Sony's Audacious Stance on Digital Game Ownership

By Kelly / September 3, 2026

Sony has recently put forward a provocative assertion: they believe any "reasonable" gamer understands that when you "purchase" a game, you aren't actually buying the product—you are merely acquiring a license to use it (via Video Games Chronicle).

While there is a kernel of truth in this, it is wrapped in a blatant falsehood and supported by a logic so flawed it's almost comical. While legal professionals might not find it as amusing, to the average observer, the argument is simply absurd.

The Reality of Software Licensing

Most gamers—though I'm hesitant to use the word "reasonable" to describe the average consumer—are likely aware of how software licensing works. The fundamental premise is:

You do not own the software; you own the right to access the software.

This becomes a critical issue when games rely on vendor-hosted servers. If the company decides to pull the plug, the software becomes a useless brick. This affects:

• Multiplayer-centric titles (entirely dependent on servers).
• Single-player titles with embedded phone-home verification logic.

The "Licensing Lie"

While the legal framework exists, there is a social contract involved. Users expect a return on their investment. No one expects a game bought today to be deleted tomorrow. This is where the "lie" enters the equation. We need legislation to ensure that vendors either:

1. Maintain services for a fair duration.
2. Provide a pro-rated refund for unused value.

Currently, such protections are either non-existent or in their infancy globally.

Sony's "Bizarro World" Logic

Sony’s legal team has attempted a strange pivot, suggesting that software cannot be "owned" because it isn't a finite resource. They argue that if one person truly owned a piece of software, they would be owning the only existing instance of it, preventing others from buying it.

To illustrate this, they cited a specific legal clash:

“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.”

The "Cup" Rebuttal

This logic is fundamentally broken. If you buy a coffee cup, you aren't buying the concept of a cup or the only cup in existence; you are buying a copy of a design. Software is the same, except the cost of producing additional copies is negligible:

$\lim_{n \to \infty} \text{Cost per copy} \approx 0$

Sony is attempting a reverse reductio ad absurdum. Instead of disproving a point by taking it to an extreme, they've created an extreme that proves the opposite: software is sold as copies, not as a singular, unique entity.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

The current court case seems to be centered on "false advertising." The plaintiffs argue that the Buy now button implies a transfer of ownership, whereas Sony claims it's just a license.

# Mock-up of the "Phone Home" logic Sony uses to control access
def check_license(user_id, game_id):
    if server.is_active(game_id) and user.has_license(user_id, game_id):
        return "Access Granted"
    else:
        return "Access Denied: License Expired or Server Offline"

In my view, the plaintiffs may have framed their argument poorly. The core issue isn't the word "Buy," but the violation of the reasonable expectation of a license's lifespan. Sony often removes support for games that were for sale just moments before the shutdown.

The Legal Battle Outlook

Regardless of the merits of the case, the outcome is likely skewed by resources:

• Plaintiffs present evidence of false advertising.
• Sony's legal team files motions to dismiss.
• Sony floods the plaintiffs with discovery requests.
• Sony files expensive counter-claims.
• Plaintiffs run out of money.

Ultimately, Sony can use their massive legal budget to baffle the court with nonsense and exhaust the opposition. While they have a valid point that "licensing" is the industry standard, their specific arguments about the nature of ownership are ridiculous.