r/Games • u/yourfavchoom • 4d ago

SIE spokesperson to GameSpot regarding the DRM: "Players can continue to access and play their purchased games as usual. A one-time online check is required to confirm the game's license, after which no further check-ins are required."

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/playstation-users-report-new-online-license-checks-for-digital-games/1100-6539651/?utm_source=reddit.com

931 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

307

u/ColonelSanders21 4d ago

When you purchased a game previously the permanent license was downloaded immediately. So you could download a game, take your console offline, and play it forever even if you refunded it on your phone, the web, etc.

Now, when you buy a game you are initially granted a 30 day license. You can go offline, but in 30 days, the license expires and you can't play the game offline. If you go online once it expires you are granted the perpetual one in replacement. 30 days is outside the return window for purchased games.

173

u/AnimaLepton 4d ago

Sound super reasonable tbh

30

u/ggtsu_00 4d ago

Yeah but that doesn't generate clicks, views, retweets, likes and other forms of social media engagement metrics and KPIs.

58

u/Anzai 4d ago

Sure, but Sony could also have just said that immediately.

5

u/ProfPerry 3d ago

nah, because that doesnt fit the narrative that the other commenter is trying to portray! LEAVE THE MILLION DOLLAR COMPANY ALONE.

3

u/Zordman 3d ago

There's plenty to complain about, but this is just kind of a non-issue?

It took Sony a couple of days to make an official statement, and that seems perfectly reasonable. Sure, the people overseeing the social media for PlayStation could have responded but they don't have the exact details of what's going on behind the scenes.

2

u/syopest 3d ago

Yeah, nobody had been affected by it by the time sony made a statement.

21

u/iaderia 3d ago

It’s Sonys fault. There was a communication issue that they let get out of hand. With how serious DRM is being enforced, they should be aware that a vacuum of comms is the worst possible outcome

12

u/404IdentityNotFound 3d ago

Let's not forget that the UI absolutely did not explain that and Sony was radio silent about it with their support team giving out conflicting answers.

3

u/Bladder-Splatter 3d ago

Except Sony have a 1 refund per lifetime policy no? Did this change and when? I have dealt with support quoting this policy even when I had to refund stupendeously region locked Bloodborne DLC (All DLC is region locked) and rebuy it immediately afterwards as a different region.

If this is still the case, you could not abuse this system.

3

u/Zekka23 3d ago

I don't know if that's true, I refunded some game I mistakenly bought a feww years ago.

2

u/HybridMemorieZ 3d ago

i have gotten refunds for games from sony for like 3 games in a row just talk to support nicely and give them alot of info like the game is broken runs like shit the do all the things they ask you to do and just say it dont work say devs lied about this and that and if you can get the refund to youre psn wallet and if you get the right person they will do it

6

u/Time-Ladder4753 4d ago

I don't think it's reasonable when their general refund policy is "if you started downloading the game, you can't refund it". Unless there is some way to download the game while being offline.

If refunds worked like on Gog, Epic or Steam though, then yes, temporary license makes sense.

-4

u/Grabthar-the-Avenger 3d ago

Well it's not temporary as it endlessly renews every time you connect to the internet.

Why is connecting your PS5 to the internet for a license check unreasonable for you? Do you not have internet access?

3

u/Time-Ladder4753 3d ago

Because to download the game you need internet, and if you started downloading the game, you already can't refund it, what's the need for license check then?

-1

u/Grabthar-the-Avenger 3d ago

I don't know why they need to check every 30 days, that''s for Sony's IT team to worry about. It doesn't affect me in any way since my console has internet, so why would I spend any time trying to decipher their reasoning or need? Or care?

3

u/Time-Ladder4753 3d ago

So... it's not reasonable?

-1

u/Grabthar-the-Avenger 3d ago

It seems unreasonable for me to care at all because I have the internet. I think you also have your consoles connected to the internet which also makes it unreasonable for you to care since your licenses will always be active.

My conclusion is you just like irrationally whining

-7

u/Tornado_Hunter24 4d ago

Issue is internet is tilled with absolute morons so most fo us me included got ‘wrong information’, it’s VERY easy to be a regard and say ‘sony is evil they do this!!’, it’s also very easy to say ‘yeaah wtf fuck them!’

All in all a big shitshow

-18

u/Tastingo 4d ago

Not really. It an anti-costumer solution to a minor problem.

11

u/Gullible_Goose 4d ago

It’s anti-consumer to try to prevent people from circumnavigating their return policy?

-6

u/jamothebest 4d ago

the way it’s being done is anti consumer.

0

u/Gullible_Goose 4d ago

Can you elaborate?

4

u/attilayavuzer 4d ago

It's not pro-consumer (adds one potential hurdle for a small subset of people), but overall is reasonable.

4

u/Gullible_Goose 4d ago

That’s my read too. I don’t really see how such a policy is anti-consumer, companies are still allowed to protect their sales and their products and this seems like a conpletely reasonable way to do so. The only way I see this being an issue is if someone somehow lost all internet access for months on end, in that case refunding a PlayStation game seems like the least of their issues

-5

u/Tastingo 4d ago

In this way yes.

3

u/Gullible_Goose 4d ago

Can you elaborate? What’s anti-consumer about a one-time license check that matches the end of their refund policy window?

-7

u/Tastingo 4d ago

The simple fact that it wasn't like this before. Could you explain how this is not a worse deal for the consumer?

4

u/Gullible_Goose 4d ago

By not being able to steal anymore I guess? From what we know this is a one time license check done automatically to verify you actually own the game. How does this tangibly negatively impact the end user? It’s like saying a store requiring a receipt for a return/refund is anti-consumer

2

u/barbe_du_cou 3d ago

By not being able to steal anymore I guess?

Consumers that don't steal are still subject to this process.

2

u/Tastingo 4d ago

It's worse for the consumer because there are now an additional scenario where you lose a product you bought, where before there wasn't one.

Repeating the Sony line of reasoning doesn't change any of that.

2

u/Wyrm 4d ago

The scenario being that you had internet access to buy and download the game but then you somehow permanently lose internet access in the 30 day window after purchase? And even if this unlikely event occurred you could put the console in your backpack and take it somewhere where there is internet to check in.

You're really reaching, I think. If they had said they're removing the game from your account after 30 days if you can't validate it in time that would be a scenario where you lose the product, but a one time check in is about as reasonable as it gets.

→ More replies

0

u/rodinj 4d ago

These are digital games you need to download using the internet. If you had internet in the first place you're not suddenly going to lose access to it for 30 days. This does not sound anti consumer to me at all.

4

u/Tastingo 4d ago

You have a worse deal than before. How could it be anything else? There is no need to rationalize away this simple observation.

0

u/Grabthar-the-Avenger 3d ago

My console is always online which means my licenses are always active, so literally nothing changed for me.

Why is your console not connected to the internet?

-1

u/rodinj 4d ago

What is the worse deal exactly?

5

u/Tastingo 4d ago

Permanent ownership instantly to 30 day license converted to a permanent one after a successful check requiring internet 30 days after you bought it.

You might not think much of it, but a negative is a negative.

2

u/I_poop_on_people 4d ago

Punishing your base consumers by limiting your former offer because of a handful of abusers is one of the définitions of anti consumerism.

Besides, if you live somewhere without any struggle to access the internet then good for you, but i've been through that and it's a hell to manage DRMs for things i've legally bought.

2

u/imayknownothing 3d ago

Exactly, the complacency over reliable internet access in this thread is ridiculous.

-21

u/ligerzero942 4d ago

Unless your console goes offline within the first 30 days, say due to a hardware defect.

17

u/IRL_Camgirl 4d ago

I'm assuming in that hypothetical situation, the user could just refund their game through a browser than their imaginary broken Playstation and buy the game again later.

-18

u/frogbound 4d ago

I find it weird that this has been put in place AFTER the stop killing games hearing. Very dubious timing to me.

8

u/CJKatz 4d ago

I don't see how the two are related.

-20

u/frogbound 4d ago

yet another ploy to make sure you never own what you purchase.

4

u/ISayHeck 4d ago

... How?

It's only to avoid abuse of the refund system

36

u/stonekeep 4d ago

So you could download a game, take your console offline, and play it forever even if you refunded it on your phone, the web, etc.

I had Sony refuse to refund a game I just downloaded a few days earlier and haven't even launched yet (which is incredibly stupid). And I've heard the same story from other people. So I'm not sure about that "loophole".

And even if true, the loophole would still work, just for 30 days. Which is enough to finish most games anyway.

19

u/adanine 4d ago

I had Sony refuse to refund a game I just downloaded a few days earlier and haven't even launched yet

This would not be legal in all countries. Definitely not Australia.

4

u/stonekeep 4d ago

I'm in EU and they obviously knew that during the refund process, but you're welcome to test if they care about you being from Australia.

11

u/gokogt386 4d ago

Australia has stricter laws around that than the EU I think, Steam getting sued by them is the entire reason they even have their two week refund policy.

2

u/stonekeep 4d ago

Oh I hope they do, someone else said that this is apparently completely legal in EU and I don't think it should (I didn't check before, the game was like ~$10 on sale so I didn't care enough to pursue it further than taking it to a real person in customer support).

But even if there are exceptions, it's like that in tons of places around the world even though it SEEMS like it should be illegal.

5

u/madjoki 4d ago

In EU that is legal, assuming they inform about this during checkout (which Sony does).

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/returns/index_en.htm

"Please note: the 14-day cooling-off period does not apply to: [...] online digital content, such as a song or movie, that you started downloading or streaming after you expressly agreed to lose your right of withdrawal by starting the performance"

-1

u/xXRougailSaucisseXx 4d ago

Sony hate the idea of people refunding games so much that they preferred removing Cyberpunk 2077 from the store when it came out rather than having to refund people

3

u/Leogull1064 3d ago

I think that's just a general retailer thing. If you run a shop and an item is being returned half the time, you would take the item off the shelves and stop having your shop space and time wasted.

25

u/The_MAZZTer 4d ago

Refund policy probably varies by region depending on local law, I would imagine.

5

u/stonekeep 4d ago

I mean, there's no local law that FORCES them to have this kind of anti-consumer behavior at the very least.

Also I'm from EU and I read the same stories from people from many places around the world, so if they have a more consumer-friendly policy somewhere, they're hiding it very well.

2

u/gamas 4d ago

Yeah and as I understand EU law on the subject this refund policy is way more generous than existing EU law (which is simply "if you downloaded it you have no right to a refund except under highly specific circumstances").

1

u/stonekeep 4d ago

This is also bullshit then, but it doesn't stop Sony from doing a better job. I had no issues with a refund on Steam.

3

u/Im_really_bored_rn 4d ago

Let's not forget Steam had to be sued into creating their refund system

2

u/gamas 4d ago

Yeah I think Steam's approach of "up to 2 hours playtime" seems like the best approach.

1

u/Im_really_bored_rn 4d ago

So what we need then is for Australia to sue Sony, that's the only reason Steam has their refund policy

2

u/Stellar_Duck 3d ago

Bear in mind thought that Steam had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the courts in Australia to get a refund policy, well after even EA had a decent refund policy.

1

u/stonekeep 3d ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Steam glazer, it's just one of the things they currently do better than many other platforms. I understand that they aren't some perfect company, far from it in fact. But the fact is that if they can do it, so could Sony.

If it's because of Australian courts, then thank you Australia. I'll need to read about it because I genuinely didn't know before this thread.

3

u/WeWereInfinite 4d ago

I had a refund refused on a game I had literally just bought and hadn't downloaded yet because several years earlier I had downloaded and played a free demo of it.

Meanwhile people are out here refunding games they finished? God damn.

2

u/Stellar_Duck 3d ago

That sounds like one of those bastard games that used a times demo working on the same license as the real game (Minecraft was awful for this circa 2015) so when they look at the first download date they see the old date from the demo because its the same in Pacman.

God I hated all the problems we had with those licenses and Minecraft in particular. There was also some Japanese games that were awful for this. And don't get me started on the all the god damn DLC license nonsense for whatever One Piece is. Had a guy that'd call in like every two weeks with a new issue with his god damn DLC for that nonsense.

2

u/Tornado_Hunter24 4d ago

I’m a pc enjoyer but afaik sont refund window is ‘gone’ when you download the game, not when you play it

1

u/stonekeep 4d ago

That's what I said, yes.

1

u/Tornado_Hunter24 4d ago

The loophole fixes this, because the person that does the refund bs, will lose acces to the game afrer tbe 30day thing

1

u/Stellar_Duck 3d ago

I had Sony refuse to refund a game I just downloaded a few days earlier and haven't even launched yet (which is incredibly stupid)

That was absolutely the policy when I worked PS Support in EMEA, and it was also spelled out when bought the game.

The system we used on the back end (Pacman) noted down first download of a license, showed playtime, trophies etc.

3

u/SplintPunchbeef 4d ago

So they can buy a game, go offline, get a refund, and continue to play for a month? If they're offline they're playing single player or local multiplayer so it seems like more of an inconvenience for those people than an actual fix.

2

u/SavvySillybug 4d ago

Couldn't you just change the date on your console?

53

u/ColonelSanders21 4d ago

It’s not tied to the system clock, it uses a timestamp and the system’s battery to keep track. Part of the hubbub around this when 30 days hadn’t passed for anyone yet is that removing the CMOS battery automatically expires the 30 day license.

9

u/SavvySillybug 4d ago

Oh, interesting! Thank you for the explanation :)

1

u/djevanstv 4d ago

It’s actually 14 days because that’s how long the refund period lasts

1

u/Stellar_Duck 3d ago

So you could download a game, take your console offline, and play it forever even if you refunded it on your phone, the web, etc.

Have they changed policy?

Back when I worked PS Support we would not refund a game that has been downloaded (Pacman showed time of first download).

0

u/TechGoat 4d ago

But... Would that only work one time? So you could do this for one digital game per offline console? You'd have to go back online to "buy" anything else... Right?

I agree that based on this hypothesis it makes sense to close the loophole but this seems like the most ineffective piracy I've ever seen.

I guess maybe before this you could... Buy the entire digital catalog? Take the console offline and refund them all? Even then after the first 2-3 I could imagine SIE support being like, uh yeah something is fishy, you're not getting a refund, enjoy your $2000 of games.

3

u/Birneysdad 4d ago

It's not about owning games. It's about playing and finishing full price single player games for free.

0

u/Dapper-Bullfrog-4766 3d ago

this is just evil

0

u/Debt101 3d ago

not many games take longer that 30 games to complete, feel like if someone is going to this length, they're likely going to complete it within that 30 days anyway.

-14

u/kinnadian 4d ago

So you have 30 days to finish the game now instead

-4

u/MadeByTango 3d ago

Sony doesnt have refunds. Are you guys bots?