Sony argues that any reasonable gamer understands purchasing a game means licensing it, not owning it. While technically true — software licenses grant limited usage rights that vendors can revoke by shutting down servers — the article contends Sony mixes truth with a "bold-faced lie." Gamers expect purchased games to remain playable for a reasonable period, yet laws requiring vendors to maintain service or refund unused value are largely absent.

Sony's ownership argument claims software cannot be sold because it is not finite, citing a hypothetical where plaintiff Jason Mendoza buying Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026 would prevent Edward Heycock from purchasing it on February 25, 2026 since Mendoza would "own" the singular instance. The author dismisses this as absurd: software copies are like cups — buying one doesn't remove it from inventory. Infinite copies can be produced at near-zero cost.

The lawsuit centers on "Buy now" buttons allegedly implying ownership when only a license is sold. The author suggests plaintiffs erred in framing this as false advertising; the core issue is consumers pay for value that can be unilaterally revoked. Sony's licensing argument holds weight, but its ownership logic is "ridiculous on its face."