@threeonefour@piefed.ca
threeonefour
member since 8 Jun 2025 00:33
comments
- on Kojima Productions Issues Statement Amid Speculation on Physint's Publisher Change in c/games@lemmy.world · 2d ago
-
on dating tips in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 5d ago
Ugh you don’t need to write 30 million lines of code to install a browser. You need to compile 30 million lines of code to install a browser. 🙄
-
on Insomniac's Wolverine hits 1.9 million sales despite controversy, becomes Sony's top first-party game of 2026 in c/games@lemmy.world · 5d ago
Lesson learned! You need a licenced character on the cover if you want idiots to buy it!
-
on Hideo Kojima's PHYSINT Game Moves to Xbox From PlayStation in c/games@lemmy.world · 10 Sep 2026
Sony gave Kojima $100 million for Death Stranding and it took years for it to break even. His games are cherished, but they’re far from the biggest earners. I’d hate to be the budget guy constantly having Kojima blow up my phone saying he needs another $5 million because he wants a side character to be played by Pedro Pascal.
-
on Hideo Kojima's PHYSINT Game Moves to Xbox From PlayStation in c/games@lemmy.world · 10 Sep 2026
-
on Sony lawyers argue that nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own digital games, because then only one person could buy GTA 6 in c/technology@lemmy.world · 1 Sep 2026
The article is sensationalized a bit. They’re not arguing you shouldn’t have rights. They already state that clearly in their terms of service. They’re arguing they disclose this fact adequately under California’s disclosure laws.
California law forbids companies selling a licence to access content from using the words “buy” or “purchase” unless they make it clear to “a reasonable consumer” that what they’re buying is a licence to access and not “unrestricted ownership”.
Sony is facing a lawsuit claiming they’re not following this law. Their sales pages use “buy” and “purchase” but don’t make it clear they’re selling licences.
Sony is countering by saying it’s clearly stated in the first paragraph of their terms of service. If that isn’t enough, they also argue a “reasonable consumer” would inherently know they’re not buying “unrestricted ownership” of Sony’s multiplayer games since multiplayer implies they’re selling to multiple people and multiple people can’t all have “unrestricted ownership” of the same product.
In law, “reasonable person” is usually a much higher standard than the average person. Even if the average person doesn’t understand licences and ownership, a “reasonable person” does. Its why Fox won its defamation case where they argued that no “reasonable person” would assume Tucker Carleson’s statements were factual.
-
on Stop Killing The Internet: No Digital ID & No Age Verification | European Citizens' Initiative in c/technology@lemmy.world · 28 Aug 2026
I get the feeling the StopKilling[Thing] people are starting to push for weaker and weaker laws just so that they can say they did something. EU commission shot down your games initiative? No worries, the already proposed Digitial Fairness Act does the same thing anyways!
California’s proposed bill completely ignores preservation by allowing games to be deleted so long as purchasers receive a refund? That’s a win!
Also I just looked up the California bill, it has been amended.
It used to read:
A refund in an amount equal to the full purchase price paid for the digital game by the purchaser
Now it reads:
A refund in an amount equal to the highest price of the digital game offered by the digital game operator within the 12 months before the digital game operator ceases providing services necessary for the ordinary use of the digital game.
So if the studio drops the price to $1 a year before taking the game away then they can delete everyone’s copy by giving them $1 without breaking this law.
The StopKillingGames people made a fanfare about the initial legislation, but they seem to be silent on this amendment.
The statement: