No matter the justification? Do you mean no matter the implementation? Because that's the only unknown that would make a difference (I don't care how anyone chooses to justify it)— as it stands, we don't have enough info to say how this DRM check will be enforced. Some are finding this to be a one-time ordeal intended simply to quash a loophole that some were using to extend the refund window of digitally purchased product beyond Sony's allowed wnidow. Others are finding this to be a monthly check-in, a very aggressive form of anti-piracy measures.

In the former case, respectfully, what's so wrong about that? In the latter case, yeah, that's a bit much...though I would need to think on the implications before arriving at a "good/bad" conclusion.

In either case, best is it to simply sit down and wait. And if you are a current user in the PlayStation ecosystem, it may also be wise to hold off on digital purchases until clarification is provided, given this is something which really does matter to you.

Those are my two cents. Not commenting any further on this... it's a waste to debate on online forums.

Isn't it "one time" every time you purchase a new game? If you check-in, then buy another game and try to use that exploit, what do you think will happen?

"In the former case, respectfully, what's so wrong about that?"

And even in that case, it's as wrong as Nintendo going after piracy. There has been so much discourse about we not owning console X, Y or Z, but here is a clear example of Sony telling us what we can't do with the console we paid for. And before anyone says that refunding a digital game and keeping it is stealing, tell me, what downloading a ROM is then?

And btw, the only PlayStation I have is an old PS2 from a bygone era. I just want to see public discourse about something being consistent for once.

What's so wrong with Nintendo going after piracy? I'm against them going after repositories of games released pre-NS1 (i.e. games which are not currently available for sale through Nintendo) because lost media is a thing that exists, and I'd rather not see some obscure title such as Rainbow Island be without any means to play beyond purchasing a used disc on ebay for $100USD. But if we're talking games that are actively being sold or even have yet to release? Then yeah, I believe Nintendo has every right to target the means by which bad actors exploit their system.

Also, I do not believe that ownership should mean you have complete and total free reign to do what your heart desires— that said, the ability to pirate software is not a right which ownership of the hardware grants consumers IMO.

No, I honestly don't.  As a S1 and S2 owner, I got no idea what you are talking about.  

Can someone explain something to me? We have a thread bashing Sony, while someone in the same thread is claiming Sony gets a free pass.. am I the only one who is baffled and sees the clear paradox?

[deleted. This was a mean commenf.]

Nintendo isn't wrong for going after piracy and downloading roms is piracy.  

My view is something like pirating S1 or S2 games is flatly stealing.  I think downloading older games that are not reasonably available is still technically piracy but has an edge of justification.   One those games are not being sold new anymore, thus revenue back to the developers is not circumvented.  Two, reasonable access.  I wanted to play Soul Blazer earlier this year, not a whole lot of options.   

As for consistency, here you go.  MS, Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic all have a right to prevent piracy and there isn't anything wrong with a harmless internet background check that has zero impact on 99.9% of gamers.  

Just to clarify, the Nintendo bricking console is indeed a thing. It's listed in their User Agreement they reserve the rights to suspend your account (including making you lose the access of your digital games) and hacking your console to make it unusable

It was so blatantly illegal that Nintendo was notified by Latin American and European regulatory agencies and they needed to change their EULA in those regions

Since USA is a joke and with no serious laws regarding consumer protection, this part of the user agreement still at their USA EULA, which you can check here: https://accounts.nintendo.com/term/eula/US?lang=en-US

"You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part."

Hence, you can indeed lose your games and your console in case of whatever Nintendo describes as "exploitative use of account services"

PlayStation Users Report New Online License Checks, But Sony Quells Concerns - GameSpot

According to a statement Does it play? gave to Kotaku, the license-checks may have been introduced to combat refund scams, but were designed to convert into unlimited licenses afterward.

That appears to be the case, with an SIE spokesperson telling GameSpot the following:

"Players can continue to access and play their purchased games as usual. A one-time online check is required to confirm the game's license, after which no further check-ins are required."

Sony made a statement, topic over and done with. Enough with the fake outrage, if you have a Nintendo avatar it doesn't concern you anyways. Move on, case closed.  

Good to have what appears to be an official statement.

Hopefully that explanation will be present in the PS Store when you are buying the games, as they need to properly inform customers of this requirement.

I also sure hope anyone can know if their game has passed that check or not yet, unless they confirm finishing the download and/or booting it up once guarantees that check.

As it is an one time only check, and you need to have internet to make the purchase and download the game regardless, if this can be checked immediatly after downloading the game I consider it a non-issue from now on.

Properly communicating is the bare mininum, tho.