threeonefour

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.

If you really want to upset people, tell them becoming a vegetarian is one of the most effective ways to reduce your contribution to climate change.

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.