Post

Kit Harrison
@kitharrison.com

I feel like there are a lot of folk who are being wilfully obtuse about the language here. You can hold two opinions at the same time: 1) It sucks that in a digital-only ecosystem your ability to play a game can be taken away 2) I do not legally OWN my games, I own access to COPIES of them

VGC@videogameschronicle.com

Sony says "reasonable consumers" know they don’t own the digital PlayStation games they buy. It argues that it's "not plausible" to suggest that when they buy a digital game they actually believe they're "obtaining ownership" of it. www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sony-sa...

videogameschronicle.comSony says ‘reasonable consumers’ know they don’t own the digital games they buy | VGCIt’s “not plausible” to suggest people believe they’re “obtaining ownership”…

2 reposts8 likes

Kit Harrison
@kitharrison.com

It says “get something” on that definition, if we want to get technical there are plenty of things you buy that you don’t “own”. I am not defending Sony, I am describing the language that has been used to discuss “game ownership” for years. It should be looked into! It sucks that you can lose them!

Kit Harrison
@kitharrison.com

Maybe that’s a fairer term. Or whatever term you might use for a day at the theme park, like “you can buy a finite experience”. Again, not defending how it’s implemented, just stating the way it is and has been described before by not just Sony but other entities too.

Kit Harrison
@kitharrison.com

I will never argue more controlled access isn’t worse, but lots of people speak about this as though there was an old halcyon era where it was always 100% okay to just upload your Battlestar Galactica DVDs to YouTube, and I think those extreme opinions damage sensible discussion. Maybe deliberately.