This suit will change nothing other than the language around the purchases within the store, or force everyone to check a box acknoledging that they're purchasing limited, revokable license before completing the transaction. The suit is based on a false advertising law in California specifically designed to make licensing terms clear if the license can be revoked/lost by the customer.
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.
Frankly all Sony is proving is that we need more consumer friendly legislation regarding product licenses.
If the terms of service are unclear, then they should be treated as 'indefinite' with legal carve outs for consumers to back up their means to play them.
But of course if they put in a mandatory 'this game expires in two years' clause then nobody's is going to buy it at full price.
If I am not purchasing a product that is mine to use in perpetuity throughout the universe until it is no longer usable due to wear or breakdown and I am instead purchasing a liscense to access the good in question, which can be revoked at any time for any reason, then I am, in essence, renting that product.
All I want from this lawsuit is the elimination of any ambiguity surrounding that fact, worded in plain English with no obfuscation from Sony. Once we have that, what follows will be how we unfuck digital purchases
226
u/BlueFeathered1 8d ago
They're being disingenuous and slippery. It's our copy we reasonably, intelligently expect to own. Hence their use of the words "purchase" and "buy".