this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
658 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

87598 readers
3739 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnoringEarthworm@piefed.ca 216 points 4 days ago (34 children)

Don't buy PlayStation, got it.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 43 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (32 children)

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.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (11 children)

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.

[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (4 children)

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

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days 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.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] dRLY@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

[–] RFKJrsBrainworm@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

All the switch 2 physical games are empty, the games are all digitally downloaded

[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)