PlayStation Now - could Sony go after Valve?

[Cjail]

I am confused: how can Sony sell a game and circumvent ownership rights!?
Granting "unlimited access" to a game as long as PS Now is active could be consider a form of concession (I am working of imagination here) but in no way it can be considered a purchase!
Sony is not allowed to sell games and not give you ownership nor they can at any point deny/suspend you access/use to the game you purchased, unless you break the EULA of course.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That's if it's sold. But if it's not sold, then you don't own it. I repeat, MAG no longer works because the online component was deactivated, but no-one's entitled to a refund.

Correct me if I'm wrong, DrJay, but he wants to buy games. Sony sell it to him and he accesses it via the service. EU consumer law has a concept of sale and a concept of hire. This is the former.

Steam also don't refund 'no questions asked'. You have to hassle them, as their first reply is "our T&C's state no refunds." Only under pressure will they rescind.

I bought Pixel Piracy on Steam on September. While it worked on Windows it was completely broken on Mac and contacted the Steam people, reported the issue, which they confirmed and they refunded me within 48 hrs. No hassle required.

Even if GOW was sold for $15 to own on the store, when the servers are switched off, the game dies. And if EU law would change that at some point, just supply it as a service.

This model appears to fail one of the basic tests of transaction being a contract of sale (rather than a hire) under EU consumer law because "they are not fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used". Games will "normally" be operational on computer or console for the duration of the life of that device and perhaps longer. Tying a sale artificially to a service with an unspecified and unknowable operational life [at the time of purchase] breaks this concept and is one of the reasons that there are definitions to separate a sale from a hire. They exist in law so that erosion of consumer rights for sales do not happen.

 

[DrJay24]

Ya, I was talking about a purchase, non-rental and non-subscription. I'm not sure how they would handle a shut down of the service.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But you can't purchase an item that's streamed from servers! It's fundamentally impossible. Therefore, any such 'purchase' would have to be a rental in perpetuity until the streaming service comes to an end. Hence my argument, assuming a 'purchase' is such a rental.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yup. And that's certainly why Sony aren't offering it. He's allowed to desire the impossible, though

I am surprised Sony have invested so much in Gaikai ($380m purchase, continued R&D) because I don't see the a potential market to recover the costs sunk thus far, let alone the actual operation, expansion and maintenance when it's fully live in multiple countries.

But maybe they're thinking looooooong term. Maybe PlayStation 5 or 6 really will be a tiny box or a chip built into your TV that handles client stuff.

 

[Cjail]

Ya, I was talking about a purchase, non-rental and non-subscription. I'm not sure how they would handle a shut down of the service.

If you are taking about the purchasing games online then we should talk about the PS Store and not PS Now.

If PS Store is shut down then either we will loose access to all the games we bought or Sony could allow us to download them one last time.
It is unlikely IMO that PS Store will be shut down; even if Sony goes bankrupt there are many companies in the world (MS, Apple, Google, Skynet) that could buy SCE and so PS Store would just change owner but not disappear.

 

[Davros]

they are not fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used".

Except the eula's often state that the above does not apply, now if the eula is wrong some legal body needs to go after them and stop them from filling their agreements with lies and untruths.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Except the eula's often state that the above does not apply, now if the eula is wrong some legal body needs to go after them and stop them from filling their agreements with lies and untruths.

You can't give up your statutory rights and writing crap EULA's isn't a crime as far as I know, but nor can they be enforced by publishers.

 

[Davros]

If companies are publishing lies with the intent to deceive the public they should be punished.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If companies are publishing lies with the intent to deceive the public they should be punished.

The public don't read EULAs, manuals or files called important_readme.txt. But again, what law have they broken? Deception with intent to defraud is a crime. Writing crap isn't - at least in most countries.

 

[Davros]

If you have rights, but a company tells you you don't then they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it
publishers do not print "you are not entitled to a refund" for the fun of it they do so with the intent of deceiving the public
If you buy a new car it breaks down on the forecourt so you complain only to be told sorry you have no rights go away you think thats not some type of fraud
and the employee saying "oh that was just me talking nonsense" is a defense?
also "hey its ok cos people dont read eula's" really?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you have rights, but a company tells you you don't then they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it

It doesn't matter enough to make a fuss. What people write isn't worth the hassle of checking and enforcing. Instead, ignore the texts until they create a problem, which focusses the law only on issues that are actually affecting people.

publishers do not print "you are not entitled to a refund" for the fun of it they do so with the intent of deceiving the public

Yes, but it makes no odds to the consumers because they are protected by statutory rights. And importantly, it varies by region. There may be some terms in the EULA that are acceptable in one country and not another. The EULA thus includes the caveat, "if any of these terms are considered unlawful, the rest still apply." So in the UK, "no refunds" can be ignored, but somewhere else maybe the software company can get away with selling broken software.

If you buy a new car it breaks down on the forecourt so you complain only to be told sorry you have no rights go away you think thats not some type of fraud
and the employee saying "oh that was just me talking nonsense" is a defense?
also "hey its ok cos people dont read eula's" really?

Actually cars are a great example because you can get defective cars but have to put up with repairs rather than full refunds. But obviously in your hypothetical case the dealer would supply another car. And cars don't come with EULA's saying you're not entitled to a refund.

It's worth noting that the right to resell in EULA's has actually been refused in a test case, so we have a case of an EULA term that people would think was contrary to statutory rights (and even supported in the first ruling) being found lawful. Basically in an EULA, throw in whatever caveats you think of to excuse you, and if you comes to a legal fight, those caveats may just get you out of some trouble. You're no worse off putting them in than not. It's not like there's a penalty for unlawful T&Cs.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Now that the XBone is getting backward compatibility, what will happen to Playstation Now?

Ridiculously high monthly fees on the PS4 vs. getting an older game disc for cheap and own it forever on the XBone..
Will it at least make them rethink the pricing strategy?

 

[Rikimaru]

PS Now is for new casual players. To lure to PS4. Not for backward compatibility.

Being able to play on TV just by buying DualShock.

 

[Arwin]

It is possible for them to read a disc and allow access to streamed games that way.

 

[Rikimaru]

It is possible for them to read a disc and allow access to streamed games that way.

Streaming is not free for Sony.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Streaming is not free for Sony.

But at least the Plus subscribers are already paying a monthly fee.

 

[Rikimaru]

But at least the Plus subscribers are already paying a monthly fee.

Maybe streaming is not very viable to add to Plus from cost perspective.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But at least the Plus subscribers are already paying a monthly fee.

PS Now fees are substantial compared to PSN fees. You can't expect the online services money to extend to online streaming, from Sony's financial position.

As for impact, PSNow works on other devices. That's it's major point. PSNow on Android, say, that I could run on my tablet and HDMI, would be quite unique. So the situation is not comparable. A comparable service might be more like 360 game rental on XB1.

 

[DieH@rd]

I expect arrival of PS1 and PS2 emulation on PS4 [both using texture filtering and high res rendering for all/selected titles]. But PS3 will be impossible.