As always, the paying user has the worst experience. “Purchase” a show, can only watch on a certain console of a certain brand, no transfers, no backups, then it suddenly disappears from the library and nothing can be done.

If media companies insist on draconian DRM, then they should pay for full refunds to their loyal customers when one day they decide to delist that specific show.

  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Absolutely insane.

    I can understand extreme cases, like some sort of disputed IP where their contact to sell the content turns out not to be with the actual rights holder, resulting in no longer serving the content (with an unconditional full refund). But past that they should be legally required to host the content until the heat death of the universe.

    • SamXavia@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah this is one of the reasons I’ve been slowly moving my gaming time over to Steam as they very rarely do stuff like this and if they delist the game, if you’ve already purchased the game you can still play it 99.99% of time. Sad to see Playstation go down this route.

      • flames5123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is all movie/show content. It’s still BS, but it’s licensed TV/movie content that’s the problem. The dumb laws we have really are the problem.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Kinda, but its not black and white. For a start steam has a much longer track record of nearly 20 years not doing this, I’ve heard of them de-listing games and not allowing them to be sold any more but never of revoking games that have been sold. Secondly there are many games on steam that stream cant just revoke, games that use no DRM or DRM that isnt integrated into steamworks they cant just delete if you back it up.

          But that being said there is the possibility of something like this happening on steam, which is why I’m glad there is still an active game piracy scene even if I dont use it any more.

      • Grunt4019@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Unfortunately it’s the same situation on steam. You are only buying licenses to games you don’t actually own it, they can be taken away at any time with no recourse. Steam might be doing good now in this regard but it’s hard to say if it will stay like this forever.

    • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Give it another 10 years, you won’t “own” anything. It’ll be “licensed.” Weird tho. Digital content is endless. But you can’t consume it into extinction; physical things are finite, but we’re like here take it! It’s yours! Call a cop or shoot anyone trying to take it.

      Seems backwards to me.

      • Moonrise2473@feddit.itOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        There was probably nothing Sony could do

        Wrong, Sony could issue full refunds to customers or ask WB the royalties back. Sony should had a clause in their contract with discovery that allowed them to host the video files indefinitely, if it was voided all the royalties to be refunded as a penalty fee.

        When Google closed their digital magazine store, they let users download the PDF or to get a full refund.

        Google again, closed stadia and everyone got a full refund even if all the devs were paid

        When a game is delisted on Steam, Valve continues to host the files for previous customers.

        But here no, they already got the money, they know that console users are used to just STFU, they saw that they can save a lot of money by deleting hundreds of TB of video content, and seized the opportunity

        At least have the decency to do a partial refund where only the royalties paid to Discovery are kept. Or if not a money refund a store credit as goodwill. Or a prorated refund/store credit according to how many times it was viewed. Never viewed = full refund, viewed once, keep the price of a rental, and so on. Or force WB to transfer the license in another digital locker.

        But no, nothing.

        Had I purchased that video content just to see it disappear from my archive, I wouldn’t ever trust them anymore for future purchases and exclusively resort to piracy. (Well I do it already but this is an example) It’s a lose-lose situation for Sony and for WB. The rightholders do extensive campaigns “please pay for movies and show, don’t steal them”, then if someone believes them and *purchases" the video content, he is the one that will actually get something stolen

      • C4ptFuture@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        That, or Sony didn’t want to pay the fee to extend the licensing agreement. Sony has a history of screwing over their customers and being a cheap skate. (Removing Linux from PS3, releasing controllers without force feedback because they didn’t want to pay the license fee, installing root kit malware on PCs of buyers of their CDs)

  • kindenough@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    “We sincerely thank you for your continued support.”

    As in stfu and keep giving us money?

  • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    7 months ago

    And this is why I never “buy” media online. If I can’t own the media and enjoy the content whenever and wherever I want, it’s rented. I may be ok with that, but I never let them claim that it was a sale.

    • SamXavia@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Sadly purchasing a phyical copy still will mean you can’t play it due to the required download for most consoles these days.

      • MajorTom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s one reason I’ve ordered a few titles from PlayAsia recently. For example, the NTSC switch edition of the Metal Gear Solid collection requires downloading the titles. With the PlayAsia edition, lo and behold- everything is on the card, and multiple languages to boot.

        • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Never heard of that before today, that’s fucked, why even is that a thing?

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Some places have crappy internet, so they need it

            You and I can download a 1300MB game, it’s not necessarily so in Brunei

      • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Hence “and enjoy it whenever and wherever I want.” If they maintain control, it’s not sold. It is, at best, rented.

        Fortunately, there are often tools to enforce the first sale doctrine.

    • Crit@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Buy it for the convenience and for the good Devs, pirate it after if they try taking it away. You already paid for it

      • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        Exactly.

        It’s much the same as creators in Second Life who don’t want to sell in the Opensim metaverse. I get where they’re coming from in terms of protecting a recurring revenue stream, but if the customer has already paid for the product once, under first sale doctrine, they have the right to continue using it.

  • the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    7 months ago

    Alright, what this looks like is Sony’s deal with Discovery to sell and host their TV shows has been removed. From my quick glance there are no games being removed.

    Still is BS, and beyond ridiculous. But it was inevitably going to happen at some point.

    I am more pissed that I got informed that they are doing this from here instead of being told that I am losing my Myth Busters.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      But it was inevitably going to happen at some point.

      If you believed this, wtf would you ever give them your money to begin with???

  • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    “But you only ever owned a usage-license, which we now suspended” strawman argument incoming.

    Well duh, then i don’t have “buyed” but rented it. Usage of those terms by platforms should be sued as misleading.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, I stopped buying’em when they started charging for 2nd internet.

      Fucking rubes ruin everything I swear lol.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      I still like having a console strictly for games, but not for media stuff. Plus since it’s an Xbox, you can subscribe to Game Pass and treat every game as a rental.

      That doesn’t do anything to help game preservation though, which sucks. But between the sheer volume of games and the “every game is a rental” attitude, I treat new games as a one-time experience that I probably won’t care about returning to.

      Fortunately though, the games I care most about having access to forever are easily backed up and can be played with an emulator if necessary.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      7 months ago

      “We sincerely thank you for your continued support.”

      Not only are they not refunding, They seem to think you might purchase something else from them in the future.

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can bet Australian users will be entitled to a refund, should they be affected.

      Similar to how “no refunds” didn’t fly with steam in cases where people are entitled to a refund under Australian Consumer Law.

  • Tygr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    If I’m to believe I own the crap I buy that’s digital delivery, then if they want to take it back, they need to buy it from me at my price.

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    This won’t change until someone sells a yacht to a Senator with fine print that it’s only a perpetual license. Then comes back 3 years later and takes the yacht citing the fine print in the contract.

  • AceBonobo@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    Discovery Entitlements Affected Titles

    As of 31 December 2023, due to our content licensing arrangements with content providers, you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library.

    We sincerely thank you for your continued support.

    Thank you,

    PlayStation Store

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Turns out you people didn’t actually purchase it.

      I wonder if anywhere in the “purchase” terms they included “while Sony holds the license to distribute.”

      I hate that “purchases” people make are restricted per platform. If I “purchase” a specific title it should be available on any and all platforms that serve that content. No one should be asked to purchase it on Sony. Apple, Netflix, Amazon, or whatever other shitty streaming service comes out.

      As much as I think nfts are fucking retarded, this could be one of the few cases where that stupid digital receipt might make sense.

      • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        My understanding was this was the actual intended use case for NFTs. To allow you to properly own a digital item. The fact that it got applied to a stupid fad right out the gate doesn’t change the fact that it should actually be used to allow us to own things again.

        • Uranium3006@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          NFTs don’t solve the actual problem, which is that paying money doesn’t legally come with a warranty for accessability of the thing you bought. The law should guarantee the right to access anything purchased or marketed similarly for a given period of years with the right to either a Refund or a DRM free download option if said access is no longer offered for any reason, and mandatory cultural preservation of said media as a precondition to legally profit off of it or enforce copyright using the court system