this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
169 points (96.7% liked)
Games
32545 readers
1472 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok, let's say I have no interest in Jailbreaking my PS5.
What happens if I just don't have PS+? And no intention of getting PS+? Will this make it harder for ME to play disc games? Or games I downloaded from the store?
Absolutely nothing will change for legitimate users. If you are not jailbreaking this means nothing to you. I really can't imagine the PS5 jailbreak community is that big.
So the title is just straight up a lie?
I am trying to think of scenarios where this will screw with normal users because companies never do moves like this unless they're after some sort of grift.
But I am not seeing it at present. Maybe I'm just too tired and my brain isn't working, but if a game is downloaded digitally and the license comes with it, there's effectively no difference. Take it offline, you still have the license, no issues.
The only potential impact I can think of is if you have two users on a console that is the home console for neither person, and both of them bought the same game digitally. User 1 downloads the game, the license comes with it, and they take the console offline. User 2 then uses the console, tries to play the game they own, and gets a license error because the console is offline and doesn't know they own it and therefore it can only be played by the person who downloaded it. But I think that's how it works already, since User 2 would still need the console to be online to import their licenses.
Is this an actual edge case?:
Someone whose hard drive is full and buys a bunch of new games and wants to go play PS5 at a cabin in the woods
But you'd still need to download the games onto the ps5 in the cabin in the woods, assuming this doesn't apply to games on disc.
Well, they would get unpatched games which won't be playable anyway 😀
But no, this only happens for downloaded game, and even then it's generally for games you have downloaded as part of subscription. If you stay offline for long period of times (don't know exact time these days, but I think it's at least more than a month), then PS needs to recheck if you still have the subscription, or if the game is still present in subscription.
I could be wrong but it seems like before, licenses for games you owned but hadn't downloaded were already loaded o to your account when you logged in. So in your example, if user 2 bought a game and didn't download it on that console, then user 1 bought and downloaded it and took the PS5 offline, user 2 could still play it because his license was already there. Now, user 2 has to go online to grab the license first.
Seems like it will have a minimal impact.
And only if the PS5 isn't user 1's home console, which if it is, the license extends to any other user on that console.
What this means is that you can't restore your games from backup while offline because uninstalling them also removes the license, forcing you to put the console online again to download the license again.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's how PS5 handled that scenario even before this update.
That's the same conclusion I arrived at, but wasn't 100% sure. Since the act of downloading a game and the act of obtaining/transferring licenses both require the console to be online, I couldn't see what difference there would be to the user experience compared to before, even if the order it does those steps in is switched.
How is it a lie? Jailbreakers played their digital games offline fine before this, and now they have a headache, making it harder.
Steam Deck is not any closer to real ownership than Xbox or PlayStation. Video Games have had "non-ownership" clauses in their EULAs long before the Xbox or PlaysStation existed, sadly.
Everyone on Lemmy either says one of two things when any console news is posted:
On the second point, you are right. You are trading licensing games from Sony or MS to licensing games from Gabe and his yachts.
People have a hard on for steam though so they give it a pass for everything.
DRM on Steam is a choice made by the game publishers selling on Steam
The difference being that some Steam games are DRM free, so de facto you do have full ownership of what you buy (just like with GOG), as long you have a copy for the files.
Yeah, you're just flat wrong. MAYBE GoG has the least worst licensing around. A decent number of titles I've seen on there don't have DRM. Also itch.io and direct patreon/kickstarter purchases too. Any other platform, and unless specifically stated, you are just borrowing the game until they decide otherwise.
He'll, even physical purchases don't guarantee a game forever, the publisher or dev may turn off a server that just straight kills it.
Which games on GOG do you think have DRM? GOG's whole deal is they sell DRM-free games.
I just didn't want to make a blanket statement since I didn't know if it was every title or not.
most people just wanna play games man
I did a quick search on how many PlayStation Plus subscribers there are, and according to one site as of March 2023 there were 47M worldwide.
So just a small community.
(47m/8b) × 100 = 0.5875% of the world. Those numbers are likely total accounts as well and nowhere near the real active users. I bet many of these are also systems with multiple users or users with multiple accounts. Reported numbers are usually unverified and inflating them as much as possible is in the best interest of Sony on may fronts.
It is neither here nor there. I used to love the first few generations of PS stuff, but I really see no reason for consoles like these any more. I owned everything I played back then. I find it rather pathetic that my right to own has been stolen.
I'm presently taking a snack break from Cataclysm DDA after tracking down foods with better iron content in the game. Under that I have a bash script and Emacs running with my mods to the game. I've been playing all afternoon and making little odds and ends for the game. Sorry if my perspective from a non dystopian space rubs the wrong way. What I'm doing isn't for everyone, but if everyone had some better self control and the character to stand up for themselves, you will find that you get your rights back from these asshats, or you will get them from the next generation of platforms that rise from the ashes. The only terms that actually matter are the ones you're willing to put money into. I back up that statement. I'm on a 12th gen Intel with 16 GB GPU. I would be playing AAA titles but there are no game manufacturers. I don't care if I'm the only person unwilling to adopt feudalism and serve some tyrant overlord on their yacht. So be it.
Ok.