🚨I've been reading Sony's TOS. A few things jumped out. Stay with me Sony is leaning on this idea that a “reasonable consumer” should understand what they're getting when they buy a digital game- That deserves more scrutiny. Sony operates a storefront where consumers see a game, a price, press BUY, get charged, and see it in their library. Sony says in its own terms that when you order content from the PlayStation Store, you “buy a personal license” to use it. Then, when ownership or continued access gets questioned, the language suddenly changes. BUY doesn't really mean buy. PURCHASE doesn't really mean purchase. SALE doesn't really mean sale. And the license you “bought” is revocable. Fine. Consumers are entitled to ask what exactly they're paying for. If this is payment for a revocable license, why make the storefront look like a retail transaction? Why use BUY instead of LICENSE? Why not clearly tell the customer, before payment, that they are paying for revocable access that remains subject to Sony’s continuing control? And before somebody says, “Everybody knows digital games are licenses,” that's the assumption I'm challenging. Consumer protection shouldn't depend on what a corpo believes a “reasonable consumer” ought to understand after mega pages of legal language. What matters is what the transaction communicates when Sony takes the money. There's another question here that's even more important. With many third-party games, Sony didn't create the game and may not own the copyright. The publisher or rights holder owns that intellectual property and authorizes Sony to distribute it through the PSN Store. Sony then takes the consumer’s money and issues the PlayStation entitlement. So if Sony later removes that entitlement, I want to know where that authority comes from.👈 Did the actual rights holder withdraw the license? Did the customer violate the agreement? Was there fraud, a chargeback, an expiration, or a legitimate account termination? Or is Sony claiming that operating the storefront gives it the unilateral right to extinguish a fully paid license to somebody else’s intellectual property even when the rights holder itself has not withdrawn it?🤔 If Sony’s answer is “our TOS say the license is revocable,” then that doesn't end the conversation. It starts it.👈 Revocable under what conditions? For what reasons? At whose discretion? And where's that material limitation clearly presented to the customer before they pressed BUY?🎯 This is where the “reasonable consumer” argument starts to sound condescending. The informed consumer is not confused about copyright. Nobody thinks buying Resident Evil means Capcom handed them the copyright. Nobody thinks buying Call of Duty means they suddenly own Activision. That's not the argument. The question is much simpler: what did I receive in exchange for my money?👈 If Sony says I bought a license, then that license has to mean something. If Sony can cancel it at any time, without wrongdoing by the consumer, without expiration, and without the underlying rights holder withdrawing the game, then maybe consumers were never really being sold durable digital purchases at all.🎯 Maybe they were being sold revocable access. And if that is what the product really is, say it plainly. Put it next to the price. Put it next to the BUY button. “$69.99. Revocable access. Sony may terminate this license under the applicable terms.” Then let the reasonable consumer decide whether they still want to press BUY. Don’t use the language of normal commerce to close the sale and then retreat into the language of licensing when the customer asks what they actually paid for.🎯 That is the conversation Sony should be willing to have. Crickets from Sony... If you like this content, follow me. Game On! #PlayStation #Sony #DigitalOwnership #GameOwnership #PhysicalMedia #ConsumerRights #Gaming #PS5 #StopKillingGames #GamePreservation #NoDiscNoBuy #EthicaGaming #Blaze2K