Exclusive gaming platforms and the abuse of peoples rights

I don’t want a refund because it is a great value machine and there are many great titles, VR game/experiences. The problem is that it is an “exclusively controlled platform” controlled by people who think they have a right to censor normal adult behaviours. A game that I have that was created for VR which Sony forced the developers to release early in pancake mode is Gal Gun 2. The VR was patched in shortly after the official release but not on the PlayStation. Another game I have which I had to order from Japan because Sony bought and killed it by restricting it too Japan only was similarly developed to be played in VR but again they forced the developers to release the main game in pancake mode but with a replay facility, or memory mode in which most of the game can be experienced in VR but with some notable exceptions. That game is called Happy Manager. Another game I have called Skyrim that the developers encourage modification in. Modifications are possible in the pancake version on PlayStation but not the VR version, though on computer the VR version can be modified? So I guess I want Sony to stop pretending to be lawfully elected governors. If they want to play politics they can do that in the political arena. Not abusing the rights of those who are held hostage to an exclusive operating system owned by Sony but installed on our personal private property.

Just wow!

One has a choice to make a particular purchase and as part of any purchase decision should be whether the product best suits ones needs.

Game/software developers often make their games/software available for use across a number of different n platforms…and one has the choice to purchase alternative products which allows the games/software of one’s taste to be run.

There are numerous examples of software being restricted to one or more operating system or where software developers chose to only support ones which they think are in their own interests. Examples include Google v Apple v Microsoft v Linus v HarmonyOS v PS4/5 etc etc.

3 Likes

Lot’s of companies make software that can run on computers using the windows OS.
But you can not get programs to run on PS from anyone but Sony PS.
It is monopolised exploitation abusing personal property rights.
It was several months after I purchased the console that I realised the extent of the problem.
I spent many hours researching over several weeks before making the purchase.
Under Australian law companies are not supposed to be able to impose restrictions on peoples rights.
We don’t enjoy the enshrined rights the US has but the rights we do have are supposed to be protected?

Which laws are these? Companies all the time impose restrictions on people’s rights. It is worth looking at Terms and Conditions which most companies issue in relation to the goods or services they provide. Sony is no different and has chosen to provide products or services under its own T&Cs.

This aren’t necessarily the case. US businesses, like Australian and most other companies around the world operate in environments where ‘rights’ are restricted. It is worth reading T&Cs from the major US multinationals to see the conditions which they impose of their customers/users.

3 Likes

We can believe something is generally unfair or a violation of fundamental rights, but that does not necessarily make it technically illegal in Australia. When examining these situations, it’s helpful if the specific laws in question are referenced (a link to the specific act and section) and to understand what legal rights we have under law as opposed to things we might see as a fundamental or implied right.

I agree with the explanations given here already. As @postulative pointed out before, we don’t always own things in the way we might believe, especially when it comes to connected networks. For example, we might own the physical TV set or games console, but don’t confuse this for ownership of the network content, its use or distribution.

Platform exclusivity or more broadly content exclusivity is not necessarily illegal unless it runs afoul of exclusive dealing laws, which are more about protecting market competition than individual consumer protection. I’m sure some PC gamers dislike consoles and choose to avoid them because of platform exclusivity.

Most laws around censorship are in place to allow content makers and distributors to place limits on content rather than giving people the right to view content. In this way, they do often have a legal right to restrict or limit the content that we receive via their networks. It doesn’t necessarily make the content illegal or wrong, but you will need to go to another network to get access to the content. It also doesn’t mean that organisations can do anything they want - they are also potentially liable for any harm caused by content on their networks. They are also accountable to other laws - both Sony and Valve have received penalties in the recent past for their refund practices for example.

That doesn’t mean that we have to agree with the way things are, there are organisations such as Digital Rights Watch that advocate for protection of fundamental digital rights and changes to current laws and regulations (that’s not necessarily a blanket endorsement of the organisation, just an example). In 2014, CHOICE also made a submission (See 10 June 2014 – Competition policy review issues paper) to the government’s Harper Review of Australia’s competition policy framework that involves some of these issues, especially around pricing and access to content.

7 Likes

There is your problem. They own the software and they can licence it however they please. You do not own it, you buy the right to use it in certain specified ways.

I would like to know specifically what “rights as an Australian citizen” have been limited. If you mean you have the right to use their software any way you like I think you will find that you do not.

6 Likes

This information is out of date. An R rating for video games was introduced some years ago. See more here.

To add to what was said before, Sony are not infringing on your legal rights by deciding what is on their platform any more than Woolworths is by deciding what to stock. If Sony would like a game altered for their platform (which they own the legal rights to the format) they can do that.

Yes, it would be illegal for Sony to try and control what you do with your PlayStation. However it is completely legal for Sony to decide what you do with their software, including the bundled operating system. You do not own the operating system, you have purchased a limited license which does not allow you to modify, sub license or copy the software.

4 Likes

In 2013 an R rating was introduced in Australia for video games . When you purchase a video game whether hard copy {disk} or digital download you must agree to the EULA {end user licence agreement } before you can access it . You scroll past screens of legal jargon and an "I accept " tab high lights for you to tick . No tick no play .

Read the EULA and you will find Sony or any of the other gaming industry hardware suppliers are not breaching any laws regarding usage or censorship for use in Australia or any other country .

The problem is we , and I include myself , often do not read that which we should .

5 Likes

I have a right to be able to be able to use my property. They are required to ensure the products they sell are reasonably fit for purpose. Installing software designed to impose limitations on my rights is an obvious and deliberate violation of both my rights and also their responsibilities.

“If you mean you have the right to use their software any way you like”
No I mean they are required to ensure the equipment they sell is fit for purpose.
That means they are required to provide an operating system that enables reasonable functionality.
A system deliberately designed to impose limitations upon the normal rights of consumers is not reasonably functional.

Complaining that the owner of the software has made policy decisions that you disapprove of does not seem very productive to me. In my view you are drawing a rather long bow in the way you define ‘fit for purpose’. If it doesn’t meet your needs then don’t buy it.

I do not understand your aim in bringing this up here, there does not seem to be anything useful this forum can help with.

3 Likes

Thanks for the information Brendan.
My issue is largely that I see Sony PlayStation damaging the development of the medium.
VR has hardly begun and there are media reports indicating that their actions are damaging some of the companies attempting to drive it’s development.
D3’s Happy Manager was crippled by Sony’s stupidity and D3 had to have invested a great deal in the game because it is quite large compared to most VR games and reasonably finely drawn.
Neither does it seem reasonable that they can deny consumers the VR update for the game Gal Gun 2 which was designed to be played in VR.
This has had to have made that game less popular? So their behaviour will have damaged that company also.
So far SonyPS has had the far greater share of the VR market being so much less expensive.
PC VR is incredibly expensive, there is a new standalone true VR option available now which should see SonyPS face more competition.
I realise they can not afford to allow the sort of wild west paradigm that kept the internet alive during it’s incredibly rocky infancy.
But I find myself quite resentful of the control they exercise over my property also.
Now the government is elected and are supposed to represent the citizens of Australia were that the case it would be acceptable that they determine what is legally permissible.
It is not acceptable however that Sony PS can dictate what I can do with my own property, can impose limitations beyond those inherent in it’s physical engineering.
I don’t necessarily oppose their having exclusive control of the platform so long as they are not using that control to abuse the rights of consumers. If they can not manage the platform without abusing consumers rights then they should not be allowed to control it.

1 Like

They are legally accountable for policy decisions that are damaging to their partners. It is also as I have stated about their designing software to deliberately impose limitations on peoples normal rights.

In Australia the legal system does not allow the EULA to impose limits on your rights. Apart from the single exception of music industry contracts Australian law does not allow the rights of Australian citizens to be limited by any legal mechanism other than government legislation.

You are not a partner but a customer.

{take partner}
“I see no partners here.”
“There is a maze of twisty little passages, all alike”

If you didn’t ensure the software was suitable for your purpose before you bought a licence then bringing up these legalistic arguments about how it doesn’t meet your ideal will not correct that mistake now.

2 Likes

The fact that the Software Companies were affected is a decision for them to take up the battle and sue Sony for loss of income if they so choose. This may be a costly exercise but they may have grounds if Sony altered the copyrighted Software to cripple it on their machines (ie Sony undertaking Reverse Engineering and then re-compiling with removed sections). However if to get the product on the PS hardware in that it was altered by the producers of the software it would then be hard for them to argue a case.

As a user the choice is either to buy the software or not to buy the software, a user either then agrees to the EULA or they return the product stating that they cannot accept the terms of the licence. A user also has the choice to boycott the hardware ie not use the Sony PS. Both these choices will send a signal to Sony about a person’s dis-satisfaction, the more productive one is to cease using their products such as the Playstation, the VR headset, the other peripherals that are PS specific, and this will stop PS software sales and so Sony will neither gain profits from their products nor from the software licencing they obtain for PS supporting software.

To be honest X-Box has similar issues in that it has a specific format market, a user can’t buy a PS based product and play it on an X-Box, there are also certain titles only available on an X-Box (they are not ported to any other format or only to a set of limited formats).

MS Windows is pretty much locked into only supporting MS supporting products though they now have the Linux Subsystem built into Win 10 (WSL), a user can, once it is enabled, install a varied choice of Linux Distros eg Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSUSE.

There are Apps for Android that aren’t on the Apple Store and Vice Versa. Even varied Linux Distros don’t always happily have similar programming roots eg Debian vs Fedora vs OpenSUSE vs Slackware vs others out there. So not all repositories for those have the same software packages available though as they are open source you can port freely between them if users have the skill and the software is open source.

Basically every participant in the Hardware and Software production out there licences their products and controls what is available for them. Just some are much more stringent than others when it comes to what they allow to happen. Linux is perhaps the least controlled but even on that they have strictly controlled software licencing for some components eg some drivers, but also production software that isn’t open source and is pay for use and not able to be altered legally by the user to port to a different Linux Distro.

3 Likes

Microsoft does not stop other companies using their programming language to develop applications. It is freely available for study.
That is not an apples to apples comparison.

There are two cases I am personally aware of where the actions of Sony PlayStation would have obviously resulted in reduced sales. However the companies exist outside of Australia and may not enjoy the rights they would have in Australia? There is more detail in my response to BrendanMays.

The EULA can not legally impose restrictions on a consumers
normal rights.
But yes it is a problem with this “exclusive platform” nonsense.
It’s obviously appropriate for a physically isolated device but any network capable computerised device should have access to software from anyone who can provide it.

But of course I am no longer spending my money on SonyPS products and will not unless there is an obvious change in it’s management.
I understand there is a new CEO who plans to make changes.
Whether he will be effective and whether he will stop this culture of unnecessary and damaging interference remains to be seen?

This seems quite disingenuous?
I did not specifically purchase the operating system installed on the Playstation4Pro console that I purchased. It came preinstalled and there are no alternatives?
Whether I am a partner or not does not alter the fact that the company is behaving abusively towards it’s partners and consumers alike.
As to ensuring software purchased on the platform is suitable?
There is almost no relevant information provided for any software sold on the site.
There is a seemingly standardised spiel for every item with very little difference between any.

One thing that you should have taken into account if you did your research before purchasing your PS 4 and VR head set is that the PS 5 with a new VR head set will be released at the end of 2020 . Sony will not give a definitive answer on backwards comparability .

Most of their developers are now working on launch titles for the PS 5 .

1 Like