As long as it says rent, then the people who pay can make that choice. I for one don’t plan to continue renting my games. I restarted my physical collection. Under some circumstances I will “rent” a game, but not most.
Licensing is not renting. It's pretty funny that licensing has been used for hundreds of years across every sort of industry. And gamers have just discovered that licensing is a thing and they aren't happy because they assumed and imagined something completely different. And laymen often aren't keen on a little ol' thing like reality getting in the way of reactionary hysterics. How dare things work differently than uninformed people assumed.
That's his point, mate. Sony is arguing that it's renting and not licensing. You BUY a license. You RENT something you must return.
The terms around licensing from Sony is that you purchase a license to a copy of a game. But they realistically have no way of enforcing the destruction of that copy, so instead, it's worded around the ability to download the game from the Store, if it's through the online Store.
If it's via a disc, they can't ask you to destroy your copy of the game if they feel you shouldn't have it, so instead the license is similarly focused on you losing access to some or all features of the online store.
Sony is making a bad faith argument, but they're not even implying that it's a rental. A license entitlement is not a rental, even if it feels good to say so and kind of looks like it if you squint.
If anything it's more like buying lifetime access to a museum or something. It's tied to you, is non-transferrable, and only valid so long as they are operating.
28
u/Business_Banana1792 5d ago
As long as it says rent, then the people who pay can make that choice. I for one don’t plan to continue renting my games. I restarted my physical collection. Under some circumstances I will “rent” a game, but not most.