“unrestricted ownership” of an online multiplayer game.
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.
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.
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.