> ... In the EU, it is forbidden for large companies to abuse their position to make more profit at the expense of consumers. Yet Sony does not fully abide by these rules. > > If you buy a digital game or in-game content, Sony will only ensure that you can do so through its own PlayStation Store. Sony keeps the market to itself in this way and can keep prices artificially high. This way you pay more, without getting anything extra in return. This is called the “Sony Tax.”
This is not a lawsuit about Sony "taking away my discs", it's something like "Sony allegedly used its control over the PlayStation ecosystem to restrict competition in digital distribution, allowing it to keep prices artificially high and harm consumers".
This is not a lawsuit about Sony "taking away my discs", it's something like "Sony allegedly used its control over the PlayStation ecosystem to restrict competition in digital distribution, allowing it to keep prices artificially high and harm consumers".
Console business has always operated this way. This is why the PS5 launched at $400 and had the graphics horse power of a computer that cost $1,500-$2,000 in the year 2020.
So it makes absolute sense for Sony to "restrict competition" because that's literally the reason why a $400 PS5 was possible.
Can we please have some common sense here? I know this post could very well be unpopular here because HN crowd often detest companies trying to make money. Sony's console business does not always make a profit. There are often huge risks. For example, the PS3 era was a financial disaster. The Wii U era nearly broke Nintendo. Xbox overall has lost Microsoft money.
The tides are clearly pointing to non-physical game sales. PC gaming has long moved onto digital sales via Steam, GOG, Microsoft, etc. Mobile games are 100% digital. It makes sense for consoles to do this as well in order to stay profitable.
Let the free market choose. If physical console games are important to them, then Microsoft's next Xbox could capitalize or gamers can buy games for Switch 2.
Am I representing your stance correctly and if so do you see any potential issues with this?
I'm saying that the business of gaming consoles is to not make money on the hardware or even make a loss in hopes of making money on software.
There are gaming businesses that make a profit on hardware such as Nvidia GPUs, AMD gaming CPUs, etc. Consumers should have a choice:
- Expensive gaming hardware but more choices for gaming app stores
- Cheap gaming hardware but only one gaming app store allowed
Let the consumers decide what is best for them. Both business models should be allowed.
Actually, I think the practice of selling the console at a loss only started with roughly the PS2 or PS3 generation. (The PS3 and later were very definitely sold for a loss, but I've been unable to track down verifiable statements for the PS1 or PS2.)
I have assumed that retail locations will continue to sell game codes, just not game disks, post disks going away. Currently there are games from like Just Dance that only include a game code in the retail box rather than game CD because of the way the game works (you're buying a dlc more than a game).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would be surprised if PlayStation completely goes away from retail, for reasons including anti-trust, but also to encourage stocking the physical PS6 console.
You can't buy a non-Sony PlayStation, I guess they'll argue it's similar.
The NES and SNES for example had their famous lockout chips which gave Nintendo a monopoly on releasing games, except for the Activision/EA thing were they reversed engineered the chips.
Retarded logic but I feel like if you apply the same logic to Sony, they'll also be fine.
Is it an EU law, or a Dutch one?
Does that mean this also applies to Apple, Steam, etc.?
Previously, you could buy a physical disc from GameStop, Walmart or trade with your friend. Now you are locked into one company. This isn't about digital or physical, its about there only being one option.
Your question drags in Steam (Valve) but I question how they operate even remotely like this? You can build or buy any PC, install Steam on it, or not. You can download games from 30 different platforms, including DRM free ones. You can still purchase some (albeit limited) games on disc from other retailers. You are by no means REQUIRED to use Steam. You can use any hardware (not just Valve hardware) and use any store. How does this relate?
The argument is that on PlayStation, the only option you have going forward is via the 'PlayStation Store'.
Your PC app stores argument doesn’t make sense here because PC hardware is not sold at a loss or break even. Console business relies on selling hardware for cheap in hopes of making money on software.
Hell they could pull an old-school Apple, stop selling the PS5, make a tiny change, call it PS6 and be done with you. They could even announce that digital games for the PS6 are also compatible with the PS5! Wow, aren’t they nice.
We need laws providing consumer rights. Nothing else will work.
Some Bro-flake is burying this thread, but you both made good points. GoG or Steam offer a lot of retro games these days, but the 4k upgrades sometimes come with a gameplay emulation downgrade. =3
For many years, Apple also had phenomenal customer support years after a sale. OS 7.5.3 could be installed decades after the product EOL.
Sony DRM just became Tying with extra steps, as consumers now rarely own what they pay for... especially on upgrades. With the loss of physical media, proof of sale and preserved license terms are now ephemeral. =3
The usual answer is: If Sony raises the price of games in it's store, Sony denies 3rd party stores, and Sony removes the physical media option, then there are a significant number of people no longer able to consider open market dynamics in picking which low dollar game to buy next as they have massive (in comparison) investments in the platform.
McDonald's can certainly raise the price of a Big Mac, and McDonald's can certainly limit where it's sold to 1st party locations, but they don't really have the ability to bend the market to pay more than they'd like to for Big Macs because there is no platform investment. Like you say, people can go to Burger King and get a burger. It just doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to do so, making a few dollar increase have true market weight. You can also order the 3rd party burger from a number of places on those apps because there is no restriction that the person sold to is the only one entitled to a burger.
The part that leaves people debating is more "exactly how much interference is problematic rather than good business" than "what's the difference between A and B and doesn't that apply to every other situation too".
Nothing prevents them from selling their Sony console and moving on
Ignoring the above for a moment, this is exactly the kind of "exactly how much interference is problematic rather than good business" debate I was referring to. Obviously it's harder to sell a PlayStation and get another system than it is to eat a different burger that day. And obviously this is easier than if the burger joints in the region collude to raise prices on Saturdays but how impactful is it? Well, that's precisely the debate. Most side long before "it'd be impossible for an individual to do anything at all about it" but even that isn't universally held.
That's not the fight I'd personally focus on. I'd personally focus on them revoking digital access after you've "purchased it". Then again, I don't have a game console and I don't "buy" digital media. I either rent via streaming subscription or own the physical.
Additionally, many of the games are already on different platforms (PC), just not any other consoles.
I think the biggest thing is that Sony doesn’t actually make the games (they don’t have the kitchen nor the cooks), they just sell it.
So a more apt comparison would be a grocery store, I think.
Sony does make the games, they have many excellent first party studios!
What are you talking about!
And yes the upfront costs being subsidized is exactly the point.
Sony’s 1st party stuff is (often) exceptional. It’s the reason an Xbox or PC isn’t a complete replacement.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/sony-says-499-ps5-no-longer-sells...
The CFO said this in 2021:
“But the profitability of PS5 in -- there was this view of reaching breakeven point in June, but PS5 breakeven point for standard edition, more correctly on standard edition, that's how we explain the situation. And it's been progressing according to the plan. Overall, hardware profitability and peripherals hardware profitability, including peripherals, as we have been saying, is proceeding smoothly.”
And PCMag is inferring this means ONLY the $499 edition of the console which they previously suggested could become profitable later. It doesn't mean every edition of the PS5, and things have changed since 2021.
And Sony said it was having losses on consoles as recently as 2024.
This isn't true anymore.
yes, that's called a differentiated product in economics and it confers market power the same way any other monopoly does, Sony controls the Playstation ecosystem, Apple its ecosystem and it gives them leverage over the consumer, those products are not commodities.
That's why pharmaceuticals, patented medical devices or cable and broadband providers are regulated, see net neutrality legislation. Which exists exactly to commoditize information access in a market that's dominated by differentiated providers so they can't exercise their gatekeeping power to drive prices between you and online services up.
I would like if there were other options besides the PS store for PS software, because the hardware is very nice and there are a lot of cool things developers could do with it if they didn't have to worry about compliance with Sony's narrow view of what constitutes digital entertainment and how big a company has to be to be an acceptable media partner. For example it would be nice to use a Playstation for non-game activities (math explorer, sci-fi style news dashboards, weird physics simulations) or have the choice to connect to the Criterion Collection and enjoy obscure media curated for other film snobs like myself, or...
On the other hand, if any malign software infects individual users' Playstations, or undermines the experience of other users who interact with the first group - eg participants in multiplayer games who are impacted by cheating or some sort of exploit - who is going to get blamed? Of course, it will be Sony. They could say 'well we warned you not to use XYZ app store and the only reason XYZ app store exists is that EUrocrats forced us to allow it on our beautiful platform', but no matter who is actually at fault it would be a huge hit to the Sony brand.
Say what you like about the economic and philosophical shortcomings of walled gardens, the reality is that most people find them preferable to a Plants vs Zombies type free-for-all, and I find it hard to blame companies for making a profit by catering to the garden-enjoyers rather than the wilderness-enthusiasts. The latter are after all free to just use some other computing/entertainment platform like Xbox, Steam, etc.; the argument made by campaigners is that they want all the quality of engineering, manufacturing, and access to top games that Sony makes available now, but also the possibility of breaking the hardware and/or the business model that brought it to market. I really think that when it comes to consumer technology, if you don't like the way the company operates you should just not use their products.
For example, Nintendo does sell digital download codes, so this line of thinking doesn't apply to them? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Or is this about 3rd party app stores again?
There are already class-actions against Sony in the US and UK for what appears to be this exact thing (using their dominant monopoly position to charge high prices) so it's not surprising to see it pop up in other jurisdictions this late in the game.
I would rather have a right to unlock. Make it law that Sony can't prevent alternatives OS installation. Then when you get Arch running on a PS5 you can install Steam on top
No real reason to buy a Sony system anyway, PC will always win in the long run.
PC gaming lets me shop from Steam, GOG, etc.
I can't do any of that on a closed system.
Laws are.
Why ask that the fire doors in a building are unlocked when it’s on fire? Maybe they just shouldn’t ever be locked.
Additionally, businesses will not only sell Sony codes. They won't be like car dealerships, tied to 1 manufacturer. Due to this, they'll have even greater incentive and negotiating position to pressure Sony as if Sony doesn't want to play ball, the sellers can start promoting non-Sony products to consumers.
With direct sales only, Sony can have perfect vertical integration: they make the console hardware, they make the custom OS, they own the game publishers, they own the developers, and they own the store that sells games too. That's beneficial only to Sony.
Congratulations, you can buy anywhere you want. You don’t have to buy from Sony. It just costs more.
Yeah, that’s gonna be real great for making games cheaper for you.
Ballooning budgets, unnecessary hardware upgrades, un-skippable cutscenes, low player expectations, distracting or subversive narratives, pathetic mechanics, and so on.
The quote below are not my words, but are from a prior comment on HN, which I think are relevant.
``` I in no way mean this to be rude, but I think a big part of why the EU isn't in the same galaxy as the US in the realm of business in general, is in some part, the knee jerk reaction to turn to the government to make products and services better. Governments cannot make you an alternative, they can only make something that already exists, different (usually worse).
I have zero interest in creating in the gaming space, however, my gut reaction would be to start down the path of how I could create competition to companies that rug pulled their games.
And yes, I get that "just make a competitor" is easier said than done. But at least by going down that road, you end up with more games, better games, and people learning skills throughout the process. And who knows, maybe one is a mega success.
Sure, you can stand there pounding your chest for "democracy," but I contend that those who are building their own things are practicing it far more than those who are demanding others make things for them. ```
This point keeps coming up, regulation in europe stifles their innovative capacity, with silicon valley's companies brought up as show horses. Outside of tech I'm not sure what other "business" the US is so dominant in. In tech, so much can be attributed to network effects and compounding interest (loosely speaking) that it can't be so trivial to say anyone else with less regulation can mimic it.
You can't beat monopolies with innovation. You beat monopolies with regulation, but even then left unchecked monopolies and the entrenched wealth it generates can overcome regulatory bodies and subvert their intentions.
Consoles have been a captive market since after the video game crash of 1983, and that's in part what has help the industry come back on track, by having manufacturers keep crap out of their platforms. They still have that level of control on physical disks, you can't sell a game on a Playstation unless Sony approves it, and always with some kind of DRM / copy protection.
A captive online store is just the natural evolution. Many on-disk games today are not completely on the disk, there is an online component somewhere and should it shut down, the game will not survive. The model where you buy a game and can use it and resell it for as long as the console and the media survive is already a thing of the past, pure online sales is just the final nail in this coffin.
But there is also a bright side. With the exception of Nintendo games, exclusives are not really a thing anymore. Almost every game come out on the PC, an open platform. It is a market that Steam dominates, but unlike with consoles, no exclusivity here. There are even DRM-free platforms like GOG, so you can put your games on your own media and save them for as long as you want.
The manufacturer controlled model of game consoles that Sony and Microsoft represent has served us well since 1983, but it is not the only way anymore, I would even say it is becoming a thing of the past. They are not killing games, they are killing themselves, or maybe dying of old age.