Does YN (your nation) sue Sony over Playstation discs?

[Wairiensies]

In Wairiensies, we sued Sony for announcing the end of physical PlayStation discs by January 2028 for their digital games in July 2026. And people in my nation would agree that this is a very bad decision by Sony.

[DutchFormosa]

The people here acknowledged it was a terrible decision on Sony's part, but not to the point in where we'd want to sue them over it

[Quesbia]

PlayStations were banned in Quesbia as a result of the "removal of physical media/discs in January of 2028 (Gregorian)"

[Geraluden]

Playstation purchases have immensely dropped in Geraluden, as well as some protests about how physical discs are legally the property of whoever has bought it. Haven't sued Sony yet. YET.

[Luziyca]

Even if Sony and Playstation exist in the universe that Rwizikuru is in (which they don't: the closest equivalent to your Sony is the Senrian company Maeda, which produces an equivalent to the Playstation whose name is currently unknown to me), and even if Maeda did the things that Sony is doing in your timeline (which I am not sure if they will given I'm not in charge of it), few Rwizikurans own consoles to begin with (as they are incredibly expensive here), and of those who own SonyMaeda consoles, it's very unlikely that any of them will be able to sue them for it simply because:

1. Rwizikuran laws do not prohibit companies from doing that sort of thing, so there aren't a lot of legal grounds for any would-be plaintiff to sue SonyMaeda for no longer selling disks and going digital-only.
2. Even if they were to find a reason to sue SonyMaeda for no longer selling disks and going digital only, the would-be plaintiff is going to have a hard time fighting against a multinational conglomerate with an army of lawyers who know every trick in the book to quash the plaintiff's claim.

However, if Maeda did what Sony's doing (which, again, I'm not sure), SonyMaeda console sales would probably drop like a rock.

[Shangtianhua]

No because the whole debacle is considered nothing more than a massive non-issue especially since the national government has more important issues to focus on, plus given Huaxia's gargantuan gaming industry, PC gaming is far more popular than console gaming.

[Beroslavakia]

No, because the government banned Sony products due to political tensions.

[The Neighland State]

In Wairiensies, we sued Sony for announcing the end of physical PlayStation discs by January 2028 for their digital games in July 2026. And people in my nation would agree that this is a very bad decision by Sony.

“Any lawyer, even the most unscrupulous, will tell you that you cannot simply sue someone for something that you merely think is a bad idea. I don’t think I need to say any more.”—Guidepost, Minister of Law

“Well… maybe they have a law.”—Minister Advisor and President Matrix Ace

“Okay, fine, I’ll ask.”—Guidepost

What gives the Holy Empire of Wairienses the right to bring such a claim?

[Neo Lunatea]

Sony of Neo Lunatea intentionally ignored the 'shutting down' announcement, as it's required by law for media that aren't games like Fortnite or mobile games to have either have a physical version or be available on the Internet Archive after the 2024 Physical Media Act, which was created and put into law following the shutdown of The Crew.

So we didn't sue Sony at all, they just kept making discs to stay in the Neo Lunatean video game market.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has not shown any signs of stopping their shift away from discs, even in Neo Lunatea, so the Xbox market is expected to be effectively dead in Neo Lunatea by the 2030s.

Nintendo has continued to make physical games and shows no sign of stopping, so of course this remains the same in Neo Lunatea.

[Kogure]

No

[Gandoor]

When Sony made this decision several years back, the Government of Gandoor did not sue Sony over this decision for one simple reason: it is not anything of importance to the Government.

There are no laws in Gandoor which can be interpreted or read as requiring any video game company to manufacture physical discs for a video game console, so there would be no grounds for Sony to be sued on by either government regulators or Gandoorese citizens on the simple basis of 'They need to keep making discs'.

Regulators and lawmakers, however, did strengthen Gandoorese laws regarding digital licenses and ownership.

Under the auspices of Digital Ownership Act 2027, all platform-owned storefronts selling digital video game products (with the law explicitly defining 'platform-owned storefronts' refers to things such as the PlayStation Store, Nintendo eShop, Xbox Marketplace, Steam, Epic Games Store, etc. and not general physical or online retailers such as Amazon which sell digital codes which must then be redeemed on a platform owner's storefront) must provide users of these services the ability to transfer or sell purchased and owned digital video games to other users of the platform. Platform owners are permitted under the law to take a maximum of 10% of a digital resale as a fee.

Of note is that while the law requires such a service be offered, it does not mandate that games be eligible for the feature. However, any such digital video game on a storefront which is not eligible for transfer/resale must clearly and explicitly state on both the storefront and purchase page that one is paying for a non-transferable and revocable license for the video game. (e.g. A storefront cannot hide in the fine print that what you are paying money for isn't a copy of a game you own, but a license. It must be stated clearly and explicitly)

[Ascvalion]

The United Commonwealth of Ascvalion, along with much of the Ascvalian public, strongly opposed PlayStation's decision to discontinue the production of physical game discs. However, the controversy that ultimately brought PlayStation before the courts concerned a separate and considerably more consequential issue: the legal nature of digitally purchased games.

Following PlayStation's announcement, the company argued that purchasing a game digitally did not constitute purchasing the game itself, but rather purchasing a license to access and use the software. Under the interpretation presented by the company, that license could theoretically be revoked by PlayStation, even after a customer had paid the full retail price.

This interpretation immediately attracted the attention of Ascvalian consumer-rights organizations, legal scholars, and political groups. The Federal Government itself could not directly bring a private civil action against PlayStation merely for making the announcement. It nevertheless publicly endorsed and supported several independent lobbying and consumer-rights organizations that brought the matter before the courts.

The resulting lawsuit became an important test of Ascvalian property and consumer law.

The courts ultimately ruled that a company may retain intellectual-property rights over its software and may establish reasonable conditions for its distribution, but a full-price digital purchase cannot be treated as a revocable rental at the company's unilateral discretion. Once an Ascvalian consumer had purchased a digital game under the ordinary terms of sale, PlayStation could not simply revoke that consumer's right to use the purchased product without a legally recognized justification.

The ruling did not establish that digital games were identical to physical property, nor did it prohibit companies from withdrawing games from future sale. Rather, it established a distinction between ending a product's availability and retroactively taking away something for which a consumer had already paid.

The decision became another prominent example of the Ascvalian principle that private property and private enterprise are protected, but that contractual and economic power is not unlimited.

PlayStation was therefore free to change its business model, cease manufacturing physical discs, and determine how future games would be distributed. What it could not do was sell a product to an Ascvalian consumer at full price while simultaneously reserving an unrestricted right to confiscate the consumer's access to that product.

Had PlayStation proceeded with such a policy after the court's ruling, the matter would no longer have been treated merely as a civil dispute over consumer rights. Deliberately violating the ruling could expose the company and responsible executives to criminal proceedings under Ascvalian law, in addition to civil penalties.

The case consequently became an important precedent in the broader debate over digital ownership in Ascvalion: a company may own the intellectual property, but that does not automatically mean it owns the customer's right to everything that customer has already purchased.

[The Crusader Order of Prussia]

In the Crusader Order, unlike other countries the Play Station was always seen as a secondary game, pushed by a strong love of Pokémon and other Nintendo game, so while heavily critized, the Republic cannot sue Sony for removing Discs from the Play Station as by the 14th Ammendment of the 1991 Constitution 'Government of our Crusader Order, as we progress quicker than ever from our original name, which as explained is merely a cultural name, shall promise not to sue private corporations or nations unless they violate basic human rights'

[Llan]

In Llan, PlayStation was never used as it was too expensive, so instead the leading company in Llan, LlanTech, decided to make the Llan Inspire, utilizing discs, cartridges, and digital games as opposed to Sony’s PlayStation. Those who did own PlayStations (usually the wealthy people who could afford imports), decided to protest Sony, and instead buy luxury domestic consoles.

[Victorious Decepticons]

Playstation doesn't exist in our universe, but if it did, the change wouldn't matter to us. We'd just keep on hacking into their store, pirating the games, and burning them to Decepticon-standard physical media regardless of Sony's desires - the same as we do with any other paid software that isn't encrypted all the way to our moon and back.

We never trust software that could readily be changed to include a virus even if it started out clean. Physical media will stay safe if it starts out that way, which makes it strongly preferred. This is more important here than probably anywhere else, because we're robots and would be directly affected by computer viruses at a level that biologicals typically don't need to think about.

Now excuse us while we find this Sony joint, hack their servers, and make pirated physical copies of everything in their catalog to sell on the international black market for big bucks!

[TURTLESHROOM II]

The prosecutors and attorney-general equivalents in TurtleShroom's various sub-realms have, over all, avoided this issue in the courts. While one private fief's ruler, a minor Boyar, did sue in his capacity as sovereign, the case was thrown out in the confederal courts on the grounds of lacking standing; the Playstation VI does not exist yet, the no disc policy is not yet official, and Sony products in TurtleShroom are mostly de-amkes for lower Playstations.

This is not to say, though, that the action is extremely unpopular. While the Playstation V (and its future successors) are available for purchase, in the end, the Playstation V just has no games. The Playstation II remains the dominant Playstation because the Playstation III, alas, also has no games. For this reason, de-makes dominate the market share and, therefore, physical media always exists.

Market demands pressure physical media. A vast majority of TurtleShroomers refuse to buy video games and similar mass media unless physical media exists. Due to TurtleShroom's reliance on dial-up and (increasingly) ISDN Internet service, physical media is in practice one of the only ways to access video games of significant size and scope. Zip Drives, which can hold almost as many gigabytes as a DVD-R after years of refinement, remain the dominant media over optical discs.

The courts have traditionally held that preserving media against forced obsolescence is a legitimate grounds for a government regulation, and lobbying in Congress for addressing the Sony issue specifically is under way.

[Askio]

No, there are two reasons for this. Firstly, Playstation does not sell games in Askio directly, they are also imported of course, but not a part of the standard distribution. The reason for this is that in Askio copying, modifying and distributing information is legal for any non-commerical purpose and as such it is not as profitable. A viable business model is to sell physical copies, use ads, merchandise etc. but Sony isn't interested in that, so the Askian market isn't attractive to it and its subsidiary studios. Note though that there are non-profit organisations in Askio which do the distribution instead

The second and main reason is that Askio is not a signatory to WIPO and as such cannot sue Playstation. But even if it were a member of WIPO the government itself is more concerned with other things, so whether or not there would be a lawsuit would depend on volunteers only