If it’s admitted they’re not owned, then ‘rent’ is logically what they should be marketed under. I don’t think I’m the first around here to suggest this.
This shouldn’t be hard for a decent lawyer, given Sony admitted this themselves.
I do hope a lawyer makes the argument about that kind terminology, that you’re not purchasing something but renting it, and using “purchase” is deceptive.
If it’s admitted they’re not owned, then ‘rent’ is logically what they should be marketed under. I don’t think I’m the first around here to suggest this.
This shouldn’t be hard for a decent lawyer, given Sony admitted this themselves.
I do hope a lawyer makes the argument about that kind terminology, that you’re not purchasing something but renting it, and using “purchase” is deceptive.
It’d be good to see, yeah. I think it’d make a significant difference to improving the rights of those purchasing console games in particular.