They said that.

I did read the entire sentence. I also carved out that exception in my reply to them. Maybe you need to do a better job of reading?

They were saying those duties don't exist. So, are you siding me me... or them? Because, from that, it looks like you're siding with me.

Ok, so maybe the issue here is one of comprehension on your part. Because, you originally said no duties exist. Now you're saying some duties exist, sometimes. Which is it? Because, I very much understand that case law is not universal. That is why I called that out in the first place.

That may be, but I was only pointing out how they were wrong to say there was no legal duty.

My sole point is that the duties exist, which is counter to what you explicitly said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The duties, outside of the fraud and voting related, come from case law and not statute. That means the companies aren't strictly required to follow. However, companies usually prefer not to leave themselves open to a lawsuit, unless they feel the risk is worth it.

I don't disagree with that concern. It's just irrelevant to what I was saying.

I didn't suggest anything. I said I understand why they might want to tighten down on verification. In response to you claiming not to understand, I provided one valid reason why they might. As we didn't have an official statement from them, anything said would have to be hypothetical by nature.

If we go by what was assumed by people at the time, that it would require regular monthly check ins, it would in fact have had a reasonable impact on sales of loaded systems.

Just to put it out there, there was a statement put out today that hadn't surfaced in search when I responded earlier. People were apparently exploiting the refund window. The system is intended to require a check-in after the return window has lapsed, after which it no longer requires a check-in.

Yes, if we assume this was intentional, it would absolutely affect trading/selling for any installed games going forward.

Sure, that possibility exists. However, that isn't related to what I was talking.

It stifles the trading/selling of offline systems with loaded games. I wouldn't consider it a problem worth fixing this way, but I'm not Sony. However, I've also seen reference to the fact that this timer was designed for the Playstation Plus games, and the application to other games is due to a bug. Ultimately, we'll have to see what Sony officially says.

As far as I can tell from what you've said thus far, it's closer to the opposite. You've seemed to ignore reality and reason, in lieu of a mostly baseless flawed opinion.

No, it's not. The fact that you try to equate to two yet again shows the kind of person you are.

I'm pretty sure it's already heavily used there, but feel free.

All the more reason not to belittle them.

I'm not trying to defend Sony's decision, though I do at least understand it. I just take issue with this overly flawed interpretation on how it affects gamers. The number of people that would be able to download a digital game, and then never connect to the internet again, is low. It's non-zero, and I acknowledge that. I just don't see how that in any way comes close to "effectively eliminating" offline play.