Sony's defense in the digital ownership case is basically 'you're not dumb enough to think you own GTA 6'

Saw a GamesRadar piece about Sony's lawyers and their argument in the digital ownership case. They're saying that reasonable consumers wouldn't be misled by the current disclosures, because obviously nobody actually thinks they own a digital game. Their logic goes like this: if you owned it, you could stop other people from buying it. So only one person could ever buy GTA 6. That's the example they used.

I get what they're trying to do legally, but it feels a little condescending. Like yeah, most of us know we're buying a license, not a physical copy. But the way they phrase it, using GTA 6 as the example, it's almost funny. Imagine if buying GTA 6 digitally meant you owned it outright. Rockstar would sell one copy and that's it. No pre-orders, no Ultimate Edition, no millions of players. The whole industry would collapse.

And honestly, with GTA 6 coming in November, this whole digital ownership thing is more relevant than ever. Most of us are going to buy it digitally, especially since there's no PC version announced and consoles are pushing digital hard. If Sony wins this argument, it sets a precedent that we're all just renting our games forever. That's a little scary for a game I plan to sink hundreds of hours into.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do think the 'only one person could buy GTA 6' line is a weird flex. It's like they're saying 'you're not stupid, you know you don't own it, so stop complaining.' Fine, but that doesn't make it right. I'll still pre-order the Ultimate Edition, but I'll be side-eyeing the fine print.

Source: GamesRadar+ · Curated content.

The "only one person could buy it" logic is funny to me, because that's basically how ownership of any digital item works, possession without exclusivity. Anyway, the edge case I keep coming back to is delisting. If a game gets pulled from the store, your license usually still lets you re-download, but not always. I might be wrong here, but does this case touch revocation at all, or just the store page wording?

does this case touch revocation at all

From what I've read it's about store page wording, but revocation is the real fight. Wording is just the cover story.

My take, since I'm planning to run GTA 6 for years:

1. Digital is faster for launch night. Pre-load, no disc swap. Efficient. 2. But a license is a license. If the terms let them pull access, the hundreds of hours I sink in sit on their mercy. 3. Physical isn't bulletproof either, day-one patches and all, but it's the closest thing to actually holding your copy.

The "only one person could buy it" line is lawyer theater. Owning a copy and owning the copyright are different things and everyone in that courtroom knows it. Telling the judge "you're not stupid" just dodges the actual question, which is whether the fine print does enough. I'll still pre-order digital, but I'm keeping receipts.

rp folks feel this harder than most, our whole scene runs on licensed copies and launcher logins. one revoked license and a 300 person community just evaporates

This whole thing lands different when you think about it as geography. I've got over a decade of Los Santos memorized (drainage channels, the Land Act Reservoir, every dirt shortcut through Great Chaparral) and if access to that world vanished tomorrow, I'd be holding a detailed map in my head with nowhere left to use it.

Leonida's going to be the same investment. My first free-roam route is already sketched out:

- Vice City, then the causeway south through the Keys
- Grassrivers loop, slow, that's where the hidden stuff will live
- North up past Mount Kalaga, detour through Ambrosia

Hundreds of hours of learning coves and unmarked trails. That's the real purchase, the mental cartography. Nobody thinks they "own" the code, but a place you know by heart feels like yours, and Sony's lawyers banking on that distinction not mattering is the condescending part.