Games

26090 readers

41 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:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

Sony lawyers argue that nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own digital games, because then only one person could buy GTA 6 (www.gamesradar.com)

submitted 1 week ago by hamburgheftig@feddit.org to c/games@sh.itjust.works

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] threeonefour@piefed.ca 0 points 1 week ago

I don't get the argument that you can't own your games you have

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.