PETITION TO SONY / PLAYSTATION

If We Pay for a Digital Game, We Should Not Lose Everything When Sony Takes It Away

Protect the consumer. Respect the creators. Share the risk fairly.

Digital gaming has changed the way we buy games.

Today, consumers pay real money for digital games, DLC, expansions, season passes and other digital content. We understand that digital products may sometimes have to be discontinued.

We are not asking Sony to keep every game or server online forever.

We are asking for something much simpler and fairer:

If a consumer legitimately pays for a digital product and Sony later permanently removes that consumer’s meaningful access to it, the consumer should not automatically bear 100% of the financial loss.

Our Proposal: A Digital Purchase Guarantee

We call on Sony Interactive Entertainment / PlayStation to establish a clear Digital Purchase Guarantee.

When a legitimate digital purchase is permanently revoked, consumers should receive a fair remedy.

Our proposed minimum: 50%

We propose that consumers receive:

At least 50% of the amount they actually paid for the affected digital product, unless applicable law requires a greater remedy.

The compensation should be based on the actual amount paid, not the current retail price.

This Does Not Mean Sony Must Keep Everything Online Forever

We recognize that:

licenses can expire;
publishers can close;
servers can become impossible to maintain;
security requirements can change;
businesses can discontinue products;
and some games depend fundamentally on online services.
We are not demanding perpetual service.

Instead, we ask Sony to distinguish between:

Delisting
A game is removed from the Store, but existing purchasers can still meaningfully access it.

Temporary interruption
Access is temporarily unavailable because of maintenance, outages or technical problems.

Server shutdown
Online functionality is permanently discontinued while some or all of the game may remain usable.

Permanent Revocation
A legitimate purchaser permanently loses meaningful ability to download, launch or use what they paid for.

The proposed compensation should primarily apply to Permanent Revocation, with proportional remedies for substantial permanent loss of paid functionality.

Meaningful Access Matters

A game should not be considered “available” simply because its title remains visible in a PlayStation library.

Meaningful access should normally mean that the legitimate purchaser can reasonably:

download it;
install it;
launch it;
authenticate where necessary;
and use the functionality that was originally provided.
If the consumer cannot meaningfully use what they paid for, the fact that the purchase remains visible in an account should not end the discussion.

Protect the Developers and Publishers

This proposal is not about taking money away from creators.

Developers, publishers and licensors should continue receiving everything they are contractually entitled to from the original transaction.

Therefore:

Consumer compensation resulting from Sony’s later Permanent Revocation should not be funded by reducing contractual payments owed to developers, publishers or licensors.

Where Sony retained an economic share of the original transaction, Sony should use its own retained share to fund the consumer remedy.

If that is insufficient to provide the proposed minimum remedy, Sony should bear the difference rather than passing the cost on to creators.

The Consumer Should Not Have to Fight for What Sony Already Knows

Sony already has records of:

purchases;
prices paid;
accounts;
licenses;
downloads;
and entitlements.
If Sony can identify affected consumers, compensation should be provided automatically wherever reasonably possible.

The preferred process should be:

Sony identifies → Sony notifies → Sony provides the remedy.

Consumers should not have to prove something Sony already knows.

Consumers Should Have a Real Choice

Where possible, Sony should offer consumers meaningful options:

1. Restore access

If Sony can restore meaningful access, the consumer may choose to keep the original purchase.

2. Comparable replacement

Sony may offer a genuinely comparable alternative.

3. Monetary compensation

Where access cannot reasonably be restored, the consumer should have access to the proposed financial remedy.

PlayStation Store credit may be offered, but should not automatically be the consumer’s only option where a monetary remedy is appropriate.

The Guarantee Should Cover More Than the Base Game

The framework should also address paid:

DLC;
expansions;
season passes;
upgrades;
add-ons;
bundles;
pre-orders;
and other digital content.
If only part of a bundle is lost, compensation should generally reflect the value of the affected component.

If a substantial part of the bundle becomes unusable, a greater remedy may be appropriate.

Recent Purchases Deserve Stronger Protection

Someone who bought a game shortly before Sony announced its permanent removal had little opportunity to obtain value from the purchase.

The system should therefore take the time since purchase into account.

Recent purchasers should receive stronger protection, with transparent rules rather than arbitrary decisions.

Sony Should Give Reasonable Notice

Where reasonably possible, consumers should receive advance notice explaining:

what is being discontinued;
when access will end;
what functionality will be affected;
whether existing downloads will continue;
whether installed copies will remain usable;
what preservation options exist;
and what remedy will be available.
Consumers should not have to discover through trial and error that something they paid for has disappeared.

Preservation Should Be Considered Before Compensation

Where technically and legally feasible, Sony should consider reasonable ways of preserving access.

Depending on the game, this could include:

an offline-capable final version;
removing unnecessary authentication requirements;
continuing downloads for existing purchasers;
preserving single-player functionality;
or other reasonable preservation measures.
This does not require Sony to release source code, proprietary technology or intellectual property it has no right to distribute.

The principle is simply:

If meaningful access can reasonably be preserved, preservation should be considered before access is permanently removed.

No Hidden or Retroactive Escape Routes

Material limitations should be clearly disclosed before purchase.

Sony should not rely on:

hidden conditions;
confusing terminology;
or retroactive changes to Terms of Service
to eliminate consumer protection after a purchase has already been made.

Calling a product a “license,” “digital entitlement” or “service” should not by itself determine whether a consumer receives a fair remedy.

The substance and effect of the transaction matter.

Fair Exceptions

We recognize that protection cannot be unlimited.

The guarantee may reasonably exclude or modify claims involving:

fraud;
fraudulent payment;
chargeback abuse;
piracy;
deliberate account manipulation;
or serious abuse directly connected to the transaction.
But exceptions should be narrow, transparent and consistently applied.

Legitimate consumers should not lose their protection because of overly broad exceptions.

Consumers Should Not Have to Prove Sony Did Something Illegal

This proposal does not require Sony to have acted unlawfully.

Sony may have completely legitimate reasons for discontinuing a game.

The question is:

Who should bear the financial consequence when a legitimate paid digital product is permanently removed?

A consumer should not have to win a court case before receiving a basic, clearly defined consumer remedy.

Why This Is Fair

This proposal protects all sides.

Consumers

They do not lose 100% of the value of something they legitimately paid for.

Developers and Publishers

Their contractual revenue remains protected.

Sony

Sony retains the ability to discontinue games, close services and make legitimate business decisions.

But Sony also accepts responsibility for the consumer consequences of permanently removing paid digital access.

The Principle

Sony has enormous control over the modern digital gaming ecosystem.

Sony controls or influences:

digital distribution;
account access;
authentication;
downloads;
licenses;
and continued platform access.
That control provides enormous benefits.

With those benefits should come corresponding responsibilities.

A digital purchase may not give a consumer permanent ownership of intellectual property.

But it does involve:

real money, a real transaction and real consumer expectations.

If Sony later permanently removes meaningful access to that purchase, it should not automatically leave the consumer with:

100% of the financial loss.

Our Request

We call on Sony Interactive Entertainment / PlayStation to:

1. Establish a Digital Purchase Guarantee.

2. Clearly distinguish delisting, temporary interruption, server shutdown and Permanent Revocation.

3. Provide a proposed minimum remedy of 50% of the amount actually paid when meaningful access is permanently revoked.

4. Protect contractual payments owed to developers, publishers and licensors.

5. Fund the consumer remedy from Sony’s own retained economic share where applicable, without shifting the burden onto creators.

6. Provide reasonable advance notice whenever possible.

7. Consider reasonable preservation measures before permanent removal.

8. Automatically compensate identifiable affected consumers wherever feasible.

9. Give consumers a meaningful choice between restored access, a comparable alternative and monetary compensation where appropriate.

10. Apply the rules consistently, transparently and with a clear appeals process.

11. Prevent hidden or retroactive contractual provisions from defeating the basic principle.

12. Preserve all stronger consumer rights provided by applicable law.

We Are Not Asking for the Impossible

We are not asking Sony to:

keep every server online forever;
maintain every game indefinitely;
surrender intellectual property;
violate licensing agreements;
release source code;
or prevent legitimate business decisions.
We are asking Sony to recognize one basic principle:

When a company has the power to permanently take away something a consumer legitimately paid for, that power should come with a fair responsibility toward the consumer.

Protect the Consumer. Respect the Creators. Share the Risk Fairly.

Digital gaming is evolving.

Consumer rights should evolve with it.

If we pay for it, we should not lose everything when it is taken away.