This is going nowhere whoever filed this lawsuit is a moron 
Reuters] Sony facing $7.9 bln mass lawsuit over PlayStation Store prices
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
Apparently because they're market leader in 'high end consoles' they should make less money than every other storefront
Consoles will go away completely if that happens why bother making hardware & often losing money on it if you aren't making money on software
Why is Sony always the target?
The prices on PSN are the same or cheaper then everywhere else. The prices are set by the publishers anyway, not Sony and the 30% cut is standard across the industry. They barely make a profit already.
I know the lawsuit is BS but I'm still worried because these judges and lawyers are completely clueless and they don't understand the video game business as we've seen during the Activision trial. Clown show.
MS will get involved and support this lawsuit because their console is dead and they want to put Game Pass on PS5.
Nintendo Eshop is actually more expensive and even their gift cards you can buy in stores are always full price. It's a scam and they are anti-consumer.
The prices on PSN are the same or cheaper then everywhere else. The prices are set by the publishers anyway, not Sony and the 30% cut is standard across the industry. They barely make a profit already.
I know the lawsuit is BS but I'm still worried because these judges and lawyers are completely clueless and they don't understand the video game business as we've seen during the Activision trial. Clown show.
MS will get involved and support this lawsuit because their console is dead and they want to put Game Pass on PS5.
Nintendo Eshop is actually more expensive and even their gift cards you can buy in stores are always full price. It's a scam and they are anti-consumer.
Honestly, look under the hood and consoles basically are extremely limited computers, and they always have been.
I think the sum being asked for here is ridiculous, and don't think that console manufactures should have to play nice with third parties, but it should be legal to jailbreak or otherwise sideload stuff on them without breaking either warranties or the law, which should include alternate storefronts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah Jailbreaking and running your own stuff ... I can totally see that. It should be your device once you buy something, and you can do what you want with it. But they aren't sold and marketed as "computers," and they have never been intended to use that way. They are toys for entertainment. "Phones" i.e. our pocket supercomputers (from a historical perspective) that happen to be able to make calls, are our gateways to our lives for MOST people these days. And there are basically two vendors for that. It's a ridiculous situation.
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]
No, that's stupid. Console costs are subsidized to where usually, the manufacturer is either losing money or barely making a profit off the hardware, so that they can recoup those costs and make the actual profit in software sales. Having full vertical integration and control of the digital storefront is part of that business model, as is the industry-standard 30% cut (tho in some cases the cut can be lower, see Sony with ABK (pre-MS acquisition), or EGS, etc.).
What you're asking for is PC-like user freedom on products that are fundamentally NOT built on a PC business model. They are not built to where the manufacturer makes big profit off the hardware sales directly (well, Nintendo does, but they do this by using outdated or limited chip tech and it's to offset lack of 3P revenue on their platform when compared to Sony or even Microsoft). Legal jailbreaking and sideloading on consumer gaming consoles would effectively unravel the traditional console business model altogether, lead to rampant piracy, and a collapse in market revenue as well as pose security risks for customers of the gaming platforms.
In short, it's a bad idea. The closest to 'sideloading' we've seen with consoles is Other OS on PS3, and Dev Mode for Xbox Series, both of which have a myriad of problems. The former led to security exploits, while the latter is mainly used by people who are illegally emulating other console platforms and their games for entertainment purposes, not even for software preservation (let alone software development). These aren't features the mainstream market need or even want.
Going back to the failures of this lawsuit, the woman pursuing it is also ignorant that the frequent digital discounts and sales Sony do on PS+ is partly only possible because of how they have the store set up. They ignore that subscribers to PS+ can earn points redeemable towards digital games in the store, in some cases without even needing to pay a cent for the game. And like others have said, they are ignorant to the fact that brick-and-mortar chains provide natural pricing competition, and PlayStation consoles still provide a physical option that's actually heavily usable in normal cases, unlike Xbox (where the disc is just a DRM code) and Nintendo (where the cartridges are very small in size so some games can't even fit all the data on them).
This lawsuit is a failure in the making.
@thicc_girls_are_teh_best I don't care what their business model is. The law is the law is the law and you can't violate it just because doing so would make you money. Once they sell the box its the customer's to do with as you please.
Edit: We've had legal sideloading in the US since the 80s, from open systems like the VCS through reverse engineered Nintendo and Sega carts to XBMC though its become less common (outside of piracy) as time goes on.
Edit: We've had legal sideloading in the US since the 80s, from open systems like the VCS through reverse engineered Nintendo and Sega carts to XBMC though its become less common (outside of piracy) as time goes on.
Yes that’s true but alternative store fronts may solve some of the price issues. 3rd party devs aren’t getting enough of a cut of their own profits nowadays.
Okay, but the thing is Sony isn't doing anything anticompetitive. Sony is offering a service, namely hosting your game and providing access to their customer base, to use that service you need to agree to their terms i.e. turn over a 30% cut of the sales to Sony. Sony isn't forcing them to only release on Playstation. Nothing stops these developers from making their own storefronts or launchers, hosting their own games on their own servers, and providing their customers with their own hardware. Saying "you aren't allowed to sell vouchers of digital games outside of the Sony store" is just saying you aren't allowed to circumvent the agreement to yield a cut of your revenues when you sell your games on our platform.
Never cheering for a corporation, neither Sony or MS. So let the evidence speak
Actually I think it is not that bad since Sony always sale their game after an period, plus devs are the one who set sale on each sale period. And they are always on sale.
Also there is the physical discs market which is superior anyway. It is up to the devs, not Sony.
Also there is the physical discs market which is superior anyway. It is up to the devs, not Sony.
Also anothing to add is that just like physical release, digital game code require devs to step in allow it to be distributed.
Both Sony and devs would take the fee just like physical.
So idk, why would not you buy physical in the first place? Would not make sense for indie devs either since they still take that distribution fee.
Both Sony and devs would take the fee just like physical.
So idk, why would not you buy physical in the first place? Would not make sense for indie devs either since they still take that distribution fee.
it depends.
weak competition can embolden market leaders.
Also, Sony does have high prices on its storefront, so does Nintendo... and probably MS.
100% digital removes the offer\production\distribution from the pricing equation, price is mostly a marketing toy at this point.
But the lawsuit is stupid, I wonder how a brain dead person can afford a lawyer.
Android allows for other storefronts to be installed. Hell, there are android distributions without play store. Android is also open source, meaning anybody can essentially compile their own OS, load their favourite storefront, and not rely on Google at all.
Good thing android has allowed this for over a decade then.
I remember the woman who started this went to reddit to discuss this with the "community" expecting alot of support for this and was practically ripped to shreds on it.
Still find this pathetic that she's only going after Playstation but Xbox does the same thing. Nintendo is the only one that sells digital game codes in stores and even then it's only a select bunch of their signature titles. The fact that the London Tribunal passed this through shows how much of a joke it is over there. No offense to the the U.K. residents here.
Yeah I agree But keeping prices low is good for consumers And if consumers only have one singular outlet to purchase their products then they will just inflate the prices of the products for the sake of doing it.
My best deals come from the PlayStation Store. At some point during the PS4 gen their digital prices rivaled even the best physical store prices. I haven’t looked back since.
I just had a skim through this again.
"The actions of Sony is costing millions of people who can't afford it."
So people can't afford video games and it's an issue for the general public and these companies? I can't afford a Ferrari. Can I sue so they lower their prices?
If you're struggling to buy games, maybe you should use your money on things you actually need. Luxury goods, which games are, aren't a necessity.
"The actions of Sony is costing millions of people who can't afford it."
So people can't afford video games and it's an issue for the general public and these companies? I can't afford a Ferrari. Can I sue so they lower their prices?
If you're struggling to buy games, maybe you should use your money on things you actually need. Luxury goods, which games are, aren't a necessity.
Last edited: