this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
67 points (98.6% liked)
Games
26147 readers
3 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The lawsuit pertains to the sale of digital goods. Specifically, California's law requiring it to be made obvious to a "reasonable consumer" that they are buying a licence to access a digital good and not buying "unrestricted ownership".
Sony is arguing a "reasonable consumer" would know it's impossible to have "unrestricted ownership" of an online multiplayer game. They also state it's a licence in their terms of service, but that might be too hidden to adhere to California's law.
I personally don't see why that would be unreasonable. Yea it's multiplayer but, you buy a product expecting to be able to use said product, even if it's multiplayer. I can somewhat understand the argument of breaking online TOS or something and being banned but... I don't get the argument that you can't own your games you have. There's no reason that a storefront in general would do that. Imagine the concept on that applied to any other industry. "Yea so the repo man is here for your couch, yea I know you paid for it in full 12 years ago but, the furniture supplier no longer supports that model so we are removing it". Most people would expect the same out of their digital products. I'll be curious to see what direction that goes.
That's not what the lawsuit is about. It's about whether or not Sony is clearly disclosing to California residents that Sony is selling a licence to play a game and not "unrestricted ownership".
Sony is saying it's clear they are selling licences. As you said, you'd assume breaking ToS gets you banned. That means you assume your purchase comes with restrictions. That's exactly Sony's argument. They don't need a flashing sign on their store page telling you the purchase comes with access and usage restrictions because you already know it does.
Seems like Sony is right in the case of California then, even though it unsettles me that consumers aren't considered to own the video game as an actual copy of a computer programme woth which they can do whatever they like.