Sony Stands Its Ground That Customers Do Not Own Digital Games; They Are Just Purchasing a License to Use Them

Sony has drawn the line in the sand where it stands regarding ownership of games when it comes to digital purchases by making the distinction of licensing in a court hearing. On August 21, Sony stated in a California court, per Gamefile, that “you can use a product in the ways described in the license, but do not own the product” and further added that the software is licensed to the user, not sold to them. This distinction is often lost on many consumers who may not fully grasp that when purchasing digital media online, albeit music, video, or video games, that content is provided via a license, and if that license is tied to a particular platform, said content may become unavailable at some point. Over the years, as streaming services and their content have exploded on a global scale, more than a few folks have had the rude awakening when either something they’ve purchased or grown accustomed to having access to per a particular service suddenly vanishes.

““This makes sense. In the digital age, it is not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believed they were obtaining ‘ownership’ of a digital game.”

– Sony

Sony is currently facing a lawsuit (via Aftermath) in which it’s accused of not meeting California’s legal requirements for clearly letting its customers know they are buying licenses for games and not actually owning them. While Sony’s argument holds water, it seems that perhaps context may be getting stretched thin when it also added that if anyone actually bought a game, not a license, that would prevent anyone else from doing the same. If trying to interpret that meaning, think of it this way: when you buy an item in the store, there’s usually a unique serial number somewhere, so Sony’s vague reference here is that perhaps if a game was owned via a digital purchase, then perhaps there’d be no way to delineate unique ownership, thus preventing anyone from doing the same. Umm, yeah, no, but anyway, that is just a theory; however, GOG has long managed to make this a reality. Maybe that should be brought up in these hearings.

“Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then.”

– Sony

Join the discussion in The FPS Review Forums...