-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Digital Licenses" Sony's License Agreement: What do they mean for the consumer?
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
Yeah it's been the same as always. It should be noted that with physicals discs you do have more rights depending on where you live, since the laws and regulation can give rights that you can't sign away despite what the ToS says.
Like physical discs that say you cant rent or resale, while you are legally allowed to do so anyway in many countries. However, when it comes to digital renting and resale the laws get a bit unclear.
This isn't a Sony issue, its a digital future issue.
One question people should be asking is if you don't own it and only license it, where did all that equity from physical ownership go? Its priced into MRSP with physical. So why are you paying the same MRSP prices for a limited license that can be terminated at any time, and will be terminated at one point in the future when the company licensing it decides to no longer support the network the license check runs off of? (Games for windows live anyone?).
Licenses are not all bad and can offer flexibility, but they also must offer a good chunk of that savings and lack of equity back to us consumers. I'm not keen on publishers thinking they can eat the diff and take all the benefits of digital.
And no, not having to get your lazy, fat ass off the couch to switch games does not offer comparative value or justify digitals prices and limitations. It just means you're not very apt at cost benefit anaylasis.
One question people should be asking is if you don't own it and only license it, where did all that equity from physical ownership go? Its priced into MRSP with physical. So why are you paying the same MRSP prices for a limited license that can be terminated at any time, and will be terminated at one point in the future when the company licensing it decides to no longer support the network the license check runs off of? (Games for windows live anyone?).
Licenses are not all bad and can offer flexibility, but they also must offer a good chunk of that savings and lack of equity back to us consumers. I'm not keen on publishers thinking they can eat the diff and take all the benefits of digital.
And no, not having to get your lazy, fat ass off the couch to switch games does not offer comparative value or justify digitals prices and limitations. It just means you're not very apt at cost benefit anaylasis.
Yep but that doesn't make it right
and now we are online publishers can remove rights to play a game-that couldn't be done on a ps2.
Even if retail purchases are subject to the same license agreements, isn't access to and use of physical retail products less easily subverted by changes on a console manufacturer's end than access to digitally purchased games?
Why did people lose access to the ability to play a digital copy of LOU but not the physical one? That is, why was the PS4 doing an online check for one type of software but not the other?
Why did people lose access to the ability to play a digital copy of LOU but not the physical one? That is, why was the PS4 doing an online check for one type of software but not the other?
This. They can put whatever junk they want into EULAS but they can't take away a consumer's physical product, and there is no precedence (yet) for a physical product ever getting disabled outside of online only games.
It's why i will always go physical when possible on consoles.
PanicFreak
Member
All software, whether you purchase it on a disc or download it is licensed. You've literally never owned a piece of software in your life.
Welcome to 1984.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Christ, you really are naive.
Because people didn't set their PS4 as the primary one, meaning you can't play digital games while offline.
Transferability. First sale. Fair use.
There's a lot more to it than that, and you have many more rights under physical. Sadly IP creepy has moved from only computer code in to the realm of media IP as well.
All that said, everything I've said is true. You have more equity in physical media because those extra protections are priced in. Most publishers are creaming themselves about taking all those protections away, being able to put timed poison pills in license agreements, and keeping prices the same as if you still had all those options and equity.
You are extremely incorrect...
Xinkwi-Xkuk
Banned
All you have to do was disable your internet connection (settings>network>Internet and set to no) and you could play all your games.
The license issue, is bigger and so complex. I doubt it can be addressed well in a this thread.
The license issue, is bigger and so complex. I doubt it can be addressed well in a this thread.
B_Boss
Member
I (and many of us here) definitely seek to understand it with more clarity so as to avoid confusion and misunderstanding concerning the issue...
Oh, so the problem was fully dealt with by making that change? Cool.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
?Didn't work for many folks, if you go through that large thread. The DRM still locked them out
My guess is because they were secondary IDs on a primary console, or accounts on a secondary console.
The real question. Is why are the authentication servers not seperated from PSN completely. They very well might be and were attacked anyways.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
The bigger issue here is the software industry needs to accept that owning a physical item that copywrited code doesn't not equal owning that code.
No consumer in the world would rationally expect to own the code that a program or game has. Thats nonsenscial.
We do however, own the product the code has been used to produce, one that we should be able to sell and pass on as we see fit, even digitally.
No consumer in the world would rationally expect to own the code that a program or game has. Thats nonsenscial.
We do however, own the product the code has been used to produce, one that we should be able to sell and pass on as we see fit, even digitally.
silvermember
Banned
It is one if those things you are going to learn how to deal with.
It won't change ever.
hellmonkey
Member
This is the biggest reason I always prefer hard copies over digital. If im dropping $60 for a game, I don't want some server retardation to keep me from enjoying my purchase. I know that's how digital works, and that's fine. I just prefer the alternative.
Yeah, except now we're losing control over said software.
Sure, you never owned anything, but at least you had the software on a disc to use it or make whatever you want with it, anytime, as long as you have the physical goods.
That's pretty much why I'm avoiding buying digitally whenever it's possible.
Cynn
Member
You can still play DD offline.
Handy Fake
Member
This thread certainly separates those who grew up in a time when games had proper instruction manuals and you couldn't buy music albums digitally, which means you sat through the entire thing reading the lyrics booklet from cover to cover or thoroughly reading the manual whilst having a shit.
We long-forgotten breed always noticed the licensing disclaimer.
We long-forgotten breed always noticed the licensing disclaimer.
BruiserBear
Banned
This whole "I don't own my games thing" is kinda silly. They say that in the legal text just to make it clear that you don't own the code on that disc. You own the disc, but you have no ownership of the code on it, and you're not entitled to do anything with that code other than play it.
Japanmanx3
Member
From my perspective it's only 14 year olds that don't really care about this sort of erosion of rights. I guess it goes both ways, eh?
That misses the point. They took the steps that were supposed to give them access to their own purchases games (physical and digital) and they were still locked out by Sony's drm. It wasn't isolated
John Caboose
Member
These agreements have been saying this for years and years. Probably even decades. You've never been buying the software itself, you are paying for the right to use it (in one form or another).
I honestly don't care about this like some others vehemently do. "But what about 20 years from now!?" is just not a question I ask or care for the answer of.
I honestly don't care about this like some others vehemently do. "But what about 20 years from now!?" is just not a question I ask or care for the answer of.
True, but I was talking long-term wise.
To be more precise, I was talking about being able to re-download X title that's no longer available.
sturgboski
Member
Not sure if brought up already, but I would like the console manufacturers to implement what Steam does with regards to offline play. This way if and when the service is down (like I think its down for like 17 hours today for maintenance, not sure of game play impact), you would still be able to play your titles.
Thats some quite bullshit. Are you American by any chance?
Handy Fake
Member
Erosion? Been like that foreverrrrr.
Just had a quick google and Zool on the Amiga, bottom right...
Whilst not as wordy and elaborate as a legal disclaimer, it still amounts to the same thing.
BruiserBear
Banned
That statement was inaccurate.
This thread started after this: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=881282
It is isolated to a few. If you read through the thread, you will see solutions. Majority of the people didn't have a problem and the few that had problems didn't set things up properly. Once you follow the advises, it should solve it. You can play both physical and digital games offline.
Handy Fake
Member
This. Unplug the internet cable. And the world is yours.
Steam isn't DRM though. It offers optional DRM to developers and publishers.
The "licensing games" idea has been going on for ages now. Definitely for longer than the idea of the license being connected to one's online only credentials. In fact, I'm pretty sure for software it has always been the case, where the disc, cartridge, floppy disc was just considered the delivery method. Of course, not exactly everyone would agree with them, not even all authorities.
What's funny is, and I don't know if anyone else remembers this, but Microsoft itself would advertise their PC games as "full ownership" on their online store, even though the EULAs in them used the license language, pretty much like every other piece of software out there. The language they used was pretty explicit, it would say something like: Once you buy it, it's yours. Own the games you buy from GFWL forever" etc. When that was obviously not the case.
It always struck me as funny when the DRM in those games would immediately contradict that statement. It is language that you won't find coming from them ever again, even just for marketing purposes.
Steam service itself is DRM, but even if you release your game on Steam, it doesn't mean it is automatically filled with DRM. Some developers have released their games where the .exe can bypass Steam completely, thus you don't need Steam to run it, thus it's DRM free even when on Steam.
Steam is good, and in terms of DRM is better than Uplay at least. I don't see what's "lol worthy" of that statement, other than your ignorance in your quest to fling mud at people who like the service more than the others.
What's funny is, and I don't know if anyone else remembers this, but Microsoft itself would advertise their PC games as "full ownership" on their online store, even though the EULAs in them used the license language, pretty much like every other piece of software out there. The language they used was pretty explicit, it would say something like: Once you buy it, it's yours. Own the games you buy from GFWL forever" etc. When that was obviously not the case.
It always struck me as funny when the DRM in those games would immediately contradict that statement. It is language that you won't find coming from them ever again, even just for marketing purposes.
Steam service itself is DRM, but even if you release your game on Steam, it doesn't mean it is automatically filled with DRM. Some developers have released their games where the .exe can bypass Steam completely, thus you don't need Steam to run it, thus it's DRM free even when on Steam.
Steam is good, and in terms of DRM is better than Uplay at least. I don't see what's "lol worthy" of that statement, other than your ignorance in your quest to fling mud at people who like the service more than the others.
Saint Gregory
Member
License agreements are fine and all by why are so many people comfortable with the mechanisms being in place now to enforce them?
That part, especially for disc based games. is definitely a new development.
That part, especially for disc based games. is definitely a new development.
This surprises people? EULAs have been around forever.
It's only getting noticed now thanks to our all digital future, since a license for a digital copy is easier to revoke. This has a simple solution, too: Buy DRM free from GOG or physical, where the company's ability to revoke your license to actually play the game means very little.
If Sony locks out my PS3 or Microsoft locks out my Xbox 360 for whatever reason, the only barrier to playing my collection of games is getting my hands on another PS3/Xbox 360.
It's only getting noticed now thanks to our all digital future, since a license for a digital copy is easier to revoke. This has a simple solution, too: Buy DRM free from GOG or physical, where the company's ability to revoke your license to actually play the game means very little.
If Sony locks out my PS3 or Microsoft locks out my Xbox 360 for whatever reason, the only barrier to playing my collection of games is getting my hands on another PS3/Xbox 360.
Handy Fake
Member
Well unless you're actively looking to go against those licensing agreements then I don't see them as being an issue.
There used to be a brisk trade in knock-off games in our schoolyard when I was a nipper as well, one would assume that had Psygnosis gotten wind of it we might have had a letter or a cursory visit from the local constabulary.
In all honesty, it's probably all legal mumbo-jumbo to protect themselves from widespread exploitation of their intellectual property, as opposed to treading on the common-or-garden user. Same as ever.
dark_prinny
Banned
You own a license. Just for the use of it. Same as a physical copy.
Killing_Joke
Member
This isn't really trampling over consumers bro. All this means you don't own the software. Hence selling bootleg copies is illegal. Even selling your own copy is sketchy. Which is why everyone has a love hate relationship with gamestop. Hell even X1 original physical disc plans technicaly wasnt anti consumer. They wanted to turn the console into a pc box. Once you use the disc it's done. While it's a extremely stupid idea it's not exactly wrong. They really fucked up on the always online and always on kinect. That was the scary shit.
No, it's not nearly the same thing. That's just an assertion of copyright. It's not an assertion of ownership.
Handy Fake
Member
Surely if I owned it, I could lend it or resell it. Potato, pot-ah-to.
Ah, the good ol' days of floppy swaps. I still remember copying Microsoft C++ 7.0 from a friend when I wanted to learn programming. About a dozen floppies, each of which had to be copied at a snail's pace.