The relevant section is blunt. “The Software is licensed to you, not sold,” the EULA states. “You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for.”
The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony’s EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.
This is why the stop killing games movement exists
Then stop calling the button purchase and call it rent.
Arr me hearties.
if buying isn’t owning the piracy isn’t stealing.
Steam users: First time?
To be fair, i recall Steam and GOG said that in case of a platform shutdown or if a game from your library is delisted, they can provide you a copy of the game files that you can keep and use.
The Sony policy is much more shady.
in very limited terms I think Valve might fully remove games (like the crypto miner one) from accounts but other then that if you bought it you own it as far as I’ve seen with Steam. I have transformers devastation which was delisted, and while the achievements won’t really show up on my account iirc, and I can’t sell the card drops on the market, I can still install and play it fine
Nah see my other comment. You don’t own shit on Steam. In fact the agreement specifically says you may need to use the client and be connected to the Internet in order to even play your games. Like if steam shut down tomorrow and just stopped existing it’s very possible they could legally just give you the middle finger and say sucks for you.
IANAL and there’s more to it than just the contract you have with Valve as far as the law goes but the way the contract is written you have no ownership of anything on the platform.
I interpret that as Steam covering for some enhittified games on their store that require a constant internet connection.
For example several games I have in my Steam library work fine offline.
But the Megaman Battle Network remake subtly requires an internet connection to start the gamea from the title screen.
Very misleading as the game technically boots offline but you can’t leave the title screen.
The Sony policy is much more shady.
It’s not.
There’s a lot more in the agreement but this is the start of the licensing part.
Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
(Emphasis mine)
It says “limited” but does not define what limited is, so you legally paid for nothing guaranteed. You just give them money but they are obligated to give you nothing.
Not that this gives them a pass, but just to clarify the term: “limited” means you’re only allowed to use the software in the specific ways described by the EULA. The whole purpose of the EULA is to define exactly what “limited” means. In contrast, “unlimited use” would indicate that you’re allowed to use the software however you want unless specifically forbidden by the EULA.
“Limited” does not mean that they can just make up whatever they want later and say “well that’s what we meant when we said limited.” The EULA describes the agreement you make, and both parties are bound to exactly what is described in that EULA.
They can decide to change the EULA later and technically you are free to choose whether you want to accept those new terms, but the nasty part is that they can revoke your current license if you decide not to accept their new EULA and you’re just out of luck because you don’t actually own a copy.
TL;DR it’s a shitty deal either way, but I think it’s important to be accurate. They do define what “limited” means or it wouldn’t be a valid license agreement. That does not imply that the EULA is a good one.
The only solace is at least the majority of AAA games coming out now are so ass that i don’t want them anyway.
Should change the “buy” button to “rent”
no way this is not gonna backfire for them somehow or somewho
It won’t. Even with GoG, you have limited rights. This has been the same since the ps3 era.
Umm way longer then that. Its always been this way with video and software.
AS A CONSUMER YOU MAY HAVE RIGHTS UNDER APPLICABLE LOCAL LAWS THAT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED, LIMITED OR CHANGED. THOSE RIGHTS TAKE PRIORITY OVER ANYTHING IN THESE TERMS.
So they’re saying we should write to our law making representatives and have that changed?
Sounds like a fucking great idea to me.
Yeah, first you have to have representatives that write laws in your favor.
Not only that, but make sure that those laws are enforced
Or have enough money to
bribelobby for laws in your favorMaybe write to them with certain unidentified substances enclosed first
Pretty much all software EULA’s are like this. Anything you “buy a license for” certainly. Same as it ever was.
Shortly after announcing that there won’t be anything else soon.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn;t theft.
If you pirate the games, you actually own them and they can’t take them away from you. Funny how that works.
“Within their legal toolbox to take them” and “practical ability to take them” are wildly different.
Actually, they can take them away.
They don’t have enough tanks
Ẃ̵̧͝ͅÉ̴͕̟̿ ̶̗̗̊R̶͍̃͝E̵̩̗͝͠Q̶̮̒Ų̴͋̃I̶͈̼̓Ȓ̴̢̼Ḙ̶̓͗ ̵̛̪̤̆M̷̰̾O̸̻̽R̵̲̉̉E̵̱̎ ̶͎̀V̴͖͐̂È̶͓̻S̸̝̱͠P̴͖̤̈Ẽ̷̢̤N̵͚͙͋̀Ȩ̷̽ ̷̧͖̈G̵̛̰̘͑A̶̬̎͝S̶̤̍
I’d like to see them try that.
Don’t buy PlayStation, got it.
It’s in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.
If it wasn’t, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.
Because that’s what actually owning software means.
And video games are software.
PlayStation:
The Software is licensed to you, not sold
Windows 95:
The software product is licensed, not sold
https://www.scribd.com/document/478767349/Windows-95-License-Agreement
I know it’s a joke no one ever read them…
But you all really never knew this?
Edit:
Don’t make me wheel out the 1980s CRT TV for the class…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI
There’s always been freeware and shareware (yes, they’re different) but if you as an individual paid money for software at any point, you’ve never owned it.
Businesses can’t even justify the expense of “owning” basic stuff like Microsoft Office and collectively spend billions. “Owning” software is fucking expensive, and usually means you coded it.
If it wasn’t, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.
Because that’s what actually owning software means.
This. Is. A. FUCKING. Lie.
If I buy and own a physical copy of a book. I am not then entitled to set up a printing press and sell my own word-for-word copies of said book. Same applies to ownership of digital goods.
If I go to GOG and buy a DRM free game (aka I would then own that copy) I still wouldn’t have the legal right to distribute copies to other people.
That’s because copyright laws exist, and they apply to both situations I described. Shame on you for mindlessly repeating industry lies.
Never ever owned software. Even physical disks has something like buying this gives you a license to use this software. Great examples is movies. It gave you a license for private viewing only. Showing a movie you had a copy if to a group of people technically broke that.
You’re an idiot. You didn’t address anything I said
It’s in the EULA for every piece of software,** including physical.**
Bolded for those that aren’t getting it.
Even if you buy a disc, that does not guarantee you can play the game in the future. Often games have to be authenticated on install, and if that authenticating server is no longer online, you can’t play the game–even if you have all the files required to play it.
Europe had a whole “Stop Killing Games” initiative that would require companies to unlock games they are no longer supporting, but that mysteriously vanished from the legislative docket after meetings with game companies that organizers weren’t invited to.
Stay mad, but you need to be mad at the right things.
Kind of funny how Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem and they’ll be here after it’s all done. You put that cartridge into your console, and you can play it. It may be version 1.0, but you can play it. And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them. It’ll cost $70 a decade from now, but it’ll run after you pay it lol
All the switch 2 physical games are empty, the games are all digitally downloaded
This is not true at all. Where… did you even hear this? Kind of reminds me of the nonsense that was being parroted a year ago.
Nintendo is pushing for digital very aggressively in their marketing to gear people towards digital only.
Give them a generation or two more and you’ll have them doing the same shit Sony is doing now.
Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem
Because NES locked it down at propertiary carts and still do…
That drastically increases the cost of Ninetendo games, because Nintendo is the only one legally allowed to make the blank. Even gamecube used tiny discs.
If you wanted to sell a NES game, you had to buy X amount of blank copies from Nintendo, then pay Nintendo to put the code on the blank, then pay Nintendo a licensing cut to sell…
Like, it’s not like Nintendo had consumers best interest at heart, they just nickle and dime developers at every step, which is why Nintendo versions costs more.
Oh yeah, I never said they had good business practices. We’re well aware of that. But, at this point, holy fuck. All they have to do is exist while Sony and Microslop repeatedly blast themselves in the balls. Luigi wins by doing absolutely nothing.
deleted by creator
I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.
The difference is more that they’ll be useless in 25 years or whenever Nintendo pulls the plug on the download servers.
I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.
Being able to sell/trade a specific copy of digital media kind of is the one functional use NFTs could be used for (if companies would be willing to treat digital media to be treated like physical media which they obviously like the current setup). Would also kind of need a universal industry blockchain (or some other ledger system) with better scam protections, and be used for the “new” sales for the trades and “used” sales. Which is way more effort than digital media companies would ever care to figure out (especially now) and were able to get away with not being required to treat digital like physical. And the major players don’t have to care about making their stuff DRM-free.
In the case of video media it is worse since there are so many set-top devices that don’t allow offline downloads like the mobile versions of the same apps (mostly since the boxes don’t have storage for it) or ability to use on a home media server (Plex/Jellyfin). So you may have a license to a movie/show but not have access to it if networks are down. And digital audio media has been reverting since a lot of new music can’t be purchased and only streamed. Which is sad since I had some early hope that the digital video stuff would follow how audio was working with a lot of DRM-free options Apple and Amazon managed to “legitimize”. I will give some level of credit to the UV/Movies Anywhere system that allows retaining a supported movie/show if you have accounts on multiple services and any one of them shuts down. But that still requires that stores/studios support it, AND that the core system isn’t the thing shutdown.
Yeah, like I said,
And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them.
deleted by creator
I think a lot of the issue is when companies no longer respect their customers and abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers. Valve has the exact same agreement but (most) people don’t have an issue with it because they’re much better at ensuring you have access to the games you’ve bought for as long as possible.
abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers
A lot of it is widely outside of PlayStation or Valves hands…
The puclishers have the same deal with them, and developers have the same deal with the publishers.
If that wasn’t there at every link of the chain, then that next person no longer has to pay anyone earlier in the chain.
We kind of see the same with in-game music. That has to be licensed from the owner of the master, and possibly a couple more people. They don’t like doing licences in perpetuity out of principle. If the Beatles let a game use a song and that game eventually sells for 10¢ or free, then that’s a loss sale even 30 years from now in the way licensing works. So after 5-10 years, songs disappear.
Or like how it took Kevin Smith forever to get actual ownership of the movie Dogma due to Weinstein being involved and everyone else just wanting to bury what he’d touched.
EULA’s and ownership is a lot deeper than software. Like, you can sell a used game of monopoly, but buying a copy doesn’t mean you can make you’re own and sell, the physical material is just associated with the license for the intellectual property.
Like ship of thesus shit, if you start with a legit paid game of Monopoly, replace every single piece over 20 years, you can still sell it as a “used Monopoly game” because at some point you bought the license. If you made every piece the same way and then sold it, that’s not legal
It’s in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.
*laughs in open source*
The Service provides users of Ubuntu with a free subscription to use the Service on up to five physical Ubuntu systems with unlimited number of VMs or containers for the eligible Ubuntu LTS versions as designated by Canonical.
https://canonical.com/legal/ubuntu-pro/personal
Why would you assume to own software if you don’t even pay to use it?
You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes
To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.
That’s just Ubuntu Pro and it’s basically longer term kernel maintenance plus applies to the universe repo not just main. The only extra functionality is the ability to live patch the kernel. The base install works fine as is but some businesses require the extended support.
By all means, find me a single example of software you actually own…
Because that’s waaaaaaaaay fucking easier than me listing every open source eula one by one
Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.
They have a Terms of Service for the online services, which you can be banned from for misuse, but this does not prevent you from using the software. You can legally obtain it through any of the hundreds of mirrors, or even compile it from scratch.
Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.
Right, your link is about use of online services…
The following Terms of Service contain the rules for the use of the internet Platform Arch Linux, operated by the Arch Linux Team, accessible under the domain archlinux.org and various related subdomains (the “Platform”) and the respective Services, namely provision of the Arch Linux package platform, the forums, the wiki, the bug reporting tool and a reporting tool for security issues, Arch User Repository (AUR), Mailing Lists, IRC Channels, collaboration pads and the Bulletin Board System (the “Services”) of Arch Linux (“Arch Linux”, “we”) by you as a user (the “User”, “you”).
There’s no EULA, but after reading up on it, isn’t it even considered software?
Like, it seems to really just be a command line, that straps together a bunch of individual packages, which add up to a very very lightweight OS, and then even more can be added on.
Seems really cool, and I like the idea. But my understanding is the packages themselves have EULA’s on their own and function pretty autonomously.
I think thats going to the closest anyone gets tho, thanks for linking it.
You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes
To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.
You can, though? If you find someone stupid enough to buy it, that is.
All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.
Not, that’d be a violation of GPL, MIT, etc.
All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.
So…
They have to change it to legally sell it?
Then they didn’t own it.
Although, I guess thanks for explaining what a “bullshit fork” is, I thought that wouldn’t need explaining on here to be honest
Here is an easier one with FOSS you could just do whatever you want on the repo. Which is not true as the maintainer manages it.
Pirate all Sony games you like to play, maybe even those you don’t. Share. Got it.
