I can understand extreme cases, like some sort of disputed IP where their contact to sell the content turns out not to be with the actual rights holder, resulting in no longer serving the content (with an unconditional full refund). But past that they should be legally required to host the content until the heat death of the universe.
Yeah this is one of the reasons I've been slowly moving my gaming time over to Steam as they very rarely do stuff like this and if they delist the game, if you've already purchased the game you can still play it 99.99% of time. Sad to see Playstation go down this route.
Unfortunately it’s the same situation on steam. You are only buying licenses to games you don’t actually own it, they can be taken away at any time with no recourse. Steam might be doing good now in this regard but it’s hard to say if it will stay like this forever.
Kinda, but its not black and white. For a start steam has a much longer track record of nearly 20 years not doing this, I’ve heard of them de-listing games and not allowing them to be sold any more but never of revoking games that have been sold. Secondly there are many games on steam that stream cant just revoke, games that use no DRM or DRM that isnt integrated into steamworks they cant just delete if you back it up.
But that being said there is the possibility of something like this happening on steam, which is why I’m glad there is still an active game piracy scene even if I dont use it any more.
I dont have one, but I’m pretty sure you can drop to a desktop that you can do whatever you want with the files on the system just like any other linux distro.
Give it another 10 years, you won’t “own” anything. It’ll be “licensed.” Weird tho. Digital content is endless. But you can’t consume it into extinction; physical things are finite, but we’re like here take it! It’s yours! Call a cop or shoot anyone trying to take it.
Even Google was giving people full refunds for all games that were bought on Stadia when they gave up on that. I can’t imagine that the total refunds would even be that bad for Sony given the increases they made for PSN prices. Would at least come across as at least pretending to “do right” to keep some level of trust from the people that have been buying non-game media from them. It would all be just a PR thing with some loss of current money for future money. Maybe even just offer a free amount of credit for getting some shows/movies from the Sony owned studios.
But since Sony is currently the number one, they will keep on their fuck shit until Microsoft or Nintendo are able to pull some big push. Playstation really only does kind of cool shit for customers when they aren’t in the lead.
Did anyone actually read the link? Everyone in the thread is talking like they pulled video games. They literally only pulled Disney TV content from like 20 years ago. Now of course that’s still crappy but stuff like this has happened for TV content before and it won’t be the last time this happens.
We can freak out when they actually do this to video games and not some 20 year old awful reality TV content no one watched anyway.
The point is if they do it for this there is no reason they wouldn’t do it to other forms of media. Youre either introducing a strawman argument or missing the point
And this is why I never “buy” media online. If I can’t own the media and enjoy the content whenever and wherever I want, it’s rented. I may be ok with that, but I never let them claim that it was a sale.
That’s one reason I’ve ordered a few titles from PlayAsia recently. For example, the NTSC switch edition of the Metal Gear Solid collection requires downloading the titles. With the PlayAsia edition, lo and behold- everything is on the card, and multiple languages to boot.
I think when this happens you DO get a refund, (usually a coupon for the same service, but still). This is a situation where villanizing Sony would be, but not necessarily correct. Obviously they have no interest to remove previously purchased content from user libraries. (like this).
So the question is, on what possible grounds can a company change licensing AFTER sales have been made. This is the same fucking mess as with the soundtrack being retroactively removed from GTAIV. How is this legal?
A coupon for the same service is not and does not resemble a refund.
Yes, villainizing them is entirely correct. If they sold the license 100 years ago and stopped providing it, they should be legally liable for a 100% refund of the purchase price, plus interest. If they fucked up their contracts in a manner in which they aren't able to serve the content to purchasers until the end of the time, it's entirely their own problem.
When companies fight regulations they use statements THIS unreasonable to fight better legislation, for framing everyone who supports better regulation, as completely unreasonable whining anti capitalistic bigots, who just want regulation that makes conducting any business basically impossible.
With this logic, if your DVD rots, does the company who originally released the DVD owe you a full refund plus interest?
A digital purchase means they owe you access, in the format your purchased, as long as they exist. Nothing short of that can possibly be acceptable if there is any copy protection at all.
The Voyager community (I use it too), JUST had a post from the developer that he added a feature to post comments as pictures, but I don’t actually know how to do it.
Not within Lemmy, but if you were on, for example, a federated Mastodon instance it’s perfectly possible to boost that comment that would appear like a retweet to Mastodon users.
you can technically follow lemmy users in mastodon. in megalodon (or whatever your client is), just search for the lemmy handle. their posts are toots and their comments are replies
Alright, what this looks like is Sony’s deal with Discovery to sell and host their TV shows has been removed. From my quick glance there are no games being removed.
Still is BS, and beyond ridiculous. But it was inevitably going to happen at some point.
I am more pissed that I got informed that they are doing this from here instead of being told that I am losing my Myth Busters.
Because it was 2009, I was I kid, and I saw Mythbusters and I said yes. I learnt my lesson when they remove PlayStation Video years ago from PS3, and the PSP. I didn’t even know I could re-download it until I stumbled upon it in a menu years later.
I am just hoping and praying that this will not extend to their games. Sony’s been pretty good about game ownership to this point, look at those who bought the PT Demo and can still play it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Sony kind of has their hands tied on this one. The shows they’re delisting (or are not able to relicense) kind of get to take their IP off of the system, no?
If they didn’t have a licence to host it in perpetuity, they shouldn’t have sold it in the first place.
Yes, they should pull it if they legally have to. That’s following the law. However, they should refund consumers in full or ensure that they continue to have the media without restrictions.
Scrolling through the list I can’t believe that people actually watch that shit, let alone pay for it.
It’s all the kind of crap that people leave used to leave on in the background and to get bombarded with 4 sets of adverts an hour. The direct result of needing to fill 200 channels as cheaply as possible.
Refunding everyone would probably cost Sony less than a million. I’d wager some of those shows nobody has ever purchased.
You don’t like it which is fine but no need to call out people who do. My dad loves deadliest catch and has been watching it for years, he records it and then fast forwards through the ad breaks something that’s been around 10 years now.
In many countries that wont work. The Terms of service need to only include reasonable and expectable clauses, as they are not negotionable.
And “purchase doesnt mean ownership, we take it from you anytime we want” is neither reasonable nor expectable.
Also this should run under criminal fraud imo. The customers were deliberately deceived by the term “purchase” into believing they would be granted ownership.
That argument might fly in the EU, but in the current US political climate? Not so sure. Hopefully they’ll keep making laws with actual teeth to drag these multinational corporations to change things that may lower their bottom line
To be fair, Sony might go for that. This is incredibly embarrassing for them as well, and it does erode the trust in their service which is really important for a marketplace like this. Sony will be handing out coupons probably, but this is still damage to their brand.
As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library.
We sincerely thank you for your continued support.
I wonder if anywhere in the “purchase” terms they included “while Sony holds the license to distribute.”
I hate that “purchases” people make are restricted per platform. If I “purchase” a specific title it should be available on any and all platforms that serve that content. No one should be asked to purchase it on Sony. Apple, Netflix, Amazon, or whatever other shitty streaming service comes out.
As much as I think nfts are fucking retarded, this could be one of the few cases where that stupid digital receipt might make sense.
My understanding was this was the actual intended use case for NFTs. To allow you to properly own a digital item. The fact that it got applied to a stupid fad right out the gate doesn’t change the fact that it should actually be used to allow us to own things again.
NFTs don't solve the actual problem, which is that paying money doesn't legally come with a warranty for accessability of the thing you bought. The law should guarantee the right to access anything purchased or marketed similarly for a given period of years with the right to either a Refund or a DRM free download option if said access is no longer offered for any reason, and mandatory cultural preservation of said media as a precondition to legally profit off of it or enforce copyright using the court system
playstation.com
Active