over again. I say I, I mean a machine, you did call humans a virus after all.

@AhmadSumadi They are all like this, and we should be mad at everyone about it. Sony's just the current poster boy.

It was Nintendo last year, but Sony's can't let Nintendo have anything without getting competitive.

@StrickenBiged not sure about your claim that they “deleted if from consoles without people’s consent” but to be fair with concord, they literally refunded every single person that had bought the game. All 500 or so lol

@Mindless_Demon Shouldn't account suspension do the same? You can't access your licenses with the account they're tied to. You can still play physical, for sure, but I don't see how that'd work with digital.

Still, it is good there's different types of suspension.

@dskatter You can be banned from a multiplayer game sure, but when has it ever happened that someone speaking on a microphone whilst playing a PlayStation video game had all access to their digital library removed from them? Surely if such a thing happened there would have been a court case over it.

"Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then."

This just raises further questions! I get that Mr's Mendoza and Heycock don't own Resident Evil, that's obvious.

But Sony's argument here is based on the idea that they own Resident Evil. What about Capcom?

Also, if Sony selling Resident Evil Requiem makes them the owner, aren't Valve, Microsoft and Nintendo also the owners?

@ButteredCrumpet Yes, you CAN arguably steal a game if the company has only 1 copy of the source code and you steal that, making the game your own. But who does that? 🤷🏻‍♂️

How many people over the years have taken a photo of the Mona Lisa painting, therefore making a personal copy of it? Did any of them steal it? How many people went home, printed out a big copy of the photo, and hung it on their wall? Did THEY steal it?

If you want to make an argument that making a copy of some code is stealing maybe don’t use something that defeats your argument as much as taking a photo of the Mona Lisa. 😁

True story. When I was in Paris with my sister in 1993 she bought a poster of the Mona Lisa. It’s been hanging on many of her walls ever since. The real Mona Lisa is still hanging in the Louvre. She didn’t steal the Mona Lisa, she has a copy.

If you make a copy of a game, leaving the original uncorrupted where it is, you didn’t “steal” it, you made a copy. If we can’t own a copy of a game EVEN WHEN THEY SELL IT TO US how can we have stolen it? Doesn’t make sense.

If you SELL copies, that isn’t stealing, that’s copyright infringement or whatever, you are making money off the work of others. That’s a different law you are breaking. That happens every time Nintendo makes someone take down a YT video b/c they are monetizing Nintendo’s work. But Nintendo doesn’t sue them for stealing a game they probably legally purchased a license to play. Personal use is different.

Stealing a license to play a game as long as they say we can probably doesn’t have the same oomph as stealing a game though. 😝

I don’t know who’s in charge of Sony’s PR dept but they need sacking ASAP. Sony are getting incredibly arrogant and it’s turning gamers away in droves.

@ShadowRJ Yes that was exactly my point - the rules around how and when content gets revoked should be clearer for consumers and there should be set protections.

licences or the terminalogy aren't the issue for us.

@RoomWithaMoose
https://www.playstation.com/en-vn/support/account/suspensions/
It's not the same. Account suspension is basically an internet ban. Like if you pulled out your LAN cable or turned off your WIFI. You would still be able to play your games.

@UnfishedPlate29 Don Mattrick took over yesterday. His first decision was to bring „Live TV to PS5“.

@Mindless_Demon But you need the Internet to renew your license. There was a little fervor about a month ago that if you keep your console offline, you can't play digital games after, I think, 60 days.

@rjejr Well in that case we should all copy everything shouldn’t we?

Just everyone stop what they’re doing, Rjejr has a solution to all of this;

We all just need to make copies of media and not loan/lease/buy/rent it.

If we all follow your example, as gamers, the entire industry ceases to exist.

Much like if we all used copies online of films, Bluray would cease to exist.

Your solution can’t be to simply just keep copying material, as that prevents the material to begin with being profitable enough to keep producing.

If your answer is piracy, number one, you’d need a jailbroken PS5, then a source for the game files, then a tremendously good solicitors firm.

If you don’t understand how a poster of the Mona Lisa being sold to your sister, doesn’t impact gallery visits one bit (so their revenue), but how copying and distributing a game without it benefiting the IP holders financially is a weak argument, I’m lost.

If your suggestion is copyright infringement, have at it, but that’s not a solution most of the gaming community wants. They want rights, not to abuse other people’s rights or those of a company.

As a family of people who have been in artistic professions for many a year, it’s not great to hear people’s only solution to not having access to something or wanting laws to change is to break them.

Just do better.

@glennthefrog They’ll have covered themselves. All that text most people skip the first time you boot up a game, that’s telling you your rights. The fact it’s a licence to play the game is usually pretty high up in the list. If you don’t read it it’s on you, not Sony.

More generally, this applies to pretty much all game purchases across all formats and ecosystems. The language used here re ‘reasonable’ is unfortunate but it’s a legally correct term. People should take reasonable measures to understand what they’re buying, will be the argument, and I suspect Sony will win it.

Rather than arguing over this sort of thing the longer term assurances associated with these sorts of licences is what we should be focussing on imo. The digital licence model is too well established and accepted to be changed, but the application of it probably could be influenced under the right pressure. I’m not convinced gamers will apply the pressure though in a way that gets results.

@GirlVersusGame Strawmanning is when you deliberately exaggerate, simplify, or otherwise misrepresent an argument to make it easier to attack or critique.

In this example, Sony is misrepresenting the argument of ownership to be that the customer wants to own the video game in its totality, rather than just owning a copy of it.

The opposite would be steelmanning, where you represent a position in its most generous form to either prop that position up or prove that your counter argument can take on even the strongest version of the original position.

I've been feeling very cynical and disheartened over this topic lately. To think I don't own the hundreds of games I've purchased in recent console generations and on Steam. To make amends, I've been stockpiling my favourite games using Steamrip and large capacity external SSDs. PC gaming and piracy is where these companies have led me but I'm simply ensuring I own what I've paid for.

@wildcat_kickz I agree generally, but a ‘copy’ of it, assuming you’re referring to a physical disk for example, is still only a license, that happens to include a portion of the game with it.

The only sense of ‘ownership’ is the second hand market aspect I guess.

@opo02

https://www.thegamer.com/playstation-deleting-concord-consoles/

^^Story about Concord being deleted from consoles remotely, which was unprecedented (even in the case of PT, if you had it on your machine, Sony didn't reach into your PS4's HD and delete it).

As for "at least they refunded people" in the case of Concord, I'm not sure I follow how that addresses the general point, that Sony can and does reserve to itself the right to revoke the licences it sells. Did they give any refunds to the people who bought movies from StudioCanal?

So glad I own all my console games physically.

@Ed_Zeppelin I know we're only buying the license in reality. I'm arguing from a point of what it should be and what is "reasonable," as they put it.

My point was that music publishers don't make that kind of asinine argument. When you buy a CD (or digital album), you own that copy of the music, not a license to listen to it. But that doesn't mean you own the copyrights to the songs or recordings. These are different things and I find it incredibly disingenuous that Sony would pretend they're the same.

@Mindless_Demon never lost access to any of the digital game licences you bought*

If you're gonna carry the torch for Sony in the comments section, you should use the language they're being very clear about.

It's poorly worded from Sony, but as the rules around digital purchases stands they're not exactly wrong are they? It's in the small print when we "buy" these games. The problem is most of us (if not all of us) don't read the smalle print. This is where the issue lies. For an all digital future it needs to be made clear at the point of "purchase" that we only pay for a license, then at least we have a clearly informed choice whether we proceed with it or not.

I would argue they make the EULA as obtuse as possible so nobody reads it and thus nobody knows they're just buying a licence.

If I were in court I would point out that an MP3 can be downloaded, backed up and burned to disc. Games should be no different.

I'm fine with all of this. If they give us ownership over our digital licence and let us sell it, lend it out. Basically give us the same rights purchasing our physical licences did. They'll still be saving money on distribution and manufacturing as an all digital, except they'll have made their customers happy by giving them some control over the product they're actually purchasing, a licence.

@LordOfTurnips so as long as they don't do the thing they already did, we're fine. Ok....

Most people will not read that longass EULA pages just to find out that they spend money for a temporary license to play a game. They only understand if they spend $50-100 that means they buy + owned the game, not renting.

But this is why digital only future is wrong and sadly a lot of gamers agreed with that sh*tty future. They're okay losing buying options and spending $80-100 for a temporary license that can be revoke by publishers anytime they want.

sigh...

@Dalamar 100 days since Sony's last f*** given

What's interesting is Sony says in their argument that they own Resident Evil Requiem.

Uhhh.....

@LordOfTurnips

Look at apple right now. They just removed a bunch of movies that people PAID for. They are not being re-imbursed.

--------Signature--------

My birthday is September 14th, 1980

Surely Sony know too well the PS6 is going to be a very hard sell, at least to begin with, so they are using this opportunity to unleash all the *****.
For those arguing against piracy: give me a game on a disc that I can resell, trade or gift to my children and I will be happy to pay for it. Give me a 'license' to play a game that can be revoked for any reason at any time, and is practically worthless when I am done with it, then charge me €80-100 for it and I ll sure be happy to seek more reasonable ways to enjoy that game..

@Neuromancer Nah, I actually own my games and there's nothing they can do to take it away. Their own terms of service say that even if they ban my entire console I can still play my physical discs. Section 12.5 in their ToS.

It's all about value for the consumer.
When CDs were selling for €15-20 I always chose to buy rather than copy for the cost of an empty disc. I like the booklet, the original prints and I like collecting and supporting the artist. If they charged €80 for a cd I would never buy it.
Your all digital future only makes financial sense for the consumer as a streaming model. I can watch hundreds of movies on Netflix for €12.99 / month, and I am not going to start complaining if a movie is removed.
But paying €80-100 for a license that has 0 value as an asset is quite a ridiculous expectation for me.

@Spider-Kev yes thats ***** and people should be reimbursed.
***** apple
And ***** sony too btw, plenty of reason for that, we all deserve a safer digital future.

@mikeawmids I mean yes.
there is an argument that could be made over the whole digital market being new and specially with movie licenses ***** being *****.
***** sony and paramount and all the others who pulled ***** like that.
But we should absolutelly fight for a more stable digital enviroment, regardless if physical ceases to exist or not.

@PuppetMaster
Generally I agree with you but a limited license is not the same as a temporary license.
Every single store makes damn sure to put in their EULA that you arent buying games, you are buying licenses, buut thats the same as saying that even on disc you arent buying the game, you are buying a copy of it.
As in: you dont own God of War, you own a copy of the videogame that you can play. that goes for both digital and physical

I still haven't had mine online since the blackout. I notice my ps5 pro starting up alot quicker, so I think I'll keep it offline unless I need an update. Weird to think in 16 months they'll be no new ps5 physical games. End of an era ...

It's a whole lot of bull$hit: they should be forced to add clarification of a minimum reasonable amount of time the license should be expected to work for. As in all legal agreements, like a car or a house rental, a time period must be specified. It does not make any sense whatsoever, either logically or legally, to argue that you are paying real money for a license to use a digital product but no one knows how long for you will be able to use it.

When was this implemented? Did ps3 and 4 digital games have the same wording? Or is this a recent development with ps5 software?

does sony bans account so easily? you all talk like without notice sony will ban you for a laugh and take all your games away.
far as i know the worst offender was nintendo but everyone seems to forget that.

and in the same way you can get banned or hacked on psn, can you not get the same treatment on steam and loose all the games all the same?

@wildcat_kickz Re the music example that’s not correct.

When you buy a music CD, you own the physical plastic disc, but you only purchase a limited personal license to listen to the copyrighted music on it. It’s typically stated on the insert you get with a cd or on the back of the box. Very similar principle to games, DVDs etc. in fact, exactly the same as a game really if the full game is on a disc.

Given the stated limitations of use in each case I suspect a lot of lawyers would argue they’re quite similar. The problem for games is that they’re much harder to copy, and often don’t have the full product on the disc, unlike music.

Music has moved on for most with streaming. Where they do provide a positive example is the ongoing availability of vinyl and I’d like to see that sort of option remain for gamers. Lower volume, and probably more expensive, but still catering for people who want a bit of plastic on a shelf!

@Bomberman64
Rather "Your rentals library "

And it should work both ways:

• How long is the MINIMUM you can GUARANTEE I will be able to use the €100 game license for? 5 years? 10?
• Thank you, I 'll have a €20 license to play GTA 6 for a year then.
  Dont worry, you can still make extra money with DLC to keep people coming back, or €10 cosmetic items for those who are into it.

How about pay as you play? Since I dont OWN anything and my money only allows me to enjoy your product for a limited time, charge me for that time and that time only.
If I finished the game in 10 hours and then deleted it, charge me less than the guy who went for platinum and then extra hard death plus mode and put in 800 hours.
There is no end to the silliness once we go down this rabbit hole...

@Ed_Zeppelin You're right. I was trying to simplify my argument, but fear I misrepresented it instead. I'm aware that there are differences between physical and digital purchases for music. Streaming is the closest in what the EULA is to video games, where you're buying a subscription/license to stream the music, rather than owning any copy. I was trying to make a distinction between owning a copy for personal use and owning the "master" of the medium, whether it's the source code for games or copyrights of the songs/recordings for music.

One thing that I do want to stress, though, is that I'm not really all that interested in what EULAs say right now. I'm not making the argument that these companies are violating their TOSs. I'm arguing that the EULAs and TOSs are predatory by design and need to be changed.

@lazymike Sony just updated their anti harassment policies to ban anyone who spams #NoDiscNoBuy, and also sue them.
This is from Polygon
"New Sony policy could lead to legal action against vocal PS5 disc critics"

It’s reasonable Sony know that this particular customer can’t stand the company they’ve become.

I’d love to see this brand I once loved taken down a peg or two.

@Rezium please tell me it’s April 1st and that was a joke?

@wildcat_kickz All fair points and we agree then I think. I think a lot of the current debate is focussed wrongly, probably in favour of the likes of Sony.

A proper debate around digital ‘ownership’ is needed involving regulators and giving real assurances to consumers re the value and longevity of what they’re buying. It’s tough for games companies because we can’t reasonably hold them to support things indefinitely, but by the same token consumers shouldn’t have such limited assurances as they do today.

Sony are not the goodies or the baddies here, idiots yes, they are stoking a fire for no reason. The music, film and game industry are engulfed in greed (not the creatives in those industries) the rich money people. It’s gonna take a few law suits and it’ll shift. Apple Music is terrible for removing stuff you’ve owned. Loads of things like physical coming with digital versions should have been standard across the board but everyone accepted it not to be the case. £80 games and £20 digital movies we’ve accepted it so it becomes standard. They are pushing their luck until it all
Implodes.

@PaperAlien then the vast majority are stupid

@Ed_Zeppelin Yeah, we're on the same page. We're deep enough into the digital age that the ignorance of lawmakers isn't a valid excuse anymore. There need to be substantial reforms to how digital sales and digital accounts are treated. These aren't ancillary to physical goods anymore. This is the standard by which most consumers interact with entertainment businesses and our rights to things we've purchased digitally must be treated much more seriously going forward.

@Rezium
Next thing we know Sony will be announcing they want to rename the Switch 2 to Playstationintendo Portable for the US market.
Keep up the good work Sony, Make Gaming Great Again!

@rjejr Out of sheer curiosity, what umbrella of criminal topics do you think copyright infringement belongs to?

@wildcat_kickz Yeah… speaking as a lawyer, this is about the dumbest legal argument I have read in a long time. Ownership of an item by one person does not prevent another person from owning a second version (or 20th, or 20,000th) of an identical item. If that were true, then only one person could own a second pair of the shoes I’m wearing now. They’re deliberately conflating whether more than one person can own the same object (no) with whether more than one person can own different versions or iterations of that same object (yes).

Plaintiff’s lawyers should move for judicial sanctions against Sony’s lawyers for this argument. It’s either legally frivolous or made in bad faith; either is grounds for sanctions.

@Chibbie
It's not even different versions or iterations, it is literally duplicates or copies of the exact same object.
Even if, for the sake of the argument, someone claimed that Sony's argument is idiotic because it would also mean they could only ever have sold 1 PS5, it would still be worse than that because we are talking about DIGITAL copies here, not physical duplicates, and it is one of the greatest benefits of digital media that they can be duplicated an infinite number of times with 0 cost.

Reasonable people should know not to spend 70 to 100 bucks for a rental game.

@Chibbie I'm leaning towards "bad faith," since Sony's lawyers would 100% know better, but at the same time, only a moron would ever think that argument would fly. Absolute amateur hour.

Why? Because Sony say so?

Tell me one industry that works this way outside games development.

Any other industry that sold you a product, that didn't work properly till a few months after release, that had major features cut from it so they could sell it back to you after 2 months, can't be sold on, and can be taken off you at any time, would be absolutely derided but somehow we're supposed to accept it here.

@darylb24 most discs, while being unpatched are fully playable off the disc and it's not so common that a game releases in a cyberpunk 2007 state.
There's a site dedicated to giving an overview on that:

https://www.doesitplay.org/

@ShadowRJ THIS RIGHT HERE!

I know I've never owned the license or rights to any game. But with my retro games I own a physical licensed copy. But its still my copy of the game & it loads whenever I want to play it. I dont own the rights or license to say Thunderforce 4 on my Megadrive. But actually own the copy of the game on cartridge. So no one like Sony can pick & choose to delete digital games when it suits them. That's why physical will always be better.

@Aj_thagamer remind me, which comment of mine are you agreeing with? I left a few on this article.

This kind of impudence from Sony is exactly why this is my last console and I'll be switching to PC instead of getting PS6. They turned me from a fanboy into a hater in a matter of weeks and they have only themselves to blame.

Here's a great comment from reddit about games ownership.

@1UP-HUSKY i guess when the physical disc disappears Sony’s biggest competitor be Steam.

Its absolutely reasonable to expect ownership when you are being charged £70.

@Axelay71 exactly this

No one wants to own a full rights to the game, we want to own a full rights to the copy of the game....

@MonsterMike
Wasn't particularly carrying the torch for them or anything but even if I was what would the issue be with that? This is pushsquare.com, a PLAYSTATION centric website.
I honestly don't get why many non Playstation gamers come here and then are surprised/offended when people defend Playstation.

That’s why I no longer buy games in their store.

@dskatter losing my first PSN account is exactly why my physical collection is so large, and also because I still have access to and can play long since delisted games like The Godfather Don’s Edition and Drive Club to say the least. What these all digital defenders fail to realize until it’s too late is Sony can revoke access to their account for any reason they deem fit and there’s nothing they can do about it.

Like you said, good luck revoking access to my discs. That’s exactly what Sony wants to remove and there’s people defending it. What a sad state of affairs.

@PaperAlien "Ahhh so only the stupid don't understand?"

To be fair, the opposite of "reasonable" is "unreasonable". And unreasonable people are not necessarily stupid.

And speaking of reason, I'm glad the conversation is shifting from an unreasonable "don't kill physical games" to a reasonable "improve digital ownership rights".

@Mindless_Demon we're all here because we own and play playstation games. Doesn't mean you have to support ***** business practices.

Also why would you think I'm not a playstation gamer? Lol. I was playing ghost of tsushima on my ps5 3 days ago.

I was with them until they said only one entity could own a game, as if there aren’t multiple (read infinite) copies.

I wonder how many more comments like this and others from Sony until i get a few apologies on here for saying Sony isn’t the for the players company that so many media outlets told you all to believe. They are just as greedy and dumb as the others and in this topic they seem to be the worst. They are going to send a good amount of gamers to other platforms if they don’t shut up and come out with some info on how they intend to make digital better than it currently sits on PS5.

@dskatter Completely agree! Been bolstering my PS5/PS4/Switch physical libraries since the announcement. It's worth noting for the goofballs "not that I've seen any of you here do this" that can't differentiate the difference between AAA and indie developers.

"Note below"

Even if you want to protest by going physical only, please don't harass indie devs who have digital only titles as most indies don't have the budget for physical releases so it's either digital or no release whatsoever through no fault of their own. This seems pretty common on social media websites like Twitter "Now X" and Facebook and is definitely the worst possible take and actions to take when trying protest something a business is doing that's anti-consumer.

It’s interesting that Sony is conflating two different things, though they are clearly being pigheaded on purpose to frame this their way.
But they are conflating the game copy, with the game IP. Yes, we all know we aren’t buying the IP when purchasing a game, but every reasonable person assumes we are buying one copy of the game and can do what we want with that single copy in perpetuity.

If that is not the case, the language has to be changed to, renting And the price better go way way way down if we are renting.

I'm not reasonable consumer. In this case, dear Sony, you are reasonably will lose your audience/you consumer base. I wonder how will you proceed without money??????

Lol it's as expected. Other major outlets and known gaming and tech content creators have blown this news out of proportions. The fuel just keeps coming and Playstation is providing the fuel whether directly or indirectly.

As for me, the reputation is lost. Consider me a disgruntled fan. Lol

@HonestHick "For the Players" stopped with PS4. Now we're in the ironic "Play Has No Limits".

Guess that the people that think they own any actual video games have never looked into the EULA. You don’t even own your old NES games. You own a cartridge, the software is only licensed to you. While in practicality, it is a lot more challenging to revoke the license that is distributed in a physical medium, you typically have the same usage rights.
And guess what? That’s the same for every piece of software, everything from your Windows 11/MacOS install to the software your TV runs, is just licensed to you. That’s just the way it works.

@dskatter just wait until they start blocking accounts for criticizing them online. They seem like they are on a way to do this at some point.

Meanwhile I think their PR department is a joke. In several weeks they destroy publicly image of a brand they built for decades.

One for sure, they help some people to decide what console to buy for next generation. Not theirs.

@Random_play05 Pay has no limits, got it. Well that explains a lot HAHA JK.

This has to be the most tone deaf Sony has ever been. I'm glad I built a PC, I think the only thing I'll keep the PS5 for is Call of Duty, because I refuse to play multiplayer shooters on PC with all the cheaters. Only thing good about console is the relatively closed system environment with the crossplay turned off.

@dskatter "one bad word" is exactly why I don't interact with anyone in multiplayer games anymore, because I have no idea where to draw the line on what someone will deem "offensive" because everyone is different.

Sony tried to create a safe and sterile platform but what's actually happened as a result is it made people less sociable. The irony.

@Neuromancer imgur blocked the UK? 😢

Here's the comment I screenshot.

Holy s* Sony goes nuts!
https://www.polygon.com/ps5-disc-sony-harassment-policy-digital-games/

Sony really want to completely burn the last goodwill they have with long time PS fans who prefer physical over digital.

I believe lots of people might not understand it, that's just a intelligence level thing not Sony misleading anyone, well not misleading anyone except the stupid

@Dalamar 0 days since the last time the media mis-represented what Sony actually said.

"reasonable consumers would not be misled" is what they actually said.

@LordOfTurnips Let's say your account get suspended, because Sony decided so. All of your games, revoked, forever. Would you be such a Sony chill then ?

Honestly, whoever was "against" Sony it that court had extremely easy job to debunk that statement.
If Jonny buys the game on 14th, than someone else wouldnt be able anymore... blabla" that is pure nonsense.
OK. So I will physical disk, does it mean that no one can buy another one? I own the copy of the product on disk, so what is the difference to own the digital copy of the product? I will buy certain copy, with serial number attached to it, which means anyone else can buy it, but under different serial number. Which means we both own the same product, but we cant play it with one disc or one license.
Reasonable people, would know the difference and would not be mislead by stupid language.
EU and other part of the world should push Sony, MS and Nintendo to changes. Not about discs, that ship is gone. But about licence rights, refunds, how long game must be alive after I will "rent" it, etc etc.. and of course the price. Why should we pay full price for renting? I want to rent it for a week, boom, 9,99, I want to rent it for month, year, 10 years... whatever, my money, my choices. Double edged weapon. Companies will try to screw us each time and I understand it, they do what they do for money. But that is why we need someone to protect us... hello, governments, monopol etc

They're right. (ducks)
Apart from on Steam. Which has less platform owner control

@NessunDorma nice sentiments but try again in English please

@PuppetMaster I do think we need some context here. To the best of my knowledge, that policy specifically refers to people who ring up and spam its customer service operators.

@Fallon .. ? what ? try to collaborate

Reasonable players know they don't own the game in their physical discs either, they only own a disc that acts as licence. Discs can get break, get corrupt or lost. Easier than getting ur account banned

Reasonable players will run away from Sony before PS6 is even released.
The rest will find out why soon enough.
How long do you think before you are going to have to watch ads during gameplay, or you start losing access to content you paid for because you left, say, a bad review, which Sony's 'customer care' labelled as 'inflammatory' or 'offensive'?
Open your eyes people, this is much bigger than just killing physical discs because they 'dont generate too much profit'...

I really wonder how they are going to sell me a PS6. Their marketing dept has a hell a job coming up.

@ShadowRJ Nothing in the article that said only apply for people who spam customer services.

@PuppetMaster It was mentioned in other articles that posted about the same topic. In this case, Kotaku posted one.

I guess I'm unreasonable. I didn't know this until everything spun out of control. Also, hasn't Sony learned already to just STFU. The "reasonable" part was uncalled for.

My understanding has always been i am BUYING a DIGITAL COPY of the game just like I would be BUYING a PHYSICAL COPY. I believe that, using the resident evil requiem example, reasonable people know that when they BUY a game, digitally or physically, that they reasonable understand they have bought a copy of the game and not the actual ownership of said game. Which by the way is not owned by Sony either, Resident Evil is owned by Capcom and Sony pays for the right to have the games on the Playstation. Sony's level.of push back against the consumer show that they will likely be out of business or at least the Playstation side of Sony will be out of business by probably 2035 at this rate. Physical copies of games are and always have been superior to digital copies in numerous ways.

It's not clear, Sony and you know it isn't right what your doing. If I buy a bag of flour, the grocery store can't deactivate it whenever they want to. You need to change the wording to say "rent". That's what rent means. "Buy" means you own it, until it degredates or you die. It's okay though, your dishonesty disguised as legal mumbo jumbo will catch up to you eventually.

Playstation. For the Reasonables.

This argument sounds like a child throwing a tantrum when they get called out. This is just sad.

@Oldstalk i'm not a sony shill, in fact I say f*ck sony pretty much on a daily basis.
Just because i dont agree with the hissy fit people are having over digital games that doesnt mean that i'll defend sony for anything. And I dont.
Between missmanagement of their studios, a missguided live service aproach, srupid decision making regarding preservation and the absolute piss poor state of the ps store, there is plenty of reasons to argue that sony is the worst.
Them not supporting a 20yo outdated optical media format (like every single othe company on the industry btw) isnt it.

As it stands my account is very fine thank you. I have never given sony any reason to be suspended and this kind of "what if" argument is just plain stupid and doesnt really serve as a real statement for fighting for a better digital future, something that we all should be fighting for.

@dimi @AdamNovice if you broke a disc, you are using the tiny hole in the middle WrONg...

No, I'm with them. I didn't know I was buying a licence until around a couple of years ago when people started talking about / criticising an all digital future and game preservation. They don't actually make it obvious on the store.

@dskatter They could just ban your console, and gamertag, would that not make your discs mostly useless? Aren't most games nowadays not all on the disc anyway?

@PaperAlien 100% I for one didnt know they could revoke your purchases oe that the game wasnt yours indefinitely after purchase.

@Tyllcam96 The day I log in and any of my games are unplayable its going to be a class action lawsuit with full refunds adjusted for inflation, compensated for anguish and projected future loss of entertainment.