Comment on PlayStation To Delete A Ton Of TV Shows Users Already Paid For
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months agoThe absolute minimum they should be doing here is refunding everyone’s money in full.
Comment on PlayStation To Delete A Ton Of TV Shows Users Already Paid For
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months agoThe absolute minimum they should be doing here is refunding everyone’s money in full.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 7 months ago
In full? So the period where the content was accessible is valueless? Pulling the licenses is bullshit, but a full refund is equally asinine.
Patches@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
If Hyundai Kicks down your door down and takes your car. They don’t get to say 'Well it was worthless per (depreciation math they made up)."
ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The retractors reneged on a contract that they had already performed from. When you pay for a product and then the salesman takes it back from you months later that’s called theft. They just legalized piracy.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Yes, in full. Even Google did that when they shut Stadia. If you’re a big company this is the cost of business. Even if it’s just in store credit or whatever, wouldn’t even cost them much.
CheddarBiscuits@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. This is true. People like to complain, but I’m sure somewhere in the TOS this was stated that you don’t own it… Still a bad move to pull the content but I agree should not be full refund.
I get that people don’t like paying for things. I don’t mind paying, but I make myself aware of what I’m paying for. CONVENIENCE… Don’t spend your money on bad platform’s and services people. If you don’t like how the business model of that company is, don’t give them your money. Vote with your wallet.
Xbeam@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s not realistic to expect the average user to read and/or understand the TOS when making a purchase like this. The button that you click says buy, not rent until we decide your rental period is over. Shouldn’t matter if it’s stated in the TOS somewhere.
As far as not spending money on bad platforms, thats what this community is about. All the platforms are proving that they are bad.
CheddarBiscuits@lemmy.world 7 months ago
My issue is the first line of your comment, that it’s not realistic for the average user to read and or understand the TOS. You should not use the product if you have not done this. Period. And if you choose to not read and understand, then there is no more discussion to be had… Makes sense?
bpcomp@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The problem as I see it is a violation of expectations. If I “buy” something, there is no expectation that I will be deprived of that thing in the future unless, (A) it’s a consumable and I e used it up, (B) it’s capable of wearing out and I’ve done that myself, © it’s a subscription service where you pay for the time You’ve used it.
In the case of digital assets that I’ve been sold, it can’t be used up and it can’t wear out. I did not subscribe to the digital asset, I bought it.
Violating the expectation of a purchase and then not fully making the buyer whole is trying to change the transaction type to a subscription after the fact.
If the digital content providers want to pull these kinds of tricks, then they can’t tell us we are buying the content. They must be up front and tell us it’s a rental whose length is undetermined. The rental may be for our whole lives, or not.
Anything else is a bait and switch and makes people angry.
CheddarBiscuits@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I fully agree the wording should be ‘rent’. I know when I use a digital service, I do not own these things, but have access to them via the TOS I agreed to. It’s definitely shady to word it as ‘buy’ though, but that’s what physical media if for… Again going back to the convince argument, if you want to own something tangible, buy physical.
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yep. These arguments get at a problem I have with a lot of the piracy community. Which is not paying for the movie, but still watching it just shows the rights holders that there is a demand for the product.
If people want the DRM BS to end it would be far more effective to not pay for it AND not watch it. Companies would do a rethink surprisingly fast if money and engagement with their products fell off a cliff.
But that requires sacrifice and inconvenience to the consumer, and consumers have a pathetic amount of resolve when it comes to doing something uncomfortable now for a better outcome later.
CheddarBiscuits@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Sacrifice! Perfect way to put it. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Who cares if a show is good if the production/distribution company is evil, don’t contribute to the stats. Ignore it and move on.