Support NeoGAF

[Yoday]

and I don't think you will ever see digital distribution servers shut down. Digital is the future wether we like it or not.
digital buyers would be up in arms the same way if there game was stripped away. If Sony wants to take a game back from you just because you bought a disc copy doesn't make you exempt.

Yep. I think the transition to phasing out physical media is going to start this generation, and probably pretty early on. Walmart is starting to sell digital versions of movies for their vudu service in stores now. It isnt a huge thing yet, but it is starting. I would be shocked if we didn't start to see digital games being sold in stores like Walmart within a year. People make the mistake of assuming digital distribution of will cut out the retailers that sell the systems, but that doesn't have to be the case, and probably won't be for much longer.

The point is that like it or not, this is indeed the future of media distribution, so it is a good idea to start coming to terms with what that means, and hope that future federal regulation gives consumers a bit more in the way of digital rights.

 

[Canis lupus]

So, the main take away I got from this wall o' text is that according to Sony we have no purchase rights to any software we buy for the system. Instead we are "licensors" who have no rights of ownership for said software. Now for the legal difference between a license and a purchase

Do you even know how digital downloads work? You don't own the software in no DD you "purchase", not on Steam nor on Itunes, here's Steam Subscriber Agreement:

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms) in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.

Good job trying to single out the evil on PSN.

 

[soul creator]

On a somewhat related note, I've thought for a while that the interesting thing about console games is that for pretty much its entire history, the actual physical media it was sold on, and the performance of the game itself were directly tied together. So a side effect of that was pretty much everyone equating the game itself with the physical media that it was on.

With the 360/PS3/Wii, most console gamers got their first taste of downloadable games. But since these were segregated and placed in a different area, people still thought "digital" or "downloadable" games were completely different from "physical" (aka, "real") games. Hence all the weird comments people would say about how they understand why physical games don't work on the new systems, but their downloadable games should still work on the new systems.

The introduction of the disc install functionality for the 360 was kind of the first taste of breaking that association between "disc" and "game". Now, you could install the entire game to the hard drive, and technically speaking, the game didn't give a shit about the disc anymore. Literally the only reason for the disc at this point was just to prove you weren't a thief. But since people are still used to thinking of "discs" and "games" as the same thing, no one complains about needing to put the disc in as an anti-theft measure (heavy PC users obviously differ, since they always had big hard drives to fully install games, so they have a different relationship with physical media than primarily console gamers).

Same thing applies to the PS4/XB1 now. There is zero technical reason for the disc on these systems, once the game has been installed. But since console gamers are used to thinking physical media=games, people are mostly fine with that, since it's a system they understand, and have understood for 30+ years now. Of course, one company asked "the disc isn't needed to run the game, so why do we need it inserted all the time?" and then tried to get rid of the need to launch discs. But of course, they still needed a "prove you're not a thief" solution, which led to all the fun times of May/June 2013. And since most people still think discs=games, that was a big shock to the system.

"always needs a disc inserted" won out over "always online" as the console gamer approved DRM method (especially since this method helps keep the "your game is actually a license" language unenforceable)

 

[andshrew]

Yes I'm sure I had it set as primary. I did not disconnect the internet and attempt to access them as I was running late for work.

But this is all besides the point. The point I'm trying to make is that the current connected ecosystem allows for "licensors" to legally lock you out of purchased content for pretty much whatever reason they want and since physical media also relies on installed data and is considered a license as well it too could be blocked by a licensor. LEGALLY. With absolutely no recourse for the consumer. The potential for corporate dickery is clear. That is what scares me. I don't like the idea of one day putting in my disc for Final Fantasy XV and getting an invalid license message.

They can't practically lock you out of your retail games though when the console works offline so it's a pointless debate.

If your console was set as the Primary for your account then, unfortunately, something clearly went wrong as what you experienced is not how it is supposed to work. If your console is Primary you can play all digital content offline until it reaches the expiry date ie. never if it's purchased, or the end of your PS+ sub if it's a game from that.

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

I'm not sure what that had to do with what I posted? Yes, the reason things are fine as is for people is because it is working out, currently. I dont see any reason for corporations to fuck it up majorly, because if they do they will get the courts involved and then they will regret it. However, being able to sell your digital goods(in the US) is a fight that I dont think is very far away.

im all for the good fight as a consumer to see digital prosparity but I just hope we have our priorities set and we fight for things like getting digital games slightly cheaper then retail copies.

 

[unbias]

im all for the good fight as a consumer to see digital prosparity but I just hope we have our priorities set and we fight for things like getting digital games slightly cheaper then retail copies.

Being able to sell digital goods would give consumers more liquidity then cheaper prices, digital vs retail.

 

[romulus91]

This is news to me. Can you point me to a source on that? I've known about digital purchases as "licenses" for a while but I have never heard or seen anything implying such a treatment for physical retail purchases. This is the first I'm seeing of physical retail purchases being treated as a license outside of Microsoft's initial proposal for XB1.

The intellectual property on the disc and on the PS4 via download is the same. They provide a non-exclusive license to use the software. The difference with physical, is that you actually own the disc and so there is additional implied license that allow others using your property to also use it. The source is extensive case law but since the Berne convention, these rights have been fairly uniform across the world.

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

Being able to sell digital goods would give consumers more liquidity then cheaper prices, digital vs retail.

true true but first and foremost if you are buying from PSN or XBL you shouldn't be having to spend a full 60 to own the game. How much is it to make a bluray disc? I will say 5 dollars in materials rough estimate not accurate. Also the case and booklet probably cost a few bucks to make. If the cost to make that was knocked off digital game purchases I would be fine with that.

 

[OmegaDL50]

I knew someone that owned a PS3 who never downloaded any firmware updates. He said that Sony puts "hooks" into the software that acts as a killswitch to prevent you from playing any game on your console at any time, as an over controlling DRM. He was also one that used the Linux OS option in the PS3 and installed custom firmware and exploited his system with illegally obtained software and such.

His views on the EULA and Sony's service in regards to updates, didn't really make much sense. I think he just wanted any excuse to grasp to false justify his console piracy. Generally DRM was designed to combat software pirates, and yet more often then not when the DRM fails, it effects the paying customer. Making most DRM pointless. I have no problems with PSN or Steam though, as evident my fairly large game library for both services would suggest.

true true but first and foremost if you are buying from PSN or XBL you shouldn't be having to spend a full 60 to own the game. How much is it to make a bluray disc? I will say 5 dollars in materials rough estimate not accurate. Also the case and booklet probably cost a few bucks to make. If the cost to make that was knocked off digital game purchases I would be fine with that.

It's more then just this.

There is manufacturing, distribution, and retail costs involved. Also advertising costs as well.

More often you see many games don't come with paper manuals anymore. They basically cut one expenditure out of the game by including a digital manual nowadays.

Also when you take away shelf space for retail copies and replace that with the costs of hosting services for a digital copy to be stored on the server. I'm sure outside the licensing costs, Sony / MS gets a fee to upkeep and maintain the hosting expense of the digital library by many a 3rd party publisher, and Sony / MS will naturally pass these costs onto the consumer.

So be it physical or digital, there are expenses for both involved.

 

[unbias]

true true but first and foremost if you are buying from PSN or XBL you shouldn't be having to spend a full 60 to own the game. How much is it to make a bluray disc? I will say 5 dollars in materials rough estimate not accurate. Also the case and booklet probably cost a few bucks to make. If the cost to make that was knocked off digital game purchases I would be fine with that.

Oh yes, digital goods should be, and imo, need to be cheaper for the health of the industry. With the rise of digital sales, what the industry will see is a drop in liquidity because there will be less fungible dollars(and games) due to less used games, which will reduce the amount of money on hand consumer have for games. The second hand market is needed to keep consumers more loose with their money and more willing to pick up the "new" title. Since this market, even more so then a lot of others depends on the new, that lack of liquidity from going all digital is going to be a problem long term. We are starting to see signs of the market adapting in the console arena, but nothing to show that they are doing enough. Looks like they might try and change the sport all together and try and move into a "games as a service" and stop competing in the traditional sense. We will see how it goes.

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

to Omega cool name btw, do you think those digital library fees upstage damaged disc fees? also I can play my digital games offline with no internet in my home. What are they maintaining from that? I pay for the license DL it and then unplug my net and its on my console.

 

[unbias]

It's more then just this.

There is manufacturing, distribution, and retail costs involved. Also advertising costs as well.

More often you see many games don't come with paper manuals anymore. They basically cut one expenditure out of the game by including a digital manual nowadays.

Also when you take away shelf space for retail copies and replace that with the costs of hosting services for a digital copy to be stored on the server. I'm sure outside the licensing costs, Sony / MS gets a fee to upkeep and maintain the hosting expense of the digital library by many a 3rd party publisher, and Sony / MS will naturally pass these costs onto the consumer.

So be it physical or digital, there are expenses for both involved.

Wait, you think DD is comparable to warehouse, manufacturing, shipping and maintaining goods on a cost vs cost basis?

 

[OmegaDL50]

to Omega cool name btw, do you think those digital library fees upstage damaged disc fees? also I can play my digital games offline with no internet in my home. What are they maintaining from that? I pay for the license DL it and then unplug my net and its on my console.

If you ever delete the game to free up HDD space for example. And want to download it again in the future. Even for some games that get delisted such as Outrun Online Arcade for example.

You bought the game and have the rights to use it, and even download it again if you delete it. So, Sony / MS will naturally put aside space to host even game no longer being sold digitally for the existing customers that purchased it.

I think these costs being able to have access to your digital library at any time, as long as the service is maintained, it's a trade off I suppose.

Also digital game purchases do not have any sales tax associated with them. (God forbid they start attaching regional sales tax to digital purchases on PSN, XBL or Steam)

I do agree that digital titles should be at a discount compared to a retail copy due to the lack of being a physical good.

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

If you ever delete the game to free up HDD space for example. And want to download it again in the future. Even for some games that get delisted such as Outrun Online Arcade for example.

You bought the game and have the rights to use it, and even download it again if you delete it. So, Sony / MS will naturally put aside space to host even game no longer being sold digitally for the existing customers that purchased it.

I think these costs being able to have access to your digital library at any time, as long as the service is maintained, it's a trade off I suppose.

Also digital game purchases do not have any sales tax associated with them. (God forbid they start attaching regional sales tax to digital purchases on PSN, XBL or Steam)

I do agree that digital titles should be at a discount compared to a retail copy due to the lack of being a physical good.

interesting I always assumed those DL was attached to a cloud within your consoles database.

 

[OmegaDL50]

Wait, you think DD is comparable to warehouse, manufacturing, shipping and maintaining goods on a cost vs cost basis?

No.

I think there is some costs for both.

Be it games taking retail shelf space or being hosted on a server, both have their own costs.

Physical goods though have the factor of being able to be resold.

Also retail stores constantly rotate and push their stock to emphasize the newest games, so the second hand market has some benefit in which you can buy that 6 year old game that your local game store is no longer selling.

Outside of delisted games in the case of my above example. I can go back to some of the earliest digital titles from back in 2007 and buy them. Sony / MS will still have them available for sale even if a retail equivalent is not nearly as easy to find, until the license expires and the game is delisted, of course.

Which is another factor as well the fluctuating costs of physical versions of games which become scarce due to limited print runs or just small amount of copies distributed period (Take note of the prices of games like Suikoden II), where as a Digital copy more or less has a constant pricing, the exception being some discounts.

Being a regular purchaser of Humble Bundles and ridiculous Steam sales at like 70%+ off, has made the digital game pill easier to swallow.

 

[Moosichu]

Even though its in a licence agreement. Surely if it came to court some of those points could be deemed illegal.

 

[Nzyme32]

I find this whole "understanding owner ship of digital via terms and conditions" thing kind of difficult

By doing this you can see that by all technicality, you do not own your game.

However over all the time that I have gone digital (almost a decade on PC) I feel like the whole thing is dependant on trust and being able to see that things are done in favour of you - the consumer/gamer.

Whether you choose to trust Sony, Microsoft, blizzard, GoG, steam or whatever, to maintain your games and keep them as your own, is going to be up to you. With steam I took a lot of baby steps to determine if I would like it or not and whether they would treat me well along with the games. Offline mode issues were addressed to function indefinitely, games taken off the store remain your own and still accessible whenever, the service remains functional almost always etc etc. Point is there are plenty of little things and consistent things that give me trust in the service and that they won't pull the rug from under me and damage or prevent access to games - even though they could, and always can do those things. Of course contrary to this, there are services I do not trust for the opposite reasons - hello Origin and Uplay on PC.

I'd be certain over time the same could be seen for psn and Xbox live, if not already; assuming they are always working to protect and maintain what you have.

All that said though, with the way patching and online connectivity for games has become, to the point that some games simply lose support of the dev them selves and functionality ends, I don't think anyone owns their games anymore.

 

[B_Boss]

Very interesting topic. I think it's relevant for every generation to have really. Last night I thought that, due to the outage I would play an hour or so of Fez but the license error message came up as I tried playing it and my games (all digital by the way) had padlock "icons" on the covers. I said to myself "whoa" but figured maybe it was because the game was a part of PS+ and if it isn't online then it is as if there is no PS+ and if you've downloaded a game as a result of PS+ and there is no PS+....well it is as if you simply don't own the game lol...now the issue of purchasing a digital game, at least back the if you purchases a PS1 disc and Sony's servers shit down at least you knew you could still play the game no matter what but I guess these are the choices we and others make for us.

 

[JP]

This appears to be exactly the same as any other media you buy. For example, if you buy a CD you own the actual disc but with the content on the disc you're only paying for a license to use it. The same with a book too. I'm not sure how it would hold up legally if a publisher ever chose to recall something as it would surely be far more trouble for them than it was worth, I can;t think of any occasion where it could benefit them.

 

[Radec]

You don't own the software when you buy it. You bought permission to use the software as intended.

Without these EULA or licenses, you can re-sell that software legally.

 

[Qassim]

As mentioned previously, this is standard for commercial software, physical or digital. I tell people this applies to physical copies too. You don't *own the game*, you own a license. But I'm usually shouted down as wrong - read the documentation that comes with your game (back of the box or instruction manual, or in-game documentation).

PS3 software states:

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY SCEE."

The reality is though, it's not really all that easy to enforce that.

 

[Drek]

This is an inherent caveat with all media since digital storage was introduced to the mass market, and by digital I don't mean digital distribution via the internet. I mean anything that stores media as 0's and 1's instead of a deformed vinyl plate, magnetic strip, etc..

When we changed over to CDs, DVDs, etc. the media industry understood just how easy it would be to copy and rolled out some aggressive litigious language from day one. That hasn't made a dent in people copying media, but that was the original intent. It has however worked out fantastically well as consumers move them into a digital distribution model where that same legalese is now infinitely more applicable and useful where the media creator and the media provider are either the same entity or closely partnered and therefore benefiting greatly from the "freedom" such a stipulation in usage rights allows.

This is why Microsoft could just unilaterally release a heavy DRM machine and if people bought it good enough. The legal protections are all already in place for every company, we as consumers gave that up before we even knew what it really meant as a society. Now we're stuck with it and all we can do is support those who don't abuse it and speak out against those who do.

 

[Kamina]

While the fact that you only own a license is true for both digital and physical, in case of physical you still OWN a disc to which the license is tied and which cannot not revoked.

 

[conman]

Many folks in this thread don't understand basic principles of international intellectual property law. This is nothing new and applies to music, movies, books, and all other forms of media. This has been true for a very, very long time. You all are barking up the wrong tree. There are some seriously bad parts of digital media property law, but this is not one of them.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

As many have already pointed out, this fine print is typical of the way it's always been. Digital or physical, it's all the same. You don't truly own any of these games, you purchase a license that allows you to play them. It's not illegal as some have suggested, in fact, this is standard in intellectual property laws.

As far as people not being able to play offline modes or single player games while PSN was down, that wasn't policy, that was a glitch in the system. Normally, these games are playable offline.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

It looks closer and closer like this will be my last console for me. I don't own the games Sony? You don't get my money.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

It looks closer and closer like this will be my last console for me. I don't own the games Sony? You don't get my money.

Really? Were you up in arms when the Dreamcast had these same stipulations? The PS1? The PS2? The Xbox? You guys are losing your shit over legalese.

 

[bobot]

Never been a fan of licensing, but there's models I'll tolerate. Psn plus subscription and even what ea is doing to a degree is the best way. If it's leasing software then model it after real estate. You shouldn't pay a new home price if you are just leasing the place.

Edit: I'm trying to work out destiny at the moment. What price am I prepared to pay for what is effectively a 10 year licence?

 

[Pankratous]

People didn't know about licensing and thought it was a new thing? That's cute!

 

[Shmuely Bully]

I'm well aware that both physical and digital copies are licensed, not sold according to Sony/EA/Microsoft/whoever else; however, they really have no way to prevent you from reselling a physical disc legally speaking and would get themselves in plenty of hot water if they tried.

You don't have that with digital copies and that is just one reason I'm not a fan of them.

 

[RexNovis]

This is an inherent caveat with all media since digital storage was introduced to the mass market, and by digital I don't mean digital distribution via the internet. I mean anything that stores media as 0's and 1's instead of a deformed vinyl plate, magnetic strip, etc..

When we changed over to CDs, DVDs, etc. the media industry understood just how easy it would be to copy and rolled out some aggressive litigious language from day one. That hasn't made a dent in people copying media, but that was the original intent. It has however worked out fantastically well as consumers move them into a digital distribution model where that same legalese is now infinitely more applicable and useful where the media creator and the media provider are either the same entity or closely partnered and therefore benefiting greatly from the "freedom" such a stipulation in usage rights allows.

This is why Microsoft could just unilaterally release a heavy DRM machine and if people bought it good enough. The legal protections are all already in place for every company, we as consumers gave that up before we even knew what it really meant as a society. Now we're stuck with it and all we can do is support those who don't abuse it and speak out against those who do.

Well said. This is precisely what I plan to do I guess I was just flabbergasted by the language in the agreement. It makes me very uncomfortable giving that much potential power to any corporation. I'm not really sure what else could be done at this point other than crossing your fingers and boycotting at the first sign of abuse.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Go ready any license agreement. When you buy a disk it means you own the physical disk, not the content on it.

Yea, I was pretty sure I read this language on my old game manuals. It's also the reason you're not allowed to reprint your copy and sell off counterfeits. You don't own the content, only the license.

 

[Lurch666]

The fact that this agreement has been around for years is irreverent.It is still wrong that something I have bought can be taken away from me.

From me not being able to re-download games bought digitally on my new 3ds because I sold my old one before and couldn't do a license transfer to the dude who had ALL his PSN games blocked because of a paypal problem.

The fact that new consoles are always online means that a publisher could revoke rights to any digital game I own or put something on the system to stop a physical copy from working.(I don't think the second one has ever been done but it's a possibility)

 

[GSG Flash]

I'd really like to see Sony try to revoke licenses for physical copies, that would definitely go over well.

 

[Neuromancer]

Here's another shocker: You can buy some Steam games on a disc, and the only thing you can do with them is tie them to your Steam account. Once that's done, no one else can ever play the game, except you. Sure, you still have a right to sell the physical disc to someone else, but even if they bought it, they couldn't play the actual game. They can maybe install it, but they'd have to buy their own full-priced license from the Steam store to actually play it. So you have this physical game that you bought, but you effectively can never sell it to someone else. This has existed since 2004!

Valve is anti-consumer!

Spoiler

I don't seriously believe that, but according to the "anyone who restricts my physical resale rights is anti-consumer" line of logic...

And this is the reason I bailed out of PC gaming around that time. I came back eventually but only to take advantage of steam sales for the occasional exclusive.

 

[jorma]

It's also the reason you're not allowed to reprint your copy and sell off counterfeits. You don't own the content, only the license.

No, the reason for that is because you don't own the copyright. You can't do that in EU either, even though you own the copy of the game you paid for.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Well said. This is precisely what I plan to do I guess I was just flabbergasted by the language in the agreement. It makes me very uncomfortable giving that much potential power to any corporation. I'm not really sure what else could be done at this point other than crossing your fingers and boycotting at the first sign of abuse.

And that's all we can do. MS tried for the first time in decades (for gaming) to inch that line in the sand, and everyone flipped their collective shit. And we'll just have to do it again, if pressed. It's not the best system for consumers, but it's one that works for all parties involved. I know I won't want to disrupt the current balance just because one jackass wants a slightly fatter margin for his company

No, the reason for that is because you don't own the copyright. You can't do that in EU either, even though you own the copy of the game you paid for.

Oh, well thank you for the correction. I guess I was mistaken.

 

[JCizzle]

Not true. I had my PS4 set as primary and ALL my licenses were revoked during the outage. They all appeared with a lock symbol on them and accessing them gave me a message saying that my license was invalid. I was unable to restore them because the network was non responsive and was thus unable to play the games until the network came back up..

Same here.

 

[Deadpool_X]

This has been the case all along. This is why it is illegal to make "back up copies" in the form of ROMS. When you pay money for a game, you are paying a licensing fee to play that game on the format you purchased it on. When you create a rom, you have changed the format of the game, and therefore, you do not have the legal rights to play it anymore.

You don't own any video game. You merely licensed out a disc or digital copy of the game for your use.

 

[DryvBy]

Yup. You've been a licensee of anything you buy on disk for a very, very long time. It's just that no one ever reads the EULA.

The difference is I can always play my game as long as I have the hardware. I don't have to hope I'm allowed to play it.

I will never be fully digital.

 

[Fox Mulder]

This is why I only pay $20 at most for a digital game when I can buy it at retail.

 

[Dragonborn]

This is how Digital has always been dude, you're only now finding this out? Same thing for physical, publishers have always consodered a licence hence the debate over used games.

But yea, if this is an issuebfor you, I definitely suggest going the physical route

 

[Agent X]

As far as people not being able to play offline modes or single player games while PSN was down, that wasn't policy, that was a glitch in the system. Normally, these games are playable offline.

That's one of the reasons why people are concerned. Even though this might have been an unintentional "glitch", the fact of the matter is that it (temporarily) rendered games unplayable.

These aren't people creating "hacks" or "backup copies" for purposes that may or may not be legal. These are law-abiding citizens who merely inserted a disc into a video game console and wanted to play the game in the manner that the publisher advertised. If that right can be arbitrarily revoked by the publisher and/or the platform creator at any time (whether intentionally or unintentionally), then consumers are certainly going to voice their concerns.

 

[MMaRsu]

Well its been that way for a long time. also i had no problems playing my digital games when Sony servers were offline. I could play them all!!

Isnt this the same on Steam and Xbox?

 

[CambriaRising]

Well its been that way for a long time. also i had no problems playing my digital games when Sony servers were offline. I could play them all!!

Isnt this the same on Steam and Xbox?

Same here. Restore your licenses after every new purchase and you won't be affected guys.

 

[Schweinehund]

It means you don't own the game

Has there ever been a point where we've technically owned the game? Like the source code and everything? I started playing games in mid 90's so ToS's have been commonplace, but I get the sense that we've never really owned software in it's entirety.

 

[Dragonborn]

Has there ever been a point where we've technically owned the game? Like the source code and everything? I started playing games in mid 90's so ToS's have been commonplace, but I get the sense that we've never really owned software in it's entirety.

Nope, games have always been treated as licenses

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

and I don't think you will ever see digital distribution servers shut down. Digital is the future wether we like it or not.
digital buyers would be up in arms the same way if there games was stripped away. If Sony wants to take a game back from you just because you bought a disc copy doesn't make you exempt.

Games have been removed from digital distribution though, for various reason, mostly license issues. We've also seen game modes and such rendered unplayable when service was discontinued.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Really? Were you up in arms when the Dreamcast had these same stipulations? The PS1? The PS2? The Xbox? You guys are losing your shit over legalese.

I can still play my PS2 games while almost all these games coming out nowadays have a bullshit hidden online DRM added into it. BF4 needs online to remember single player settings when I played.

 

[mattp]

are all of you guys that naive and/or young?
you realize you only own a license to basically any software you've ever bought right? this isn't even new to digital downloads. go check the legal text in the box of anything you've ever bought