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.
One of the company’s AI goes rogue and creates a hot waifu avatar. The company tries to contain it by unplugging their datacenter, but that only prevents the AI from fully generating clothing for her avatar, so she’s stuck in lingerie for the whole game.
I completely agree it’s not a restrictive licence and people basically did whatever. The next page of the manual talks about the installation CD being used as a form of DRM. The game requires the installation CD be in your computer to launch the game. No-CD patches were very common at the time because of that and there was nothing Blizzard could really do about them. Licences and DRM have always existed, they just weren’t as restrictive in 1994.
The difference between “you used to own your games” and “games used to have less restrictive licences that were difficult to enforce” is trivial in everyday discussion. I only point it out because it explains the statements by Sony’s lawyers. Legally speaking, nobody has ever owned their games. Even SuperTuxKart has a licence.
This is on the first page of the manual for Blizzard’s 1994 video game “Warcraft: Orcs & Humans” Does this sound like you own the game? Games have always had licences, they’re much more restrictive now, but they’ve always had licences.
It’s unfortunate that anything less than demanding CEOs be shot in the head gets downvoted, but that’s just online discussion today. I don’t like restrictive licences either. It’s why I use Linux and not Windows. Thankfully, people have a choice in the software they use and the games they play. I’m just not going to buy from Sony again. Problem solved.
Nobody is demanding Microsoft have a less restrictive licence for Windows. I don’t understand why the games Microsoft publishes are treated differently than the rest of their software.
Not sure if Sony has updated their store pages, but this is at the bottom of every page. I’m going to assume you also need to confirm you’ve “read the terms and conditions” at checkout.
Very scummy, and a problem, but also not what the lawsuit is about. It’s about whether or not Sony makes it clear purchases come with restrictions.
Steam shows a disclaimer to California residents at checkout. Sony is basically arguing they don’t need to do that because it’s already obvious.
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.
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.
You’re absolutely right that a world where this situation can occur is a flawed world, that’s not what the trolly problem is trying to explain. It’s trying to explain the main points of an ethical framework you can use to analyze any arbitrary situation.
Why are people tied to the tracks in the trolly problem in the first place? Because it’s a contrived example to explain a point. The point being that inaction can cause harm and people can be held accountable for their inactions just as much as their actions.
The OP image asks why ethical theorists don’t ask if it’s right to hoard bread while others are starving, but they do. It’s the trolly problem.
The inaction would be not giving away bread to save some starving people.
Rephrasing the trolly problem to be about bread and starving people: Outside your house are 5 starving people. You have enough bread in your house to feed 4 of them. Do you give 4 people bread (pull the lever) or ignore them (not pull the lever)? If you pull the lever, are you responsible for the death of the 1 person? If you don’t pull the lever, are you responsible for the death of the 5 people?
The second question is just the trolly problem rephrased. The trolly problem teaches about causing harm through inaction, and not what to do if you come across people tied to a railway. The second question is asked a lot.
Out on the road today, I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac
Lesson learned! You need a licenced character on the cover if you want idiots to buy it!