Sony deletes more movies from the accounts of people who ‘bought’ them
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
That would:
1. Balance the revocation economically, for both parties, while leaving the decision to the "seller".
2. The trade becomes the time-value of money vs. the time value of access. Inherently fair. The seller nets interest, and the inflation drop on the original price. What an accountant would come up with, yet automatic.
3. Provide users the remunerative recourse for "resuming" their "perpetual" license with another provider.
4. Motivate the avoidance of revocations, as who wants to have anti-sales.
Maybe there are good reasons for revocations. Fine, but purchasers should not "Get" randomly screwed, while the seller who had control of their sourcing arrangements loses nothing.
"Get" instead of "Buy" does not address the problem. If "Get" requires the user to gamble, it should be "Gamble". "Get for five years" or "Get for 5 viewings" would be ok. But "Get" without a clear definition is inherently misleading. Another dark pattern.
(Also: By law, contracts must be something given for something taken. A one-sided uncompensated nullification-at-will option is a sneaky way around that. Companies that nullify without compensation, or less than full price where the licensing agreement made no refund amount declaration, should be required to return customer money with interest to reflect the bad faith contract. IANAL, just a believer in justice, especially where simple accounting provides answers.)
They've stolen the property. It’s not “fair” if you replace it, let alone only replace it with a lesser than value as “it was second hand”.
On the other side, a user that watched a movie 1000 times should not get less compensation.
All users are being impacted exactly the same way (loss of future access), so should be compensated the same way.
Sellers should be forced to label DRM rentals with specific time frames and penalties for violating these time periods.
The way it is done currently assumes the buyer wouldn't have bought something else that would have gained value if they knew the full terms of the sale. Instead they "purchased" an indefinite rental. Imagine if these selling practices where adopted all across the economy. It would be a mess but somehow we tolerate it because the product is digital.
Original-price refund is both simple, and (by linking the time-value of money for both parties) fair.
1. Proration for a "lifetime" access (87 years) denied. In many cases probably close to 90% refunded.
2. irrespective, a Full refund for those who had never viewed the purchase.
3. A refund equal to the purchase price on the streaming platform newly acquired. Or a lifetime access (87 years) of the monthly billed streaming platform.
Of course it should. If Sony are not doing that then it sounds like grounds for a class action?
I remember when Google shut down Stadia. To their credit, they automatically refunded everything I’d ever purchased on the platform. Nice little windfall.
This seems to be something that the "Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices" charter of the FTC could address.
The three prongs of when it applies are
- Causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers
- Cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers
- Is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition
It seems like stealing movies users purchased thinking they owned them checks all 3 boxes.
T&C are not laws, and aren't even legally binding in most situations. They exist purely as an ass-covering maneuver and self-justification for customer abuse.
True, illegal contract provisions are not enforceable but there’s not actually an allegation that anything illegal has taken place.
It sounds like you are describing the world as you with it existed rather than as it actually does.
Also many contracts are just uncontested. Everyone is just hoping they work, but nobody is testing it out.
That's not enough. If I purchase something, I expect to rely on being able to keep it. Its value to me could well be much higher than just the purchase price.
Revocation should come with consequential damages together with the cost of recovering them.
If I paid $5 for a movie, I did that because I want the movie more than the $5. If I didn't, I would've kept the $5. You giving me $5 and taking the movie away is just replacing the thing I value more with the thing I value less.
The other issue is that, if I paid $5 for a movie 10 years ago, that's now more than $5 due to inflation. If you give me $5 back, you're short.
If I buy, say, a shovel and the hardware store sends someone to break into my house and steal the shovel back, hopefully they'd get arrested for the crime.
We should not be treating digital purchases any different. If I bought it, I bought it. It's mine forever.
But the oligarchs will never let that happen. So, in practice, always buy either the physical media or at least a DRM-free digital copy in an open format that you can save in your hard drive and play forever just like you can with a physical copy.
If neither of those are available I'd recommend just not buying. Or rent it for a one-off viewing with the full understanding that it is a one-off rental, priced accordingly.
The only reason these parasites survive is that there is very little advertising money behind user-empowering software, so setting something up for yourself looks daunting. Meanwhile the proprietary solutions market themselves as being straightforward, easy, and ultimately trustable. But as this action and countless similar ones demonstrate, this is far from the truth.
Their licensing issues aren't the problem of the buyer.
We need a model of digital ownership that does not involve the media owner forever delivering that media on demand. Doing away with that requirement would be good for all involved. Sony has been a bad actor here and deserves every possible sorrow - and also I would like a model that retains the balance of physical media: companies give you a copy that works 'til it wears out and it's your job to keep it in working condition.
> Certain works may be withdrawn from the service for legal reasons, such as a revocation of rights. The titles purchased will then no longer be available for re-download. Download your purchases quickly.
Very much agree. And while Steam could disappear tomorrow, all of the games that have been delisted are still downloadable if you bought them (I think The Movies was one of the early ones - delisted in 2007 maybe, but you can still download it if you bought it back then).
Oh wait, despite all the DRM we have that anyway. What a huge waste of effort all this protection has been.
"unsolved" gives the charity of thinking that someone is working hard around the clock to figure out a proper solution. It's instead like this by design. Companies love the power to sell for premium and take away at a whim. To mislead and not be punished. These are parts of how consumer laws came about in the physical world.
But our governmetns are very slow to adapt to the digital world (and are doing their own share of ransacking instead). We're some 5 levels of magnitude away from a society where we can start to truly ponder regulations around owning, reselling, and modifying our own digitial goods.
If not, should we change the law?
If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.
Full House: Angelina Jolie reboot (Starring Angelina Jolie baby clones)
It's never been legal to copy a book, film, or music album and sell the copies, for example, because the licence doesn't allow it. Hence freeware, shareware, and copyleft licences.
It only mattered that if you sell it you lose it, i.e. you can't buy 1 sell (or gift) 10.
Similarly in analog times this where not unilaterally cancelled licenses. Which are effectively nothing more then time limited licenses where you just don't know how long. (1: un
In law areas outside of copyright this kind of license cancellation terms are often seen as predatory, fraudulent and abusive practices. And _sometimes outright illegal no matter how well you communicated what the license/contract does_ before it was acquired (in some countries).
(1: unilateral cancellable without a brach of license/contract from you side and some other special edge cases to be more precise)
Which is the crux of the problem, not that it isn't attached to physical media, but that it can be cancelled in a mostly despotic manner and you (often) can't make (relevant) backups or similar to protect the availability of the medium either.
What I'm getting at is that people are getting the shape of the problem wrong (it was never ownership vs licensing), so the solution has to be different too. E.g. Bluray AACS revocation provides the technical means through which licences for physical media can be revoked just like purely downloadable stuff can.
The license isn't what takes away your permission to redistribute copies; copyright law does that by default. The license is only reminding you that it's not lifting that default, not granting you that permission.
Copying is neither here or there. There is an understanding that when you buy a book, you own the physical thing.
If I sell you a toaster and then remotely cause it to self-destruct, I owe you a new toaster.
Grandparent referenced "if buying isn't owning then copying isn't stealing". I would say that "if buying isn't owning, then stealing isn't stealing".
If a toaster is offered to sale to the public which the seller can remotely destroy at any time, and not pay anyone a cent, and the law upholds that, then it's morally fine to just walk out of their store with that toaster without paying.
Yes, physical media being de facto irrevocable is the important part, but even that has caveats (such as Bluray AACS revocations).
Behind a system of rights there is always a philosophy, which either postulates rights, or certain primary rights, as being somehow inherent or "inalienable", or else somehow justifies the establishment of rights without circular reasoning ("we need these rights so we can have nice things").
This is true. (It's true in every other industry as well.)
But the opposite side of that coin is that if you want people to spend the considerable amounts of time and money required to create new works that are actually any good then you need to have some viable model for compensating them that makes it worthwhile for them to do that. Whatever else you can say for it - copyright has been far more effective than any other model ever tried at the scale of human society in achieving that.
It's true that copyright makes a few people very rich. Some of those people certainly are artists. The "almost nothing" that Beyoncé has made from her music career reportedly paid for the private jet she bought Jay-Z as a gift a few years ago for example. Taylor Swift is reportedly now a multibillionaire. There's a reasonable argument that big name musicians have often worked on very successful concert tours and so not all of their income has necessarily required copyright. That argument doesn't really work when you look at bestselling authors or A-list TV and movie stars whose copyright-backed residuals and royalties keep them very well funded though.
Of course many of the other parties who make a lot of money from copyright are intermediaries like book publishers and record labels. The value of their contributions is increasingly questionable in the modern world and the measures they have taken to protect their revenue streams have sometimes been similarly questionable. I won't be sympathetic if copyright reforms render their business models obsolete and shift power back into the hands of the people doing the actual creative work with those providing services like distribution and advertising becoming subservient rather than the other way around as has often been the case historically.
Intellectual property creates compensation without a corresponding benefit to the public.
Edit: to add to this, the existence of copyright today does not show it has been effective for creating innovation. You need a counterfactual for that, which you did not provide.
That argument works if you're talking about something like a patronage model where most or all of the compensation for the creative activity comes from a single source. But it makes no sense at all for creative work that has a small value to each consumer in a large market. Copyright allows the cost of production to be amortised over a large market.
Intellectual property creates compensation without a corresponding benefit to the public.
No - because numerous members of the public benefit multiple times every day from the amortisation effect I described above.
You need a counterfactual for that, which you did not provide.
I'm not sure I really do. We can see clearly how finances flow in creative industries supported by copyright work. We can see the scale of both individual works and the cumulative production supported by copyright. And it doesn't take great insight to see that if everyone were allowed to copy and redistribute any work as soon as they had access to it then the whole model would collapse - again for the same reasons as above.
In any case if you'd like counterfactuals then I'll cite pre-copyright history, community-driven initiatives like FOSS and Creative Commons, and artists who have offered their work on a "pay what you think it's worth" basis. In each of those cases there have been some excellent works produced and enjoyed by many people - and the number of those excellent works is barely noise compared to the scale of production in modern creative industries supported by copyright.
Hence why you don't get tried for theft when you commit digital piracy. Which, as absurd as it might sound, sometimes (/in some cases) would be better to be tried for due to very unbalanced laws.
But also it should be pretty obvious that this isn't what people mean when they say "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing" and a intentionally misinterpretation of statements based by nitpicking formulations is neither contributing anything meaningful nor is it appreciated (in most situations).
It's the same as if someone sold you a toaster with a remote self-destruct feature, and then invoked the self-destruct. They owe you a new toaster.
- If the license terms include a section on termination, and termination is done in accordance with the license terms, it's fine legally.
- Licenses can be transferable but that doesn't make them non-terminable.
I could be wrong, though.
It's pretty crappy that we got to the point that overly simple actions (like clicking on buttons or breaking stickers on packages) can be considered accepting license terms. Is that really a "meeting of the minds"?
The problem isn't it being illegal.
But they instead bank on most people not having the means (money/time) or will to sue them over this. Especially given that the actual "damages" you can effectively sue for often relatively small for most users (likely <15€ per movie, so for most account <100€ per person "per situation where you could sue").
And if there is an exception (someones losing hundreds of movies or class action law suite) settling is likely still cheaper for Sony.
This is the problem with many laws the cost of breaching them is often too small (but only IFF you are a huge company with their own lawyer department etc.).
If management would be personally liable with _mandatory prison sentences_ for the CEO/Company Owners if it seems the law was knowingly breached because penalties are cheaper then benefits (or repeated offenses etc.) things probably would look quite different.
Other approaches to counter this includes things like penalties of base+%of yearly revenue, %yearly Profite etc. The problem here is this approaches are often a mix of unfair (e.g. same revenue with large profit margin is penalized way less) and/or can be fudged/circumvented (e.g. if based on profit, but even if based on revenue it can be partially circumvented in some situations. So I think making executive personally liable might be the only way to fix this.
Inevitably people will ask what that means. That will lead to a FAQ on the company's site somewhere, and various videos on the social media explaining it periodically with lots of comments. That will be a good thing.
Corporate marketing teams will eventually settle on something better sounding but technically legal, something like "Premier Anytime Access" for specific movies (versus "Bronze 24-hr Access"), or similar.
Because yes, it is copying. Nothing gets taken away. But when a pirate took a ship and it's gold away, it was gone.
https://retailwire.com/t-mobile-att-verizon-fined-10-2m-for-...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/lawsuit-t-mobile...
At the very least, if Sony yanks your purchase, they should merely refund it in full.
This is the obvious solution to most problems but of course they're the ones writing the laws so it'd never happen in a trillion years.
Sadly the case was settled, see: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-settles-alleg...
It comes up occasionally ever few years, whenever Amazon claws back an ebook or something like this (particularly egregious) thing happens. But then we just go back to normal.
Blurays are obscenely customer hostile too, but I decided a long time ago that they’re as close as I’m getting to owning a copy.
At least I have way to inoculate myself against this scenario without outright stealing.
But now even Blurays are getting harder to buy. Some of the bigger titles I try to buy aren’t being made… or never were (streamer exclusives).
Regarding BluRays, and to some extend DVDs, I'm in the same boat. I have season one of a TV show, but season two never made it to DVD and now it's locked away in the vaults of some production company, you can't even stream it. There are so many movies and shows that will just be lost in the future.
Clearly this law needs to be worded harsher, so the button MUST say "rent" if you are renting.
No, there is a much better alternative.
No renting of copyrighted works for money. The customer owns a copy or GTFO.
That immediately destroys several useful and viable business models that actually work in that they provide more access to more creative work to more people while the rights holders also make a return.
I am in favour of copyright reform but not of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Does it though? The incremental revenue from customers renting something and then renting it again is going to be very small. The "loss" from providing them with a permanent copy instead would be a rounding error, especially for a product with no marginal cost.
Meanwhile rentals are an attempt to cheat the public out of a bunch of rights they would otherwise have under First Sale etc. Which turns your access argument on its head, because the thing they're being denied is the ability to sell their copy when they're done with it, which in turn denies less well off customers the ability to buy a cheaper copy second hand.
It destroys the library model used by Spotify, Netflix, and all the other similar services for one example. Those are clearly not working on the same basis as selling permanent copies of everything you might want to listen to or watch. They clearly do make a lot of revenue from subscribers enjoying the long tail of music and programmes and often that includes repeats. Many more people enjoy many more works that aren't the big headliners under this model. People can also try something they might enjoy without committing to the cost of buying it and therefore don't have to feel bad if it's not for them and they give up after a few minutes. And yet obviously the subscribers individually spend far less in many cases than it would cost them to buy permanent copies of everything they'd listened to and watched. Given the popularity and financial success of the streaming services this is evidently an alternative model that works for both sides. So I would challenge your claim that the loss from always providing permanent copies is insignificant.
I don't really buy the other argument you're making either. With digital works there isn't much reason for a "second hand" market where copies would be significantly cheaper than a "new" copy direct from the supplier. When people used to trade used works on physical media there was a degree of degradation in those media that justified a price reduction. Why would someone who had bought a copy of the latest summer blockbuster sell it for 30% of its original purchase price if it's a flawless digital reproduction identical to a new one? Naturally this shifts the dynamics in the market and the price of buying a true permanent copy that can legally be sold on afterwards would tend to increase because of this effect. Meanwhile the library services I mentioned above work on almost the opposite basis and it tends to push the price per work accessed down because the subscribers aren't effectively subsidising other people who are enjoying identical works to themselves but without paying the original source anything to access those works.
I think there is demonstrably room enough in a world of billions of people with access to orders of magnitude more content than any of us could experience even once in our lifetimes for multiple economic models. What matters is that people get to create useful works and other people get to enjoy those works and the financial arrangements make this worthwhile for everyone. There are certainly flaws in the current copyright model that is established in most of the world. There are rights that I think people who have bought (or believe they have bought) permanent copies of works should enjoy with the force of law behind them if necessary.
I don't have a great answer yet to the problem of rights holders not wanting to make anything available permanently at all so that everyone is locked into some form of temporary arrangement. Clearly market forces haven't always sorted that one out effectively and some sort of adjustment is warranted. But I'm also wary of relying on some form of government regulation that distorts the market and potentially excludes arrangements that everyone actually involved might find worthwhile. Maybe you could somehow require that once any work has more than a certain number of licensed copies in circulation or has been available to a certain number of people from authorised sources for a certain (relatively small) number of years then it must also be available for sale as a permanent licence - regardless of any other continuing and still legitimate ways to access it from authorised sources - but with some recognition that a fair price to buy a permanent copy that comes with all the associated rights today might be significantly higher than what these things used to cost in the days when physical media were required.
Why would that model not work if you got to keep one copy of the current catalog? Consider the existing failure mode of the fractured streaming market: The user signs up for Netflix for one month, binge watches everything they're not caught up on, cancels, signs up for Disney+ the next month, does the same, repeat for each service. They only subscribe for one month out of the year but still get to watch everything.
What would change if they had to sign up for a year a time, but as a result got permanent access to everything that was in the catalog that year? Would people sign up once and then cancel forever? Of course not, because then they wouldn't get any newer content, which is what the services are supposed to be getting paid for anyway. Copyright is supposed to expire; why do we need a business model that relies on renting years-old works that under any sensible system would already be in the public domain?
> And yet obviously the subscribers individually spend far less in many cases than it would cost them to buy permanent copies of everything they'd listened to and watched.
Which is to say, they should offer bulk discounts where you get the whole catalog for a fixed amount, but then what's the problem?
It's not that people could resell them, because if you bought them all at once then you would only be able to resell them all together (can you currently resell individual tracks from an LP?), and then many people would want to keep some of them and thereby keep all of them.
> I don't really buy the other argument you're making either. With digital works there isn't much reason for a "second hand" market where copies would be significantly cheaper than a "new" copy direct from the supplier.
Sure there is. If the price was the same then most people would prefer to support the creators. On top of that there is the same reason most ordinary people buy electronics from Walmart or Costco instead of eBay or Craigslist. The product may be exactly the same, but Some Guy is a lot more likely to take your money and not deliver anything and then people will pay a premium to get it from a trusted source.
> When people used to trade used works on physical media there was a degree of degradation in those media that justified a price reduction.
This argument has always been nonsense because you were always allowed to make a backup copy of something you bought and then transfer that with the original if you sold it. Far from the copyright holder having a right to the degradation, the customer has a right to undo it.
> Why would someone who had bought a copy of the latest summer blockbuster sell it for 30% of its original purchase price if it's a flawless digital reproduction identical to a new one?
Because they don't want it anymore but need to provide some discount or people would just go to the original source. The amount of the discount would depend on supply and demand -- if lots of people buy it but then it sucks and they all want to get rid of it, the resale price is low, but maybe that's what ought to happen then.
> Naturally this shifts the dynamics in the market and the price of buying a true permanent copy that can legally be sold on afterwards would tend to increase because of this effect.
Except that it also increases the value of the product by that amount because the buyer can do that. If the price of a rental would have been $2 and the price of a copy would have to be $10 but you can resell it for $8, what do you care? If you want it temporarily then buy it and resell it; if you want to keep it forever then at least you'd then have the option to do that whereas right now there are things where buying a permanent copy isn't even available.
> Meanwhile the library services I mentioned above work on almost the opposite basis and it tends to push the price per work accessed down because the subscribers aren't effectively subsidising other people who are enjoying identical works to themselves but without paying the original source anything to access those works.
And a buy in bulk plan would still work that way. You would pay for a lot of assorted works at once (e.g. everything in the Netflix catalog that year) for a much lower price per work and then have the option to keep them or resell them all together. Keeping them permanently would naturally be more expensive, but not as expensive as buying them all individually, and either way then it's up to you.
> I think there is demonstrably room enough in a world of billions of people with access to orders of magnitude more content than any of us could experience even once in our lifetimes for multiple economic models.
The general problem here is that copyright is a monopoly, which as a general rule is bad but we're trying to get something good out of it by providing some incentive to create works. But to prevent a monopoly from being abused it needs to have a lot of limitations on it, which is supposed to be fair use, first sale, antitrust prohibitions on tying, etc.
If you just let them do whatever they want then look what happens -- you pay a monthly fee forever to never own anything, things disappear at random, owning a copy isn't even an available option, the service dictates what kind of device you can use to watch it which in turn causes antitrust problems for playback devices, etc. It shouldn't be like that.
> Clearly market forces haven't always sorted that one out effectively and some sort of adjustment is warranted. But I'm also wary of relying on some form of government regulation that distorts the market and potentially excludes arrangements that everyone actually involved might find worthwhile.
The source of the problem is that "government regulation that distorts the market" is already there in copyright itself. It's trying to do something useful, but you can't have it both ways. The thing the market uses to keep things in check is competition. Once the government issues a monopoly, the monopolist has to be strictly limited in what they can do or they'll turn into autocratic robber barons.
I do agree with some of your important points. It is a problem that copyright works by creating an artificial monopoly without sufficient control on how that monopoly is then used. It is a problem if there's insufficient incentive for creators to make works permanently available to those who want them. As I said earlier I do think some reform is needed in this area.
I don't think that's sufficient today to support your central argument that works should only be available on a permanent basis. The two financial models we've been discussing are a trade off between having access to specific works indefinitely (the sale model) and having access to many more works but only for a limited period of time (the library model). Either way the scope is limited and that makes the price viable. I don't think the prices for streaming services that operated on the alternative basis you're proposing would stay the same. I think they would go way up and that could reduce a lot of people's ability to access the long tail of works that they wouldn't want to spend the full price to buy permanently.
I also want to point out that your views here appear to be based on the US implementation of copyright. Some aspects of copyright in the US are at least questionable under the related international treaties already but pragmatically the US is powerful enough economically that its big companies can get away with a lot for now. Likewise the US itself can get away with having very generic fair use exceptions in its laws. That could change - with very significant economic effects - if the US attempted the kind of legal shift you're proposing without engaging strong international support first. And that would obviously require convincing everyone that the economics would continue to work. In any case some of your arguments about backups and physical media wouldn't apply in most of the world (or even in the US given the DMCA - but of course DRM and the legal protection it's been given around the world is a whole controversy in itself because it potentially makes a lot of the legitimate criticisms of copyright even worse).
IMHO your last point is the place we should look first. The problem is that the market isn't really competitive when copyright holders can license the works exclusively. This leads to problems like works only being available on a single streaming service or broadcast on a single TV channel. Sometimes different seasons of the same show or successive films from the same series end up on different services or channels. Sometimes works get yanked from a streaming service's library with relatively little notice when their deal runs out. If we changed the rules so that works being offered commercially to one distributor also had to be offered to other distributors with similar terms and pricing and within a relatively short time then I think that alone would restore a lot of healthy competition in the market and solve some of the significant problems with how the current distribution models are working. And importantly it is relatively practical to explore options in this area compared to trying to radically restructure the entire copyright model globally.
There's a lot more that we could discuss here. For example we haven't even touched on creative works like software that tend to be updated over time and the different models for supporting that. We haven't considered how to deal with work of potentially high value but a short useful lifetime like news reporting and investigative journalism either. It's a huge area - and that's a big part of why I think throwing out the whole principle of limited licences in favour of allowing only permanent sales is probably not the right way to go here. But the problems are real and I do agree with you that the system could be significantly better than it is today.
The customer has to know what they're getting. Either they own it, or they're renting for a certain period. Nothing ambiguous.
Societies have gotten really good at convincing people they don’t have power so it’s rarely exercised but it’s always worth remembering the difference between abstraction and the underlying reality.
If they stop believing money has value (so they wouldn't want to come to my house), men with guns will come to their house, force them out of it and change the locks.
This isn't a voluntary system, it's a forcibly imposed one.
You’re assuming there’s going to be large groups of people that believe money still has value. However, there’s nothing inherently different about the first group of people with guns and the second group of people with guns.
If hypothetically there’s a large moon heading to earth so everyone is going to die, everyone is responding to the same situation.
Less extreme situations result in societal collapse, and that’s just one of many options.
Additionally Lobbying shows us the amount of money for corruption is surprisingly low.
Are we taking about abolishing the fiat currency system or bringing back the guillotines ?
If you haven’t been paying attention lately, laws are only as good as they are enforced and it has become obvious that the ruling class is not going to enforce laws against themselves.
The solution here is not something most people are willing to inconvenience themselves over
The laws in this country are primarily written by and for large corporations. They’re not going to meaningfully practically restrain them just because something got passed.
Then the wind shifted and, suddenly, we could and we did. It took them decades to undo that progress and decades more to reassert their grip.
Don't self-sabotage by imagining that it is impossible to achieve change through democracy. We've done it before and we can do it again.
Using foreign wars to prosecute domestic agenda is a strategy that predates written history, let alone Vietnam. Rulers have always understood which levers were available to them, this is not a modern discovery. Classical history in particular is full of this sort of thing and worse in a democratic context, which is comforting in the sense of where we stand and concerning in the sense of where things could go.
Machinations were always organized. I'm reading about Louis Brandeis and I'm struck by how familiar the robber baron talking points are; they are exactly the talking points I heard from neoliberals growing up. Time is a flat circle when it comes to antitrust. Also: they tried to coup FDR! They got themselves a strongman figurehead and everything, it just didn't work.
I'd actually give us the advantage today: the information environment is messier and more difficult to control and machine politics is barely starting to form rather than firmly established everywhere at every level.
Demos doesn't have capital. People never had power. Whenever they've thought they won ... they just damaged position of someone powerful for someone even more powerful without even knowing it.
By this logic, in consumerism power comes from consumers, but maybe it's more complicated than that?
If the people decide to elect a comedian with a dustbin on their head, they can do. That apples to Chicago as much as Clacton
The point of a government in society is for people who give a shit to guide this kind of thing.
These people work 2 jobs, have a young kid, a demented parent or a bedridden sister that need constant support. If they take the time to give a shit about politics, their dependent dies. You don't seem to know how incredibly stressful and exhausting the life of some people is.
Do something about their situation that gives them the time to participate in real life. Don't blame them for trying to survive with all their might, and not go to council hall twice a week.
In your dire example, the missing component is how older generations socialized organically and effortlessly. They might be caring for their dependent, but the minute they left the house, they experienced social interaction. I certainly feel like modern day is vastly different and creates the isolation you describe.
Meanwhile, their healtchare provider canceled on their parent because they gaslit the family into saying "this isn't covered in out service" and the parent dies. Because they did not give a shit about politics.
This isn't asking for a part time civics duty hobby. Just to stop pretending all politicians are the same and take a few hours to vote. It'll save you a few weeks of battling with UnitedHealthcare over a very treatable issue.
>Do something about their situation that gives them the time to participate in real life.
That also requires votes and calls to the represenatives.
Is it? What’s the most effective boycott you can think of ever achieved?
Completely different circumstances as the protest was very organised and the target far smaller than a multi national company and the reason was far more important than access to a few films
Look at how the firestone tire scandal in 2000 effected their company's bottom line. Or how the click of death effected the fortunes of the owners of Iomega. Reputation actually does matter sometimes.
I did buy a Sony ultrazoom camera recently but that was a secondhand purchase. The hardware is brilliant but as usual the software ranges from barely usable and to totally broken. In theory it is supposed to be able to run a wifi hotspot that lets you transfer images wirelessly but instead of just putting a minimal web server on it they created their own opaque protocol, the only client was Windows only, and you can no longer download it. Had I bought it new in the expectation of being able to unload it wirelessly I would have sent it back for a refund
a) Consumers don't have enough money already, so they're both stressed out and getting fewer things for themselves. These combine to mean that they're less likely to be willing to give up what little luxuries they have left, even if you're just asking them to substitute one media property for another.
b) The companies being targeted are just too damn big. The consolidation that began in the '80s has reached truly ludicrous levels in 2026, meaning that the company can just...ignore drops in profits for months or even years while consumers get worn out.
How much content really is only on Sony’s store, and how much of it would wear you down if you didn’t consume it within X years?
There are truly painful boycotts (try boycotting the only ISP in your area), and boycotts that are an inconvenience. This one is a far cry from losing a luxury or getting worn out.
I mean, sure; it's much more painful to boycott the only ISP around, or the only grocery store within a 30 mile radius, but just because there are things that could be worse doesn't mean that this can't be bad.
They probably boycott the Xbox store just fine, and that one’s also full of “small luxuries” so as best I can tell you make a personal preference based argument, which is different from what you think you’re saying.
Furthermore, Sony is the exclusive source for movies distributed by Sony. If someone wants to watch one of their movies—I don't know which those are offhand—they will need to buy it from Sony (or, at the very best, buy it from some other store and their money still goes to Sony).
In either of these cases, yes, they could choose not to do that. But if you've just gotten home from a hectic shift at your second job, microwaved a ready-meal for yourself and your kid, gotten them to bed, and finally have an hour or two to relax before you have to go to sleep yourself...are you really going to be willing to go out of your way to find some other way to watch the movie you want to watch? And more and more people are finding themselves in these sorts of situations in recent years.
Most broadly, my point is that for any given (major) store, there are people for whom their preferred "small luxuries" come from there, and asking them to give that up in order to try to make a difference that probably won't happen (due to my point (b) above) is likely to be a very hard sell.
And the government is free to ignore all the laws, as witnessed by 2026 in the US.
In a browser, the top category on Google's "Movies & TV" is "New to buy or rent". The buttons on the page for a movie are labeled "$X.XX Buy" and "$X.XX Rent". In the Google TV app on my android phone, the two buttons are "Rent 4K // $X.XX" and "Buy 4K // $X.XX".
The splash images in the Apple TV app iOS say "Buy or rent it now.", and the buttons on the page for an individual movie are labeled "Buy $X.XX" and "Rent $X.XX".
Movies, on digital marketplaces, have had this kind of distinction for a lot longer than games have.
Paid apps largely failed as a business model though (why would a consumer take a risk on buying a paid app that they can't try before they buy) so most apps that you pay for are free apps with IAP subscriptions... which I guess makes it a little more explicit that you're renting the app, for better or worse.
EG. A mapping app that includes a one time bundle of maps that don’t get updated can be sold as a one time purchase. If you provide continuous updates, which most people expect now, pulling off a one time purchase business model is HARD. The other option is versioned access or time limited support, which is really just a subscription model by a different name. That said I wish versioned access was still a thing. Photoshop CS is still fine for what I want, I’m happy to pay for an upgrade when it makes sense, but a continuing subscription to software that hasn’t substantially changed in a decade sucks.
Strangely, some kindle books actually do meet california criteria of "buy" by allowing a download of the book in .pdf or .epub format.
But when you go to buy them, it still seems to say:
By placing an order, you're purchasing a content license & agreeing to Kindle's Store Terms of Use.It is only later in your library that it quietly says:
Download available in additional formatsLet's not broaden this definition in favor of the vendor.
Of course, customers would also need a way to transfer the content from their existing devices to later-purchased devices. If that is possible now, but becomes impossible later (like if Sony goes bankrupt), then does that ruin the "buy" characterization that seemed legit at the beginning?
Is there something in Apple or Amazon terms which say they can't under any circumstances deprive you of accessing the content you have bought with their "Buy" buttons? I don't see why you are trying to assign a difference between them and Sony here?
We have words like leases, licenses, or renting for a reason and they are not new.
The companies which shifted their business model to renting in the digital age have perpetuated the "buy" buttons to make their customers think the transaction was the same as when they purchased a physical media... but clearly, and it's by far not the first case, these companies will deprive their customers of their "purchase" for many reasons that shouldn't be any concern for someone who actually "bought" something... like the companies suddenly deciding to stop paying for the rights of the thing that they alledgly "sold" to you.
So just as clearly, theses were not actual purchases but just licenses, non-transferable, allegedly "perpetual" but unilaterally revocable at any time with no refund.
I really don't see why you seem to think there is anything hazy about this, or hard to delineate. This law seems to cover the cases in which these companies abuse the language in question, Amazon and Apple are not "selling" you anything digital, you acquire a pretty limited license on all of these services.
One important question, which I don't know the answer to, is whether Sony is nuking stuff from your devices. If not, then they could claim that you bought the thing and can keep using it on your existing devices. If you can move the content from a PS5 to a PS6 in 5 years, then arguably it's fine to say you "bought" it. But if they're wiping the content from your local devices, then you've definitely not bought the thing.
I didn't think I would need to quote more of your message, its essence is that you think these kinds of licenses *can be* "as good as buying" when they demonstrably have never been close to it... and it's by design.
> If these mega companies stick around and continue to offer access to the content, then it is as good as buying it (arguably better if you don't have to store it and can download onto many devices over decades)
But the really don't, they regularly cut access to content they pretend to have "sold" to you with a "buy" button. They have redefined the words "buy" and "purchase" to match an old model of sales where you actually had an irrevocable access to the content. All this law says is that it should be made clear to the end user.
Currently companies hide this to customers in pages-long EULAs and behind misleading "Buy" buttons. It shouldn't be so hard to be honest about their business model... unless maybe they think people would reconsider "buying" all these things if they knew they can be taken away from them so easily, without refunds, often without even warning them.
> or loses access to the relevant rights.
In most cases the companies don't "lose" anything, they decide that continuing to pay the copyright holders for this content is not profitable for them anymore (or fail to negotiate it within their acceptable margins), so they stop paying, and remove the content from their catalog. Without any regard, consultation, or compensation for the customers who paid to access it.
> If you can move the content from a PS5 to a PS6 in 5 years, then arguably it's fine to say you "bought" it. But if they're wiping the content from your local devices, then you've definitely not bought the thing.
Many of these services stream the content to you on-demand and don't even allow local copies... or if they do, they gate the local copy behind online renewable keys limited in time. Sony does this by forcing you to connect your console every few days if you want to be able to continue to play "offline".
And to be honest Sony's case is interesting but not very significant, both Amazon and Apple have been caught removing content (removed books from Kindle, removed songs/albums from iTunes, if my memory serves me well, you can easily google the cases), they got class action lawsuits against them and both settled. More than once. They settle because they know their customers expectation of "buying" is not the one their EULAs guarantees, and they really don't want courts to rule on these EULAs or whether "Buy" is a misleading term. That's why lawmakers have to do it. It's really not a matter up for discussion that these companies will remove content sooner or later, the OP demonstrates so, the previous settled cases too... so unless you provide a framework in which these companies can offer an access that is actually as good as actually buying a physical media, it's just wishful thinking to believe they "can" do it, there is literally no incentive for them to do it and they've designed the current business model this way on purpose, removing all control from their customers.
You cut out a key part of what I said. When people do that, I don't read the rest of their really long replies. Good day.
That's the part I've quoted, because that's the questionable part. You just have no argument to support this idea.
So good day to you too, please, next time take a couple minutes to read the OP to see that your suggestion/idea of how things could work is exactly the opposite of reality, by design, by (among others) the two companies you suggest are acting differently and have both had to settle class-action lawsuits for the same deliberate and anti-consumer behavior.
I propose, let's see..
Definitely Isn’t Legal Doctrine, Obviously
or.. Based Only On Basic Speculation
perhaps Consult Official Counsel, Kindly
or more succinct, This Isn’t Trained Solicitor Advice
I don’t understand what is wrong with NAL/NLA not a lawyer/not legal advice.
The ACCC goes after companies for anti consumer behaviour… Like taking away stuff you have bought, or misleading consumers by calling renting buying.
https://www.accc.gov.au/by-industry/digital-platforms-and-se...
If you wouldn't do that for Walmart, why would you do it for Sony?
This is a one-time cost and you just don't know when they're going to snatch it back from you. They won't tell you. They won't even give you a notice period. They don't know themselves. They only find out when the licensor they're sublicensing from demands "too much" for ongoing licensing and they just give up and pretend they didn't sell you that and take your money.
The button would have to be "Licence, subject to unilateral revocation at any time."
I'm not saying that it is not worth trying to fix this, but now that the technology enables content owners to more fully control your access, they're not going to be keen to relax that only to leave that money on the table.
Things you can buy have to be accurately described as what you actually get, so "buy this" ought to be an accurate description of what the deal actually is, too.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48747389 - "Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For" (reclaimthenet.org)
636 points | 15 days ago | 304 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48730904 - "Sony erases digital content from libraries" (arstechnica.com)
184 points | 16 days ago | 76 comments
Is the age of the console finally coming to an end?
Valve doesn't want to be subsidizing hardware that can be used as a desktop. that puts them on the back foot.
But I suspect Xbox is eventually going to go the path of Steam cube and end up licensing out hardware/software spec and let multiple vendors make hardware.
The 3DO sales model may rise again some 35 years after the fact.
We have this now, every PC has some kind of graphics hardware, and has for many years. Consoles have been riding on their momentum of their brands, but the technical justification for their product category hasn't existed for 15+ years now.
Some console gamers seem to think PC gaming requires hours of fiddling with settings and drivers. I think we've all had that experience on PC (cough Bethesda cough), but I doubt to the degree the console-side would have you believe. Most AAA games will self-optimize their settings to a playable state, and indie games don't tend to demand more than your standard gaming laptop can provide...but I'm sure we've all been burned some 10-odd years ago buying a Steam game that just wouldn't run on your iGPU...that experience sticks around in the brain a while
I've never considered that my old 360 was probably sold at a loss, knowing I'd buy LIVE and all the games they take a cut/license fee off of, but that makes complete sense to me
1. They are testing what the market will bear. Ubisoft's silly "quadruple-A game" rhetoric and executives saying "people will have to get used to $100 games" is them testing the water. This should pull back, as most people don't want games that cost that much, unless they're really amazing. They aren't (currently). I imagine this same thinking is going on in hardware-land.
2. Current RAM/GFx card prices are driving up prices all round. It should still be true that for the same spec, console components should get cheaper over time, but I can imagine it's less of an effect at the moment with all the AI data centres hoovering up manufacturing capacity.
It used to be a selling point of console indeed, however nowadays console are separated by Pro/Non-pro, different revisions and you aren't really guaranteed on how well your game is going to run unless you watch a Youtube let's play of the game you want.
Let me tell you, as someone that repairs a TON of XBox 360s, this comment is very, VERY wrong. The GPU isn't even the same revision between the same batch runs. Did you get Xenos? Zeus? Jupiter? That determined one set of things needed for install/refurbish. Is that a Valhalla motherboard in your hands? That just limited you to a very narrow and specific set of hardware you could utilize.
Oh and performance between all of those models varied WILDLY. Silicon lottery is a fucking JOKE on the XBox 360.
What really mattered to end users though was "this disc says Xbox 360. Can I put it in the box at home that says Xbox 360 and have the game run properly?" This didn't really matter if it was a Jasper motherboard or not. The game ran practically the same from a user perspective regardless of which board revision you had. I can go pick up any generation of 360 that still powers on and any 360 game off the shelf and it'll work pretty much how the developer intended.
Meanwhile, if you don't really know anything about computer specs, who knows if a game will run on your computer? This was a $3,000 gaming PC, it should run anything! I bought it in 2002 though, is that a problem? The Radeon 9700 Pro from that red GPU company, probably better than that Radeon RX9070 right? Bigger number and all, and after all its Pro. And its got 128 MEGA bytes, probably better than that other card's 16 something or other.
If something runs on a Steam Deck, you can be sure it will run on your >= Steam Deck-equivalent device.
Now we get incremental improvements, cross-generation games, and backwards compatibility. And AAA game development isn't exactly doing well these days.
Then there’s the convenience. I don’t want to play games where I work. I want to play on my TV. I have no interest in moving my workstation into my living room. Streaming with Moonlight works well enough, but there’s still lag. Even if I wanted to move my PC to the living room, the setup isn’t as nice. The Steam Machine has HDMI CEC and can power on with a controller — all the major consoles have had that for years.
Even if I accepted all that, no one else in my household could play anything while I’m working on my computer.
Things are a little weird now. If I’m going to have to go all digital, Steam Family is by far the best option of those with DRM. But, due to the astronomical cost of components, consoles are still pretty attractive.
Thanks to recent moves by Sony, this is no longer the case!
The point being, if the game says its made for that generation of Playstation, it will run well on that generation of Playstation. There's no comparing specs to figure out if it'll run well on your specific hardware arrangement.
When I get a new Switch game, I know it will play perfectly fine on my Switch as how the developers intended it to be experienced. When I try and play a new game on my PC-gaming handheld, who knows how well it'll run until I try it or spend time reading reviews from others with similar hardware trying to play the same game.
I was talking about game compatibility and you brought up an utterly unrelated point and referenced non-specified “recent moves by Sony”. Forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and inquiring if there were platform changes that would affect compatibility.
Clawing back games isn’t a particularly new risk. If you issue a chargeback, Sony bans your account, losing your library and any wallet funds you may have. And I already indicated that if I have to go all digital, then Steam is far more attractive. But there’s no guarantee any given game I buy on Steam is going to play on any given device. If I purchase a PS5 game I can be fairly certain it will run on a PS5 and what the performance is going to be like.
But, yeah, thanks for reminding me: physical games are still a major benefit for consoles. I buy Switch cartridges almost exclusively because Nintendo's DRM implementation is horrible for a family library. I lend games to friends and family members. I've even sold games and bought used ones. Steam Family is great, and the best of the current DRM options. But, while physical still exists, it's a good reason for favor consoles that has nothing to do with technical acumen.
But there might be a generational change coming. Basically the entire cohort of parents in my kids’ kindergarten is much more intentional about what kinds of games they’re playing and how they’re spending their “screen time.” I see a lot more people just giving their kids retro-consoles and emulation rather than setting them loose on the kiddie grooming and dopamine receptor-frying skinner-boxes.
I suppose it’s one of the benefits of having a generation of parents who grew up with formative memories of playing video games themselves combined with a growing awareness of UI dark patterns and their long term impacts on cognitive development and well-being.
The selling point of consoles is that they’re a software platform, with development incentives, standardized hardware, standardized UI conventions, and a centralized storefront to be able to conveniently and natively play stuff on your TV without fussing about.
Valve has barely started to muscle in on the platform benefits of gaming on a PlayStation or XBox, but the more they start to do so the more they end up making design trade-offs that start to look like another console.
This has almost never been true. GPUs existed, and were being used, before the N64.
Your comment also begs the question that the console consumer has transitioned to a gaming pc. They haven't. Gaming PC sales (and hardware) are at all-time lows, except for GPUs, which should probably be renamed to Model Training Units.
I would posit that what we're seeing is a reflection of a content problem, not hardware. Video games have gone the way of Hollywood, with sequels and derivatives, and an uninterested consumer base. People would rather watch a YouTube video of someone playing a video game than play a video game.
N64 came out in the USA in September 1996.
3dfx Voodoo was released to consumers in October 1996.
Video cards existed, but 3D accelerators didn't really catch on until the 3dfx Voodoo, which came out about the same time as the N64. Even Quake II which came out a year later still offered software rendering.
> Your comment also begs the question that the console consumer has transitioned to a gaming pc. They haven't.
I'm only a single point of data, but I was a console gamer that transitioned to PC gaming, but that transition happened during the N64/PSX era. It was near the end of the PS2 cycle that I was full PC.
> Gaming PC sales (and hardware) are at all-time lows
Because prices are at all-time highs. I have a monster PC that I probably spent around $6,000 building, but with prices skyrocketing, it'd run me $10,000 to build it today. A few months ago, it would have been $11,000.
> Video games have gone the way of Hollywood, with sequels and derivatives, and an uninterested consumer base.
In the AAA world, this is true. So many gamers that only play Call of Duty, Fortnite, Minecraft, or a sports game. For CoD and the sports games, they reliably buy the latest release every year despite the lack of anything really being different.
But the Indie world is huge and full of innovation. Balatro, Stardew Valley, Disco Elysium, Slay the Spire, Cuphead, I could go on.
> People would rather watch a YouTube video of someone playing a video game than play a video game.
I don't think that's true at all. Maybe for high-level play, or if the streamer has highly entertaining commentary, but otherwise definitely not true.
The draw of consoles was the ease of use. N64 problem solving was just off/on
Gaming PCs also require specialized knowledge, more maintenance, etc etc. Consoles are pick up and go. I very much doubt they're dead yet.
The only thing that sets them apart is Steam's hardware isn't locked down.
If you want to build it yourself: sure. But less technically inclined folks can just buy one pre-assembled from a computer shop.
A console is a far easier thing to defend against cheaters than a PC - absent true hardware vulnerabilities (which become more and more expensive, now that stuff like voltage glitching, clock cutting and whatnot is all known and accounted for), you are basically limited to botted input and AI-assistance based on what can be seen on the screen.
This is entirely wrong. Consoles have been riding consistency and ease of use. Sure, if you look just at the spec sheet consoles make no sense. But when you look at the whole experience combined with price, this is where consoles have always won. It's always been easier to hook my console up to the TV and start playing. The Steambox closes this gap with the overall experience, but still loses out on price.
If consoles continue to enshittify, this might change.
The last big thing on consoles would have been the standard high speed SSD's and even then it hasn't been exploited as much as one would have liked. Ratchet and Clank : Rift apart did, but it feels like an exception, even then it works pretty well on the PC version even without the custom compression hardware.
Retro hardware prices have been going up fairly significantly though, especially for Amiga stuff.
But the main reason I sold was because I just wasn't interested in doing ongoing hardware maintenance. Emulation while not perfect was good enough for me.
I see many retro machines nowadays that have HDMI port, USB controllers/memory cards, SD card disk readers, new power supplies etc. You start to realize that other than the motherboard and external case, it has all been replaced. They were built like commodity hardware and it shows, they aren't made to go decades. And that is with the popular stuff, if it is more obscure then your options are limited.
Jokes aside I do agree that streaming doesn’t work reliably for all game genres and client geographies, mostly due to latency
In a lot of the metro area where I live cloud gaming over 5G wireless is actually very feasible. I do it from time to time. I've tried it in a few other cities as well, with generally positive results.
There are some games that just don't work well over cloud streaming though.
Current streaming services struggle at times to deliver consistent performance and quality, having low latency input involved in it just makes the problem worse.
I haven't had enough motivation to sit on my couch and game after a long day ..
But the same game, in bed, on my deck was so much nicer..
All I can now say is having a dedicated device, that's not your laptop/computer to play games is definitely a market - be it Steam machine (/custom builds), hand held gaming, or just regular consoles..
I speak from experience
It’s similar to comparing Netflix to the Criterion Streaming platform. Technically you’re doing the same thing, sitting on the couch watching a big screen, but the experience being pitched is a totally different one and the target customer doesn’t really overlap.
There was a time when regular families had desktop computers at home. The marketing was intense, the machines were expensive, and the sales numbers were real. The PC was the gateway to all of the spoils of the internet and things were booming.
Now families tend to have a collection expensive personal pocket supercomputers, instead. It's hard to justify the cost of a properly-stodgy computer when everything is online and the machines that everyone already has in their pockets are Good Enough to get things done (including entertainment).
But I can accept that I'm not everyone.
I suspect that we'll have whole generations of people who manage to grow up and grow old and without ever having, or even seeking, the opportunity to spend quality time gaming on PCs.
I think that's alright. Things are allowed to change.
You used to be able to dial TIM on a landline phone to check the time (for free?). Then you (if you were a computer nerd) checked it on your computer, then on your cellphone. Because that's what was available. There was no connection between knowing the time and landline phones - people just had landline phones so it was a convenient way to deliver the service. That's how it is with mobile games now.
Remember Java and Flash applets? You could make anything you wanted as a native application, but RuneScape took off because you didn't have to install it.
The "big family computer" became an iPad.
If you are a games studio and have resources for three projects this year, do your investors want to see a phone, PC, or console game?
Sure, it won’t beat a tricked out gaming PC with some $4000 GPU in it, but it will probably be competitive with console gaming. Granted, the PS5 is 5-6 years old by now, but my phone has more power in every measure.
My “dream” everyday device is still a phone that docks with a display, keyboard and mouse, and magically transforms into a desktop OS. On the to mobile apps would allow access to the same data, but touch optimized instead.
A mostly open platform that had an online store, very cool. But it became flooded with crap from day one.
There is the idea of predictive rendering but that would involve a lot more rendering power, bandwidth and a tight integration with the base engine.
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2026/06/switch-2s-first-ye...
I can't say I know anyone IRL who has any interest in leaving PlayStation. Nobody buys movies there and people who care about physical games are a minority...there are already Slim models without optical drives and GameStops are mostly Funko Pops because most people buy games online. It's too soon to have actual concrete data besides useless internet sentiment reporting though. And a lot of that is just vague anger about prices for all computing hardware being up...and everything else in the US.
We're also at the ending stages of the PS5 lifecycle, but before a PS6 announcement. (With an unprecedented price increase this late in the cycle.) So there's no buzz about what's next, a large base of people who already have the existing thing, and an expectation that it will cost more.
Meanwhile, the anticipated Grand Theft Auto 6 is on the way, and a PC release isn't on the table anytime soon.
As a counterpoint to that. Most of my 30+ year old dad gamer friends (all of us are the type to own a PC, switch and ps5 pretty much) all are considering whether this will be our last sony generation as most of us are either physical copy people or suspect the pricing will be bad without a second hand market to compete.
I don't think there is a mass exodus coming up, but a slow decline in console gaming for certain types of gamers, peaking in ps6 and digital only coming out is possible - whether that is more of a hit than the control of the market Sony will get from digital only is another question though.
For example I doubt it'll stop many playing GTA 6, but general purchases on Sony vs PC may be weighted to the latter a bit more now than previously as that physical collection part is dead now for Sony, and arguably worse than the PC market in terms of there being only one store front for digital.
The best games I've played in the last year would run on a PS4 and probably even a PS3 with a little optimization, yet we're already at the "end" of the PS5. It's so disingenuous. We should be squeezing everything we can out of the wonderful hardware we have today instead of chucking it for the new shiny thing, but instead we're force fed a new box, with a new exclusive title, with graphics you can barely distinguish from what we already have and more restrictions on what you can do.
What I meant was we abandon perfectly good console hardware, not because it's outdated or obsolete, not because games demand the cutting edge, but because profit margins demand the consumer spend 500+ on new hardware every 5 years or whatever. It's nothing to do with the software and everything to do with shareholders.
The PC is the exact opposite of this.
There are no PC games that force you to buy a whole new device. There are games that your 5 year old PC might struggle with, but they're still compatible.
The top games on steam are mostly things that would run on 15 year old gaming rigs.
Backwards compatibility! I can still play games from decades ago on my current PC. On a console you're in luck if the game you played on the last generation is rereleased on the next one
You're not locked into a store, a network, or even an operating system.
It's true the AAA devs don't optimize much but my point is that Microsoft don't decide that you have to buy a new PC every five years and there are a bunch of new games coming out for it that are literally unavailable on your old one.
(Well ok technically they do exactly this but it's called an Xbox and it's a failure right now)
It's the game developers who will decide for you on PC, but even Microsoft does so on occasion, like recently with Windows 11's arbitrary CPU requirements.
I get that we have made huge strides in rendering tech, but the broad idea behind that I can still get behind.
Other than higher res assets, shaders and cleaner rendering; I havent seen anything that probably couldnt be done on those systems and still broadly have the same overall feel.
For instance, when I did game coding it was always a point to not make the AI smart but make it fun. The core game loop is typically pretty simple code wise, when physics comes into it then it gets a lot more heavy but even then, I see titles like Red Faction Guerrilla on the Ps3 and you can get a glimpse at the potential. Even then, apparently that title only used 2 of the SPE's for the physics system.
Yeah, the console companies want to be profitable, but consumers are pushing for new stuff, too. I don't care a whole lot about graphics improvements, but going from HDDs to SSDs was a huge improvement and worth the upgrade for me. And software engineers as a whole have long favored requiring new hardware over optimization for current hardware. I hope the great electronics crunch will curtail that.
Once the things is going in a straight direct it is great but it can be tough getting there.
Ghost of Yōtei is 25% off, the bundle of the Final Fantasy XIV MMO and all expansions is 50% off, some things are down 75%.
- Nintendo is the only console player putting out high-quality first party games at an acceptable level. Yes this is arguable but I won't.
- The switch and switch 2 are reasonably priced, even cheap. Again arguable - the switch 2 had a lot of backlash for it's price. But 450/500 vs 800, come on now.
- The switch and switch 2 are hybrid consoles, both home consoles and portable. Again, I've had people argue with me that the switch is not a home console. I used it for 7 years exclusively hooked up to my monitor and TV. It's a home console.
The overall perception of Nintendo is that they're largely evil and greedy, and they are. But once you look at the value prop itself and the $$$, it's not crazy because Microsoft and Sony are also evil and greedy. Consumers see price tags, not pop culture discourse. They see the Switch 2 is the best priced new gen console, and that the games are actually typically equivalent in price or cheaper especially when stupid DLC is factored in. People were paying 100+ dollars for single games 5 years ago on Sony and Microsoft platforms. Yes Mario Kart world is 80 dollars. But big picture.
I say this as a primarily pc gamer. It’s not for most people.
Source? Is that reddit?
It simply doesn't make sense.
Don't get me wrong, I only run Linux personally but until I see it at random offices, supermarkets and my parents place... its not taking off like it looks online.
PC is even more digital-only than Playstation. No one buys physical games on PC. The only difference is that Valve has been a very good steward over Steam. Theoretically, PC can get as enshittified as PS.
I guess there are other DRM-based purchasing platforms, and there's also DRM free ones like GOG so PC gamers have choice, but those feel niche mostly.
On PlayStation, switch, or Xbox you have only one gatekeeper, and they do not respect you
PlayStation I think is just going to have a slow bleed as the benefits to the platform seem to be... A new God of war in a few years?
Xbox is being scrapped for parts and is now a zombie console. I suspect they are going to try the 3DO model and try to out source the hardware to any company that wants to buy their SOC and OS licence.
Switch 2, actually doing damn well. Credit to Nintendo, they can be a little rough on pricing something's but they know how to stick to the core of the business. They have managed to keep the momentum between generations and that is difficult to do.
It is a shame, if it wasn't for the high hardware costs, the Steam cube could have made a real don't in Sony/MS but that is not the world we are in. But a PC in a box that isn't locked down can never achieve the same kind of margins that a console can.
To put it in perspective, I bought Get Him to the Greek on Prime video shortly after it came out.
A month later, the "exclusive broadcast rights" changed, and I was no longer able to access it.
In practical terms, the logistics of many-years-later refunds would be unwieldy at best. Do the purchase records still exist? What if I no longer have that credit card or email address? How can you prove you're the heir of the deceased? What if I now live in a country where the "deletion" status is different? And how could you stop all the scammers who smelled free money?
Alternative: The gov't randomly picks 24 citizens from a pool of applicants who reasonably prove that they were harmed by the deletion. Those 24 are given legal authority to fiat-revoke all copyright protection on a "reasonable and proportional" number of the deleting corporation's currently copyrighted works. Or upstream of them, as "appropriate".
Similarly, we should put in a law to force consumers who post bad reviews to prove they actually transacted with the business. If they can't, they have to go to every person who saw the review and personally retract it.
Can't figure out who saw it? Tough. It's up to you to figure out, or else it's illegal and they get 5000 years in prison for every view it got.
The problem is that these are not legally mandated, so they can shut down (as UltraViolet did). If the ability to move the licence to another platform is mandated by law as a condition of continued copyright protection, this problem would largely disappear.
We've got pragmatic answers of password sharing and Steam is one of the better example in the current moment because among other things it has some Family Sharing support. But I can't go to my lawyer and ask for a list of passwords (and device PINs and passkey details etc) to be attached to my will with the explicit idea of divvying up parts of my digital library to different relatives. Lawyers don't really want to discuss detailed digital estate planning today because it isn't allowed by these service EULAs and because they don't want to have to fine tooth comb every single possible service EULA. It's a catch-22 that probably needs real legislation or very expensive very public court cases or both to help push it to the forefront of people's minds (and make it enough of a priority that service EULAs have to adapt).
Long live offline physical media, and The Pirate Bay.
Physical disc production ending in Jan 2028 for new games on PlayStation (797 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48745456
So Sony is simultaneously announcing that all purchases will be digital from now on while actively demonstrating that digital purchases aren't actually purchases. They're clearly communicating that they believe in a future where no one owns games any more.
They've been foreshadowing that future for years, but the gamers keep on bending right over and even squeezing the lube bottle for them. They haven't, and likely won't, be given a reason to stop marching toward that future.
But also, the difference is that Steam has as far as I can tell never yanked a game from someone's account and failed to refund them for it. Games either get delisted and you retain access to them or they're removed entirely and they refund you. The only exception is online-only games whose developer stops maintaining the server, but I think it's reasonable for steam to not claim responsibility for the developer's malfeasance.
So Steam has this model of licensing-not-ownership on paper but in practice treats purchases as much closer to ownership. Sony clearly does not.
I do not think there is any online platform that can make such guarantees for movies.
So, given they have control over their game platform and the leverage to dictate these terms (and Steam has the same terms) - on what basis is it “extremely likely”?
Personally, I dont like theses digital "purchase" licenses at all. The only "rights" DRM is used for is to restrict those of the consumer - a far cry from the transferable digital rights that big-media touted that resulted in them receiving overreaching protections for copyright in the first place.
Unless they are transferable, all digital licenses should be short term (<= 1mo) and marked clearly as a rental to avoid consumer confusion.
They don't even offer refunds.
So far.
As an indication of where things are going on this front, from the same publisher: Sony announced that games are not going to get distributed as physical copies anymore. So no new video games to be borrowed from public libraries, and even if you can borrow older games the new Playstations probably won't even have a disk tray to read them.
Whatever your stance on video games being something that is worth having in a library is, if they could get away with it that's probably their ideal end game for movies as well.
Physically holding things in the digital age, where someone can remotely change your software, or render it unusable, isn't true ownership.
Previously:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48730904
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48747389
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48691346
and several others.
Looking in search, it seems there's a Sony hate thread almost every day over the last month, and many of them are just reposts of the same thing (eg >10 submissions about Sony's decision to stop manufacturing game discs in 2028). It's also odd that these stories are attracting hundreds of comments every time; for comparison several submissions about about Xbox laying off ~5000 people have attracted less than 10 comments between them.
It's looking like astroturf at this point. I don't have any connection to Sony, direct or indirect; it's just a weird pattern on HN.
Heck, I even wrote a player for this [1] The problem is that licensed media like this are always going to become inaccessible over decades.
It happened with Apple[2] and Microsoft (PlaysForSure[3]) as well.
1 - https://musicsync.ashishb.net/ 2 - https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/you-dont-own-your-di... 2 - https://www.cnet.com/culture/playsforsure-officially-dead/
If "buy" means you can watch it on this specific device while logged in with this specific account, for some limited time, then downloading it to your disk is not "theft".
Seriously, my brain, deformed by years of file sharing, can't get it.
Guess it will be an upswing of BlueRay movies. Already happening with LPs and CDs
Discs that worked with a player will continue to work, as long as the physical mechanisms are still good.
Technically, maybe, since the player authenticates with the drive, if you updated the firmware on the drive you could lockout the player. I could see windows update potentially helpfully pushing a bd-rom drive firmware update, but it's not happening on a standalone player.
It's not ideal that your existing player might not read new discs, but hopefully you use your discs soon after purchase and you could return them if you can't get a firmware update with a new key. (Of course, I'm guilty of buying discs to watch eventually; will be annoying if my keys were revoked)
I'm all for buying media. People worked hard on that stuff. They deserve to be compensated.
But if I buy something and then it can randomly be taken away from me at the whims of the publisher or copyright owner or whoever the hell, then I don't "own" that. And if ~I can't~ they won't let me own digital media, I have no qualms over acquiring such media in other ways, given the ongoing war against physical media anyway
I naively assumed my purchases from [company A] would mean I have permanent/immutable access. Even in the case of access not being revoked, I've found content itself changes over time. Usually related to jokes which have "not aged well" let us say.
I'm not here to champion leaving in that content. Or defend nostalgic rewatching. It just feels strange to not acknowledge.
A limited selection of CD/DVD/BluRay, a large collection of songs in mp3 & other formats (many ripped from CD myself @ some point, others downloaded), a bunch of movies in h264/h265 etc (mostly via torrents).
Books / documentation / retrogames & more on various devices.
Generally when adding anything, I look for replay value. Play/watch/listen once & never revisit stuff I save to /dev/null.
In common between all the above: storage media under my control, and useable offline.
Sony Deletes 551 Movies PlayStation Owners Paid For (294 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48747389
Sony erases digital content from libraries (74 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48730904
The solution is piracy.
What is the agreement tied to?
Unless I missed something recently, it's not illegal. You've always had the right to make backups of content that you purchased legally. It's the distribution that has been illegal.
I would have assumed it would have at least been against whatever TOC you agreed to when signing up to itunes.
The USA really needs to stop being a corporate-country. Weren't the republicans all about the people at one point in time? Now they are all about the billionaires and family dynasties pillaging what they can, with the forerunner the mad orange king pillaging the most. And starting wars he loses by default, after promising to not start wars.
I mean, on one hand you have centuries of precedent about what “buy” means, and on the other you have one party depriving another party of access to their property , without providing alternative access, defacto depriving them of their property in absolute terms.
This seems like a clear case of theft, conspiracy to commit theft, and fraudulent advertising, interstate commerce in the pursuit of an organized criminal enterprise , etc.
(Personally I would consider DRM okay if Sony's behavior here was illegal without a full refund.)
20 years later will anyone do anything about it? Of course not.
What is going to be the event that gets laws to change? Probably not a few movies viewable only from Sony devices.
Sony's lawyers would argue about how things are, while your defense has to argue about how things should be.
Which way it goes likely depends on how sympathetic the judge is rather than actual arguments being made.
If I didn't pirate movies and games and Windows and apps when I was young, I probably wouldn't be in a position to pay for multiple streaming and Xbox subscription now.
I'm currently listening to a record which was pressed before I was born, and that will outlast me. My CDs were ripped around 2000 to a drive and i've streamed then since. I've still got the CDs though, and the last time I played one it worked fine on my 1989 vintage transport.
I think i'm good.
If they do want to posit it as this, I'd personally be fine if they said "a CD will work for 100k plays before corrupting" so you'll have 100,000 credits to stream The Wizard of Oz before you need to purchase it again.
But they need to say that upfront.
Plastic discs are the optimum data distribution format. They degrade in the same time frame as a paper book, essentially lifetime, you retain legal rights like the first sale doctrine, you can easily format shift for safety and storage, and nobody can take any of that from you ever, and you can use that data however you like, as long as you aren't trying to sell bootlegs.
Books and plastic discs are infinitely better than the digital realm. The consumer rights are so much stronger and better.
boolean bought = true;
boolean owns = false;
if (bought && owns) {
System.out.println("Purchase resulted in ownership.");
} else if (bought) {
System.out.println("Purchase did not result in ownership. You have rented.");