Why is the bolded part (all new games (f. e. GTA6 or Wolverine) wouldn't run with the older firmwares) illegal? You say yourself that PS discs actually come with the necessary firmware to run the game because of that.

So all new physical games would include the necessary firmware with the added ad-system, which would result into "all new games (f. e. GTA6 or Wolverine) wouldn't run with the older (ad-free) firmwares". 

So if you insert one of these new PS5 discs with the "malware firmware" included, you would have to decide to

• decline the firmware to keep your ad-free PS5 ad-free, but you can't use it for any 2027+ PS5 game (either physical or digital) and you can't use the PS Store anymore if it needs the "malware firmware"
• accept the firmware installation and MANY (in the worst case ALL) older and newer PS4 + PS5 games (no matter if physical or digital) on that system now have annoying ads every x minutes on a system level.

And this choice ain't hypothetical. Sony removed Linux and other PS3 features with firmware updates. Most PS3 gamers accepted the firmware installation because access to the newer PS3 games (physical and digital) and access to the PS Store was more important to them than keeping those features. 

Monetizing the existing userbase could mean literally anything: Adding features to higher PS+ tiers to convince existing uses to upgrade is monetising the userbase. Having regular sales to encourage more spending is monetising the userbase. Adding more Dualsense and faceplate colours is monetising the userbase. 

These are logical examples. Yet, this thread is filled with users echoing more increasing the price of PS+ (correlation not causation), adding ads to games (which appears to come from a patent), and forcing people into a subscription just to play games (which is quite frankly the most laughable suggestion) as if these are all confirmed to be happening. And anyone who has a thought different from the groupthink here is being demonised.

How else should I view this except as very blatant examples of fearmongering? 

Should we be concerned? Sure, no company is your friend. But will Sony do these things you claim they will? Maybe. Or maybe they won't. We just don't know.

Okej,then mark my words.

They will.

I don't think the Linux part has anything to do with the game conversation, even if it can be relevant to features being take away with updates.

But I did not interprete what you said in the bolded part right.

You never disputed what I thought you did which was physical games having access to the necessary firmware to run without internet. It would be illegal to sell a product that can't be played without X or Y condition unless very clearly specificied in the case, as is the caae with games that do require downloads of portions of it or the full download to work.

Yes, if you refuse the firmware update in the disc you won't be able to play that game, and a firmware update could affect all games potentially.

But now, the bolded part in the reply, wouldn't all the companies involved in the system level update to add ad monetization to their games need to effectively contractually agree with, and be paid for, one by one, otherwise this update would only affect the game in case itself?

I think Sony profting on ads in other people games without them agreeing would be illegal too, lol.

Never touched crunchy roll and I always watch whatever anime I want too. There are so many sites that stream anime besides CR.

I wish I was active when this announcement was made. There is just to much to absorb in this thread at a quick glance.

But I'm curious; How much longer did you these expect these manufactuers to support physical game release when global digital sales are in the fucking mid 80's?

As many pointed out,that %ratio of physical vs digital is heavily skewed, it includes

Dlc

10cent digital only games

Ad on packs etc.

If there are 4000games but only 1500are physical+digital and 2500 are digital only yet they also account towards the digital vs physical ratio.

Want to say another thing.

If the ps5 sold 1bill pieces of software, and 20% is physical, thats 200MILLION physical sale's

Make up your own mind if that is enough.

I mentioned in a different thread that actual spending paints a different story.

In the US for 2025, physical video game spending was at $1.5 billion across all platforms. Across PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox combined. In comparison, physical game spending peaked in 2008 at $11.6 billion. An 87% drop. And we're at a time where AAA games are costing $70 each, compared to 2008 when they were still $60. That's for the largest gaming market in the world. Europe is in a very similar state as well.

I still am of the belief that if Sony was that desperate to keep profit margins, pass the cost onto the consumer. $20 extra for physical copies. The hardcore crowd will still buy because the important thing is that the option is still there. $1.5 billion, while a drop of water compared to how it used to be, is still a LOT of money being left on the table.

The contractional agreement would be in the firmware agreement and it would be only between Sony (platform holder) and the PS-gamer (end user). The subject of the agreement would be pausing a game (no matter if first party or third party, no matter if physical or digital version) -> showing ads -> unpausing the game. Why should Sony be obligated to invole all third party companies for that?

I doubt that Amazon / Apple / Disney / Netflix involves every content provider for that shit in their streaming services. Or Sony adapts the contracts with the third party developers for using the network services, too.

Well what is the percentage of physical music? Like 98% digital? Dont really see the point of not trying to appeal to a pretty big chunk of your fanbase. Just let companies like Limited Run Games do the physical for you. At least try and phase it out instead of just stopping completely.