Absolute shame, but to be fair the games that ship on disc without any patches are often in no shape to actually be played, so without the corresponding digital patch infrastructure it's already kinda problematic.
Obviously, preservation is in no way in the interest of the companies, they just want to keep selling you the same game over and over as remakes and remasters ad infinitum
Great buildup on Sony's side to gain trust in this move in the gaming community ahead of this announcement when just this week they again pulled hundreds of "purchased" movies from customer's libraries without refund, reminding everyone that digital content is rented, not owned.
> They must feel free to do as they please since they know consumers are trapped.
My take is somewhat difference: Sony is offloading the cost of their prior decisions onto consumers.
For things like movies, they should have negotiated a contract where sold copies are sold copies and cannot be revoked (even if their right to sell/rent copies lapse). For things like the PS3 store, it cannot be run indefinitely. That said, from my understanding, the authorization keys expire if the clock battery on the PS3 dies. That should not be permitted.
I don't think that this is a "do as they please" situation. I think it is a case of bad decisions being made in the past. For some, like the movies, there isn't much they can do to fix the problem after the fact. There is absolutely no incentive for the rights holders to let consumers continue to access previously purchased content (especially with Sony taking all of the blame). Even something like offering refunds to people who purchased the movies is problematic. In all probability, all of their contracts have similar terms. They would have to refund everyone for every purchase in the long run.
Other stuff, like access to PS3 purchases, are likely fixable. The question is: where is the incentive? They could create a patch for old consoles, but it would only affect a small number of customers who still have those consoles. (Worse yet, it wouldn't do anything for those who stored their consoles in the closet -- only to pull it out later to discover the authorization keys are invalid.) The math probably doesn't work out for them so they aren't going to do it.
There's no limit to what the best they could do is. A full refund is just what's simple, fair, and quick. I wouldn't put it past them to try to find some legal basis that the minimum is actually less than that in certain jurisdictions though.
A forced refund to something you purchased years ago is not fair at all. At the very least they should have to pay current market price for a replacement.
The trouble with that is you cannot operate a business where you pay your suppliers for a product then give everything away.
I am saying that as a reflection of reality, not to absolve Sony. Someone at Sony must have understood that their licensing agreements were incompatible with the definition of sale. Someone else likely stuck some clauses into the EULA to reflect that, fully realizing that no-one reads those things (also realizing that it is not reasonable to expect consumers to read an EULA for every transaction in their life). The someone who is now responsible for executing the outcome would also understand that there is the potential for legal action on such a matter, but they also understand that there are legal machinations that will, at worse, limit the damages to a sum that is lower than the cost of refunding the full value of each and every purchase made through their service.
> For things like movies, they should have negotiated a contract where sold copies are sold copies and cannot be revoked (even if their right to sell/rent copies lapse).
This is how movies work on GOG.
In what might not be a coincidence, they haven't released any movies for many years, and the product category isn't even visible if you don't already own a movie through them.
> For things like movies, they should have negotiated a contract where sold copies are sold copies and cannot be revoked (even if their right to sell/rent copies lapse).
It's difficult to see how this could ever be possible without significant legislation changes. Nobody (but nobody) offers this, and in the vast majority of the world you literally can't buy out music rights in this way for any licensed music in the titles. That's why literally no online store offers this.
I made a decision to get away from other consoles and only invest in Steam a while ago. In the 2010s I was a big Vita player but Sony backed away from investing in the Vita and I saw that the kind of Japanese games I liked were coming out on Steam so I sold my Vita.
Steam has been (mostly) a good citizen. But there's not much in the way of legal or technical hurdles to them going down the same path. It's all goodwill and reputation.
You can at least make local backups of your Steam games. If a game is removed such that you can't even download it anymore, you can always just install it manually.
That's what GOG offers. And I'd advise anyone to use GOG over Steam for their principles alone. Every game you purchase through their platform is DRM free and they go to a lot of effort to preserve retro titles that would be difficult to play nowadays without a lot of tinkering. They also put no limitation on how many family members you can share your games with.
Optional DRM, but essentially on by default. Could maybe consider it malicious compliance as its so easy to bypass but still allows them to check the DRM checkbox.
And it doesn't have to be this way. I started buying Xbox games digitally for the Xbox 360, and with their backwards compatibility that ended up being a great choice. My current XSX plays games for the last 3 generations of digital purchases I've made.
Well it's just for new sales, access to purchased content remains "for the foreseeable future". How long the future is foreseeable for Sony? Might want to ask the Concord team maybe.
Walking away from the closed platform you invested hundreds/thousands of dollars into over the years is a luxury (especially if you were mislead into buying a PS5 with a disc drive thinking it'd be supported at least until the end of the product's lifespan)
Monopolies, anti-competitive behavior, and anti-consumer behavior in general are all bad bad bad. You have to be a very interesting individual to disagree with that.
> especially if you were mislead into buying a PS5 with a disc drive thinking it'd be supported at least until the end of the product's lifespan
8 years is roughly the lifespan for a games console though.
And I say this as someone who hates Sony perhaps more than most, having lived through their the CD rootkit and PS3 OtherOS debacles. And been burned by their substandard yet overpriced audio equipment.
You’re conflating two completely different things.
I’m a retro gamer. I have around 20 systems all hooked up and ready to play from the Atari 2600 through to modern systems like the PS4. In fact I bet I have systems you hadn’t even heard of, and machines that are older than you are.
So I know better than most that consoles can live for decades. But that’s not what people mean when they talk about a consoles life.
What that term means is the period of time that a console is the current generation (and yes, “generation” is the technical term here and not something I made up).
Also decay isn’t a phenomenon exclusive to biology. Plenty of things which aren’t organic can have a life and decay, even though we know they’re not technically a life form. For example stars. But even technology can decay. Capacitors and batteries are the biggest two killers of old technology, and common problems I’ve had to repair in my old hardware. The laser in your PS1 is also a consumable. I’ve had to replace the laser in my PS1 for that very reason. Solder can crack. Any moving parts like motors, fans, and CD/DVD trays can seize up over time too. There’s also sun-bleaching that happens to white and grey casing too, which is thankfully a very easy fix.
Console is the kind of thing where you upgrade every few years like for obviously games you bought for ps3 or PS4 don't work in the PS5 or Xbox 360 for Xbox one you have to buy one for each console. So people will switch to the competition, you can see on the sales of each consoles where their peak was. People might even get tired of Nintendo,Sony and Microsoft and just go with steam and valve
I agree with your second sentence, and agree that Sony seems like a pretty bad actor as a result of all this, but the first sentence is false and hyperbolic.
It's not a luxury to walk away from a sunk-cost, no matter what % of your past expendable income it represents (I think that was kind of what you were hinting at). Anyone can do it.
Eh I think you're overstating the level of lock-in here. There's nothing about the platform itself that forces you to stay, it's just the games you've already bought. You can keep the system and just stop buying new games on it.
And most people probably don't replay most games after beating them once, for the handful you do want to replay, you just bust out that console occasionally, or you grab them again in a steam sale to play them on PC instead or something.
Sony doesnt have a monopoly on gaming. There is PC, mobile, Steam, Nintendo, Apple desktop, etc. There are also retro games consoles like Mod64. You don't invest in a game console it is an entertainment expense. You can sell your used PS5 if you disagree with the direction.
You can’t export save files on PS5. You can’t transfer licenses, so you’ll have to repurchase any games you want to continue playing. For trophy/achievement hunters, those are going to be locked away. And a lot of the online game accounts are locked to the platform so you’ll have to start any progress/reputation/level over.
Yeah, you can walk away, but let’s not pretend it’s the same thing as buying orange juice at a new grocer because your regular one only sells it with pulp now. People aren’t being irrational in being annoyed by this.
They were using the word correctly, "monopoly" doesn't only mean greatly dominant player in an open market. Current consoles are by definition vertical monopolies.
I think we should encourage this framing of "monopoly" more.
You can be a tiny company and still be a monopoly. If you're the only grocery store in a (walkable) town where many elderly people don't own a car, you're a monopoly. If you're the only company allowed to sell beer at a football game (that doesn't allow fans to bring liquids into the stadium), you're a monopoly. If you're a school cantine, and school rules forbid students from walking out during the school day, you're also a monopoly.
None of your examples pass any of the checks for a monopoly unless you twist the definition of "market" to be the narrowest possible. Situational exclusivity is not the same as a monopoly, and these examples don't pass the hypothetical monopolist test or the cellophane fallacy.
The Supreme Court ruled once on what they consider an aftermarket monopoly against Kodak in the 1990s, but the aftermarket angle on monopolies has been basically abandoned from a legal perspective because it was shaky at best.
Both iOS and Android both generate more in gaming revenue than Sony. The PC gaming market is only slightly smaller than the entirety of the console market. It's going to be very difficult to make an argument that customers don't have reasonable choice, and the recent case against Apple set precedent that owning the single channel of distribution to a product and platform you own isn't monopolistic unless you do shady things like Google did.
Sony's exclusive rights to distributing games on its owned platform and console will not give it pricing power (won't pass SNNIP) or exclude competition.
Sony can be called a dick for what they're doing without it also having to be monopolistic. People are right to be angry and calling them a monopoly over it is being cathartic.
There is no legal, economic, or dictionary definition of monopoly that supports your position. The closest example is "aftermarket" (what you call vertical) following the 90's Kodak SC case, which has long since fizzled out. Monopoly might as well not mean anything if you can define it however narrowly you want.
'1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
specifically : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition.'
That definition doesn't define any boundaries on to what market a company has control over. A hardware platform like Playstation only has one store, run by the company who sells the platform; explicit control of the particular market, that market being Playstation games. By going digital only, they now have total command of supply. They also explicitly deny competition from participating. They even have a hand in pricing the games sold on the platforms, an ability they're able to leverage because they hold a vertical monopoly.
The issue isn't me or anyone else defining the word "monopoly" too broadly, it's that the frog has so thoroughly been boiled on what we once considered monopolies that we can no longer see a monopoly for what it is even when it's self-evidently obvious. I agree that anti-trust enforcement has become lax, I'm not arguing that it hasn't... but it shouldn't have. It's been about 30 years of letting big tech and media conglomerates do whatever they want and it is time for that to stop, and not just for video games.
They've always had control by licensing who can publish games on their platform. Now that contract with publishers has changed who can distribute. Publishers are still free to distribute on other platforms in whatever formats those platforms allow.
> that market being Playstation games
This is arbitrarily narrowing the definition of market as far as possible while ignoring reasonable (legal) thresholds. Case in point how Apple's App Store was not ruled a monopoly while Google's Play Store was - there are reasonable tests to pass, and Sony's case will land closer to Apple than Google. And a monopoly is not the only form of anti-competitive abuse.
Might as well claim Domino's has a monopoly on Domino's pizza.
> This is arbitrarily narrowing the definition of market as far as possible
No it isn't, it's literally a market.
Dominos pizzas aren't created and sold by third parties. If you're going to make a comparison, try something doesn't so obviously miss the point (though if you want to talk about commercial food supply chains and how that's become almost entirely monopolized in the United States...).
The rest of your argument is basically "the law says so". Not an argument I'm interested in discussing since I don't care. I explicitly want legislative changes.
Just because valve is a benevolent dictator doesn't mean they don't already have the same dictatorship powers that Sony is currently chiseling out for themselves.
I wish NFTs had taken off as a system for managing decentralized transferrable digital purchases instead of being another investment scam.
An NFT is superfluous here. If you buy a digital copy, and someone gives you DRM-free files that you can copy and run anywhere you'd like, you have about as much ownership as you can get over a digital good. In this case, an NFT would just serve as an entry in a crypto ledger that you bought the game... which is an alternative to running a digital storefront and tying game purchases to an account, but it doesn't really change the fact that you can only redownload something for so long as it is hosted at the place where you bought it.
> I can get most everything running without needing Steam.
I thought most Steam games relied on remote activation/verification? Can you install and run them on a non-networked machine? If not, your LTO tapes are close to worthless because Valve (or its buyer) can still pull the same trick that Sony did here, with the same effect.
I'm not positive whether this is what they're referring to, but you can add external games to your Steam library. This is how the Steam Deck is able to run arbitrary games without needing to be in desktop mode, and the most straightforward way to run Windows games via Proton on Linux even if you obtained them elsewhere.
Valve has an incentive to keep being benevolent because consumers have the option of using other stores on the same hardware.
If you have invested into Sony platforms and games, you're stuck. You either write it off and move now, buying hardware during a component crisis, or you keep investing moving forward. On a PC, I might lose access to games on Steam but my hardware will allow me to buy new games on a different storefront.
Proton is open source though (and a lot of the improvements are also upstreamed to Wine, which isn't directly under Valve's control), and you can use it to run third-party games if you want (even ones that are also sold on Steam's storefront). If Valve stopped being benevolent, it would be annoying, but they wouldn't be able to undo most of the improvements we already have.
The idea would be that an NFT would provide a platform-agnostic proof-of-ownership to show that you have the right to download the game from a download provider and to satisfy its DRM protection. Basically a replacement for a license key. License keys are not transferable once redeemed, NFTs are. Modern software ownership models allow the software company to write whatever copyright law they choose, controlling length of ownership, terms of use, transferrability, backups, etc.
> This is a weird marketing strategy. They must feel free to do as they please since they know consumers are trapped.
I've been on PlayStation family since PS2, and used to think I was married to it, with my game library and my player character stuff/gear/creations in various games.
But the platform no longer lets me play many of those games, anyway, whether due to console gen or server shutdowns. And nobody cares about my PlayStation gamer score or trophies. So there's little tying me to the platform for the next game I buy.
Sony, please don't make me move to "Linux" gaming, via Valve/GOG/Epic (since I don't want to endorse Microsoft hegemony over the low-level gaming "standard"). PlayStation should be a beloved brand and platform that can be trusted to keep games working -- not one that throws away history, nostalgia, and community. You already impose rules on publishers, so this is within your power.
Related: Project Aces, I was fairly highly ranked in a couple of the Ace Combat installments, but when you shut down the servers, you took away what I'd invested in. I reluctantly bought AC7, but found I didn't have the heart to invest in it, just to have it taken away again, and I won't be buying AC8 nor anything else in the franchise.
Server shutdowns are a problem regardless of the platform.
There used to be a time when PC games allowed you to connect to random servers. These days Minecraft is the only one that still allows it. And even there, Microsoft go hard on the upselling of their Realms.
Some studios kill their servers after just a couple of years. Even for games that are online first.
It was a trade association not Microsoft. And bullshit like this is the entire reason for trade associations existing.
Microsoft themselves support self-hosting Minecraft servers. As evidenced by the fact that the server software itself is provided as a free download from an official Minecraft (and thus Microsoft branded) site.
"Linux" gaming on Steam deck or Steam in general is a lean-back experience that's got almost nothing in common with the sweaty PC game experience of the past with the big chunky joysticks that were always falling apart and had to be recalibrated all the time and the too-sharp graphics and all.
I picked up some ACER handheld at Best Buy and it was a complete joke, the first thing I saw looked like a Windows PC with comically small fonts. My Steam Deck looks more like a Switch or PS Vita.
In the long run I think consoles might get replaced to "consolerized" PCs (they are already technically, but I guess we might see more advanced software environments like steam boxes).
Neither Sony nor Microsoft had a consumer orientation and they will likely loose against the competition.
Physical media was a method to have a "plug & play" game, although that changed in recent times. With that I don't think classic consoles can compete, especially with their new price points.
The storage price isn't really an issue. For the average game it's probably $2 of storage on a hard drive when it's not currently installed on your console. And digital versions see discounts more often.
I'd say screwing up ownership is a much bigger issue.
I remember when the ps3 released Sony mocked controller rumble as a 'last gen feature'. Now their haptic feedback is the only distinguishing feature of their console.
Digitally rented content is rented. My music via Bandcamp/iTunes, my games from their developers’ websites/itch.io/GOG, and my ebooks are owned (for the purposes of the “owned”/“rented” distinction people are making here). Not all physical things are owned, either. Wrong distinction. We can ask for better with respect to digital.
The sad reality of DRM is that only rentals and subscriptions can honestly be done with it. You can guarantee access to a subscription library (Netflix, Xbox Game Pass, etc) for 30 days. You cannot guarantee access 30+ years in the future. And selling access like that is just a lie.
I do think if you are claiming something is not permanent you should basically have to make some specific claims about the timeliness of it (eg you can use it for at least 10 years or your money back).
Utterly brazen they are. You'd think they'd be keeping a low profile after the pulled all of those movies, but no - they are doubling down on the asshattery.
Funnily enough, pasting your comment straight into Jimmy leads to a... Funnily suboptimal answer that does not answer the question.
As someone else already contributed, this is driven by a Canadian startup taalas that basically makes chips that are llms, so everything is very fast but also, baked into the chip. Once this kind of stuff is a commodity in like 10 years, our world will be very, very different.
Taalas HC1 AI uses Llama 3.1 8B, but takes up a massive 53B transistors and 815mm2 on TSMC N6 (nearly at the reticle limit of 858mm2). N2 is a little less than 3x as dense (110MTr/mm2 vs 313MTr/mm2).
This chip would still be 272mm2 on N2 which is an eye-watering $30k/wafer and bigger than a 9950x or Nvidia 5070.
This just isn't feasible. Some of the latest-gen LLMs seem to have 5-10T parameters or about 1000x more. I don't know that taping out just one chip makes economic sense let alone the 300-1000 chips required for a cutting-edge model. Things like continuing education so your model knows about the latest NPM packages or world news is super important, but seems like it would require new chips.
There are a TON of uses for an 8B parameter models on the edge, but this is WAY too big to put on the edge of anything. Something like a 10mm2 100m parameter voice model might be feasible on the edge, but only for expensive devices, but most of those are TSMC 28nm (up to 29MTr/mm2) or GF FDX22 (up to 40MTR/mm2) which would increase the AI chip to the point where it would absolutely dominate the BOM.
> Things like continuing education so your model knows about the latest NPM packages or world news is super important, but seems like it would require new chips.
They probably have a few ideas around that. Me, personally, I'd have one main expensive chip (replaced every 10 years, or whatever), with a secondary cheap chip in front of it that gets replaced every year or so.
The secondary chip could act the way RAG does, or perhaps both chips together can act as LoRA.
Either way, 99.999% of the knowledge is static, you just need to fine-tune the weights with that remaining 0.001% knowledge, which can be done using RAG or LoRA on a much smaller (thus cheaper) disposable chip.
The better solution would be making part of the chip cluster use something like FPGA which can be reprogrammed.
Text to speech or diagnostics equipment where the core model is relatively small and never changes seems like the ideal application. You might be able to fit something in the 25-30B range in 2nm to 14A, but it would need a way to update.
Large models are simply out of the question in my opinion. If you need 400+ different chip designs, it’ll be billions of dollars to tape out before you even make the first chip.
> The better solution would be making part of the chip cluster use something like FPGA which can be reprogrammed.
I'm not sure I follow (It's late, I am tired and I haven't had my dinner yet. That's my stupid trifecta!)
The original chip has the weights, so it's literally just a bunch of on-die (read-only) memory cells. The FPGA, while you could use it for the memory cells, would be way too expensive to use as pure memory. Typically one would hook up (read-only) storage to it, so you still need that read-only chip anyway.
The FPGA is just the compute bits, but this chip has on-die weights, not just compute.
I was proposing that the they have the base weights on a primary (permanent) chip, and have a secondary (replaceable) smaller chip with weights for a specific use-case, or for fine-tuning with new knowledge/updates to the model.
The matrices can be multiplied LoRA style, applying the matrix in the secondary chip to the primary chip, resulting in up-to-date weights through which the prompt is pushed.
I'm wondering about something different. FPGA seems ideal for an AI chip because you can simply flash the latest model. The downsides are low density and low clockspeed. It seems that you can only fit 100-300M parameters in even very large FPGA, but that seems like it would be enough for most finetuning.
I'm thinking of a situation where you do the initial model calculations in hardware on the Taalas chip then hand that off to the FPGA to do the LoRA subset of calculations in hardware that can be continuously re-tuned to keep the model up-to-date. This would probably reduce throughput (or at least increase latency), but would save tons of money by allowing you to use the chips longer.
Yeah, they're clearly just starting out and just shipped their very first proof of concept. But to me, their plans seem generally reasonable https://taalas.com/the-path-to-ubiquitous-ai/, and like I wrote, if this kind of thing succeeds and could become some kind of cheaply producible commodity component, I think there's huge value in that. Alas, maybe not as a frontier model replacement, but say 10 years from now you can drop a cheap raspberry pi like device in your Lan and have a fast local engine for things like text sentiment analysis, text summarisation, voice recognition, basic vision and things like that, that would be pretty exciting to me (but maybe as you outlined, impossible in practice)
There is a reasonable kernel of an idea here, but only if you dial expectations WAY back. The 10 years speculation is just wrong though. Even in 10 years, their 8B param model isn't going to be in consumer devices.
6nm is just 7nm++ and the process will be a decade old in a few months. In the decade since, we've only had a slightly less than 3x increase in transistor density and that's including EUV, BSPD, and GAAFET (which means progress is likely going to slow down even more).
Even if we hit another 3x increase, their 815mm2 design will still be a bit over 90mm2. For comparison, the entire M5 Pro/Max CPU die is just 61.7nm.
If our current progress somehow holds (not likely), even 20 years from now the 8B model would be 30mm2. You need 30 years of dead consistent progress to get it down to an includable 10mm2.
As you can see, this doesn't make sense to invest in. As to the stuff like voice recognition or basic vision, these can often fit within 100m parameter models which would be around 10mm2 on their current 6nm design. That's doable today in custom edge computing devices.
The other possible use is cheap fallback models for AI companies. Moving to N2 and shrinking chips to 600mm2 to improve yields a bit would give about 50B parameters with 3 chips plus another FPGA-ish programmable chip for continuing training and interconnects for everything. You'd need hundreds of thousands of chips produced for that exact AI model just to get costs below $100,000 per board.
That seems like a lot of money for the AI model you are essentially giving away, but maybe it still beats the power and price of GPU server racks.
The government isn't going to be making chip fabs go any faster which is the biggest limitation here.
The second big issue is that it takes months to fab chips meaning your hardware AI is months to maybe a year or more behind the times when it lands.
I do think it makes sense for something like a medical scanner where the model simply doesn't need constant updates, but that doesn't need government involvement to ship.
Read the article in the context of the comment clearly means "I have read the article - here's my conclusion of its context relating to your post". Did you even read the thread?
This being microsoft, my expectation UX wise is that similar to those Xbox ROG devices you'll have to drop to the windows desktop to install updates, and they'll probably also throw in some copilot to help you through the process. I don't think they have it in them to innovate here and make it pleasant in any meaningful way
Yeah, I agree. There are certainly engineers at Microsoft who are skilled/talented enough to do something cool. But it doesn't matter if the business people will just saddle them with bad requirements that drag the experience down.
For mobile - For desktop computers, below 10% even. Given that only 73% of world population is estimated to have internet access in total, that makes it just a small fraction of world population overall
Did any of these VS Code forks yet fix their issues from official marketplace access leading to extensions being severely outdated and ripe with security issues?
Obviously, preservation is in no way in the interest of the companies, they just want to keep selling you the same game over and over as remakes and remasters ad infinitum