StereoVsn
Gold Member
Let’s make Apple and Google done the same then.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Reuters] Sony facing $7.9 bln mass lawsuit over PlayStation Store prices
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- News
Come the fuck on, you can’t be serious.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I never understood how these PC key sites can sell for so cheap. They stolen? Or do they get them legit of game companies for dirt cheap and resell them for hardly any profit? Going by the prices, it'd seem they'd lose money sometimes(?).
How is MW3 already only 35?
Yeah, it's pretty much standard. Xbox I'm not sure what the process is since it's a little more under wraps but for steam people don't realise that there is a 5000 limit placed on the developer /publisher for generating keys and any more requires valves approval to prevent sales from being mostly outside of their store. Not only that but prices are not officially allowed to be cheaper than steam itself.
Oddvintagechap
Member
Zero chance this works.
LordBlodgett
Member
It's usually because of marketplace arbitrage. Buy in a country where it is cheaper and resell in a country with a higher price. Sometimes the codes are from bundles, and those are usually the cheapest
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Makes sense. I didnt think of that. I should had, but my work experience involves zero digital. So out of mind. With digital, it's so much easier to use keys and fuck around VPNing or classifying a console as a different country. No wonder game companies are cracking down on it. It's probably got to a point all the savvy gamers doing these tricks is biting into their profits.
That's is the exact same issue other companies face with physical products. That's called product diverting.
In other words, some dirt cheap product that's legitimately bought overseas and retailers/importers with financial savvy get it and offload it for higher prices locally. Brick and mortar retailers do it too. It goes both ways. For those of you who dont know, here's how it works in different ways.
Situation 1. Retailer fucks over local supplier
- Local supplier wants to sell retailer their stuff
- But supplier has a hard time because the retailer is proactively sourcing similar/same product from the supplier's foreign regional office in a different country
- The retailer wont directly source it from a foreign supplier office. But instead get their own foreign retail office to ship over stuff. Or the retailer works with importers
- The local supplier says... "give us a break, buy from our local division". Retailer ignores the supplier or says FU, we buy from where we want
Real life example: At my old company, we had a hard time getting some products in because competitors were giving good prices and the store had their own store brand. But fuck, were one of the top brands, what gives? Turns out they'd occasionally get supplies of Vietnam and Thailand product from the Asian region! It must be so dirt cheap to buy and ship it over its worth doing it. The retail prices were decent and made sense, but our local prices must had been so much shitter they are willing to get supplied from half way around the world. We never were able to get full listings pf products while I was there. I left the company after 5 years, but not sure if my old coworkers ever made progress... probably not. lol
Situation 2. Supplier eggs it on hurting themselves and causing inter company arguing
- Local supplier is desperate for sales and clearing out inventory. They dump it for cheap to exporters since they dont want to disrupt the local marketplace where one retailer is getting batches of 70% off stuff while nobody else gets it
- The supplier tells the exporter to get rid of it overseas
- But that just fucks up the supplier's regional office over there
Real life example: At an even older company I worked at we dumped off product.... where it ended up in the mid east! So our VP of Sales was getting mad calls from the VP of that region saying why the fuck is all this Canadian product with your address and french labeling on it? it fucks them up because we got the sales dumping it. But their account managers will have a harder time getting reorders for their financials since we dumped off probably 500 skids of leftover product to an exporter who dumped it in Turkey and Israel. lol
Last edited:
Famipan
Member
Sony’s price hikes are ridiculous and has only helped me buying less games and considering leaving for Steam.
If Sony wants to be strive against climate change - digital is the way. Selling physical games cheaper is not and should cost more than digital games you can’t sell, and there’s the risk of loosing all purchases games if your account is stolen or you get banned playing online.
Consumers buying digital takes a higher risk which needs to be reflected in the price model.
If Sony wants to be strive against climate change - digital is the way. Selling physical games cheaper is not and should cost more than digital games you can’t sell, and there’s the risk of loosing all purchases games if your account is stolen or you get banned playing online.
Consumers buying digital takes a higher risk which needs to be reflected in the price model.
unlurkified
Member
Good. Hope they get a swift kick to the (financial) nuts with this for thinking they could just willy nilly jack up the cost of PS+.
The outcome will not be what they are looking for. PlayStation will simply increase the cost of games accordingly to offset their revenue loss. What could be interesting for Sony would be increase the base cost of a game to $90 or $100, BUT drop it back to $70 as a perk of being a PlayStation premium subscriber.
This is a UK lawsuit tho, and there is certainly an argument to be made that we are ripped off as there is usually no numerical difference between $ and £ pricing. Ie a $70 game will be priced at £70 despite the exchange rate suggesting it should be priced at £60. So if they remedy that first, then jack up the price to whatever offsets the loss of the % per sale loss, you’d be looking at the price remaining about the same as it is right now in the uk (a few quid more perhaps) and about $10 more in the US. It would also be a great incentive for premium subscribers, as the value proposition on that tier is a bit weak right now, and to be honest for avid gamers (who buy any games they’re interested in at release and have for years) the whole value proposition for subscriptions is a bit weak, that saving per purchase would be a valuable perk.
This is a UK lawsuit tho, and there is certainly an argument to be made that we are ripped off as there is usually no numerical difference between $ and £ pricing. Ie a $70 game will be priced at £70 despite the exchange rate suggesting it should be priced at £60. So if they remedy that first, then jack up the price to whatever offsets the loss of the % per sale loss, you’d be looking at the price remaining about the same as it is right now in the uk (a few quid more perhaps) and about $10 more in the US. It would also be a great incentive for premium subscribers, as the value proposition on that tier is a bit weak right now, and to be honest for avid gamers (who buy any games they’re interested in at release and have for years) the whole value proposition for subscriptions is a bit weak, that saving per purchase would be a valuable perk.
Orbital2060
Member
Its not entirely different from the EU case against Nintendo and some retailers in EU who actively worked against imports from low cost countries to high cost countries. Difference is mainly in retail versus digital as of now, the concerns for consumers are largely the same.
EU vs Nintendo
EU vs Nintendo
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
They are simply not alike at all and console makers would quickly drop the Netflix app if that’s the difference between a dedicated game machine and a general computer. Smartphones are general computers, because of much more than the ability to watch YouTube or Netflix on them.
The case has no merit, aside from the argument that you should be able to buy digital codes from other online stores, just like you can buy physical from other stores.
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
This case will be annihilated in court, but good headline material, I guess. It's not like PS is the only place you can play games, even Sony games (hello, PC).
The lawsuit was even severely trimmed by CAT that allowed it to go to court, lol.
The lawsuit was even severely trimmed by CAT that allowed it to go to court, lol.
Shake Your Rump
Member
Why do these people only ever care about prices? What about the complete lack of return policy? What about the inability to transfer licenses? These actually matter to consumers. Games being $10 more is trivial.
dreamstation
Member
Can't speak for Xbox but games and DLC are always more expensive on the PS store compared to Steam and GMG.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Epic is also losing whole bunch of cash. It’s not a profitable business. Epic also has a shit storefront and app and hasn’t produced much improvement to it … because they are subsidizing it with Unreal and Fortnite cash.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
This lawsuit is so retardedly stupid. It's pure headline. There is literally nothing Sony is doing on their store that Xbox and Nintendo aren't. If you're going to sue anyone, sue them too.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The lawsuit is moving forward.
And apparently CMA is supporting it, supposedly.
And apparently CMA is supporting it, supposedly.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
this is what suffering from success really looks like.
LordBlodgett
Member
The lawsuit is moving forward.
And apparently CMA is supporting it.
I was absolutely not expecting this to go anywhere, but here it is. Will be interesting to see if this forces them to start selling digital codes through other retailers....
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
is already thereCan't wait to use my Reward points to buy Helldivers 2 for Xbox
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Something tells me a lot of the people on this very forum who were yelling from the rooftops last summer during the Activision acquisition hearings about how our consumer rights are being infringed upon and how the CMA and FTC should not back down from big corporations are going to now miraculously be on the side fighting against this lawsuit.
Mr Moose
Member
Has fuck all to do with consumers, it's the 30% they get from publishers.Something tells me a lot of the people on this very forum who were yelling from the rooftops last summer during the Activision acquisition hearings about how our consumer rights are being infringed upon and how the CMA and FTC should not back down from big corporations are going to now miraculously be on the side fighting against this lawsuit.
Elysium44
Banned
The two things are very different though. It isn't hypocritical to be against the Activision acquisition but also be on Sony's side in this one. If Sony gets robbed of billions in this frivolous lawsuit it will end up being the consumer who suffers in the long run. This probably won't be a popular take here as people seem to revel in sticking it to the corporations and thinking profit is a dirty word (Sony make a whopping 6% profit margin, the bastards!)
ReBurn
Gold Member
I don't know. Sony's digital store policies are criticized here all the time, even by people with a Sony lean. You'll get some idiots that will throw out "well if you don't like it don't buy a PlayStation" and be serious. After all, we get people hugging Apple's nuts over their oppressive walled garden digital policies. But in general I think most would welcome the ability to buy digitally from other storefronts again.Something tells me a lot of the people on this very forum who were yelling from the rooftops last summer during the Activision acquisition hearings about how our consumer rights are being infringed upon and how the CMA and FTC should not back down from big corporations are going to now miraculously be on the side fighting against this lawsuit.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
You think publishers eat that 30% without passing on the expenses to consumers? LMAO
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Well, I guess if you already make the determination that Sony is in the clear then there is no conflict of interest
Luckily, not everyone is that gullible.
Mr Moose
Member
Publishers set the prices and not just on digital.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Yes, but they set the prices factoring in how much Sony is going to take off the top. Everything is priced-in. Let's not act stupid here.
Mr Moose
Member
All of them charge 30%. Sony, MicroSoft, Nintendo, Valve and so on. Let's not act stupid here.
Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard - IGN
A breakdown of how much every major retailer takes from the sale of a game.
Last edited:
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Yes, but the argument being made here is not that 30% is too high, but rather that PlayStation's dominant position in the UK and no alternatives is a problem for consumers.All of them charge 30%. Sony, MicroSoft, Nintendo, Valve and so on. Let's not act stupid here.
Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard - IGN
A breakdown of how much every major retailer takes from the sale of a game.www.ign.com
Fbh
Member
Something tells me a lot of the people on this very forum who were yelling from the rooftops last summer during the Activision acquisition hearings about how our consumer rights are being infringed upon and how the CMA and FTC should not back down from big corporations are going to now miraculously be on the side fighting against this lawsuit.
Because it's easy to see how consolidation is bad for the industry and ultimately for us as consumers.
Tell us how Sony charging the same 30% cut than virtually every other major platform/console is hurting the industry or the consumers.
A console market where console makers can't take advantage of the walled garden model means they'll have to start making money from the hardware. Say hello to $899 consoles with the performance we used to get for $499.
Are Xbox Series consoles, Switch and PC not available for purchase in the UK?
Last edited:
Mr Moose
Member
Just buy cheap PSN wallet things, I always get mine from ShopTo. It says users were forced to buy from the store, no one is forced to do anything, buy a damn disc because more often than not it's cheaper. Digital prices are shit.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
bender
What time is it?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
damn this means that if I want to put my game in every of these 30% stores it would be a 360% cut!!! that's criminal!!!!!All of them charge 30%. Sony, MicroSoft, Nintendo, Valve and so on. Let's not act stupid here.
Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard - IGN
A breakdown of how much every major retailer takes from the sale of a game.
WitchHunter
Banned
Some context because the braindead individual tweeting the info left out the most important part:
Sony does not permit other third-party operating systems to be used on PlayStations or other third-party applications to be used to enable consumers to play games.
(2) Digital games for use on the PlayStation can only be sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
(3) Associated add-on content can, with limited exceptions, likewise only be sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
(4) Sony charges developers a commission on all purchases of games and add-on content made through the PlayStation Store which has largely been set at 30% [of the price paid by the consumer].
(5) As a result, game developers and publishers wishing to sell digital games to PlayStation users are compelled to sell via the PlayStation Store; and PlayStation users wishing to purchase digital games have no alternative but to purchase them on the PlayStation Store. Similarly, add-on content must, with limited exceptions, be sold and purchased via the PlayStation Store.
The PCR pleads that Sony is dominant in a variety of related markets, including:
(1) The gaming console market, which is said to comprise PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox.
(2) The market for PlayStation system software, in respect of which it is said that Sony holds a monopoly.
(3) The market for the distribution of digital PlayStation games, in respect of which it is said that Sony holds a monopoly.
(4) The market for the distribution of add-on content for PlayStation games, in respect of which it is said that Sony holds a near monopoly.
(5) The PCR alleges that Sony has abused its dominant position by:
(i) Imposing an exclusive dealing obligation in the form of digital distribution restrictions which deprive or restrict Sony’s customers from accessing alternative sources of digital games and in-game content and which foreclose actual and/or potential competition from other distributors (the “exclusive dealing claim”).
(ii) Tying Sony’s own electronic store for digital games and in-game content to the sale of PlayStation consoles and/or the PlayStation system software, foreclosing competition (the “tying claim”).
(iii) Imposing excessive and unfair prices for the distribution of third party published digital games and in-game content and for the supply of digital games and in-game content which Sony has developed itself (the “excessive pricing claim”).
10. The PCR argues that Sony is the PlayStation digital game user’s single essential trading partner for all digital game purchases and the vast majority of add-on content purchases. The PCR alleges that Sony has exploited that market, by setting excessive and unfair commissions and selling prices which bear no relationship to the costs of providing the services in question.
11. The claims are brought under section 18 of the CA 1998 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). The PCR says that PlayStation users have paid higher prices for purchases of digital PlayStation games and add-on content than they would have done under circumstances of normal and effective competition. The PCR’s preliminary estimate of the aggregate losses suffered by the proposed class members is between £0.6 billion and £5 billion (excluding interest)
Sony does not permit other third-party operating systems to be used on PlayStations or other third-party applications to be used to enable consumers to play games.
(2) Digital games for use on the PlayStation can only be sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
(3) Associated add-on content can, with limited exceptions, likewise only be sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
(4) Sony charges developers a commission on all purchases of games and add-on content made through the PlayStation Store which has largely been set at 30% [of the price paid by the consumer].
(5) As a result, game developers and publishers wishing to sell digital games to PlayStation users are compelled to sell via the PlayStation Store; and PlayStation users wishing to purchase digital games have no alternative but to purchase them on the PlayStation Store. Similarly, add-on content must, with limited exceptions, be sold and purchased via the PlayStation Store.
The PCR pleads that Sony is dominant in a variety of related markets, including:
(1) The gaming console market, which is said to comprise PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox.
(2) The market for PlayStation system software, in respect of which it is said that Sony holds a monopoly.
(3) The market for the distribution of digital PlayStation games, in respect of which it is said that Sony holds a monopoly.
(4) The market for the distribution of add-on content for PlayStation games, in respect of which it is said that Sony holds a near monopoly.
(5) The PCR alleges that Sony has abused its dominant position by:
(i) Imposing an exclusive dealing obligation in the form of digital distribution restrictions which deprive or restrict Sony’s customers from accessing alternative sources of digital games and in-game content and which foreclose actual and/or potential competition from other distributors (the “exclusive dealing claim”).
(ii) Tying Sony’s own electronic store for digital games and in-game content to the sale of PlayStation consoles and/or the PlayStation system software, foreclosing competition (the “tying claim”).
(iii) Imposing excessive and unfair prices for the distribution of third party published digital games and in-game content and for the supply of digital games and in-game content which Sony has developed itself (the “excessive pricing claim”).
10. The PCR argues that Sony is the PlayStation digital game user’s single essential trading partner for all digital game purchases and the vast majority of add-on content purchases. The PCR alleges that Sony has exploited that market, by setting excessive and unfair commissions and selling prices which bear no relationship to the costs of providing the services in question.
11. The claims are brought under section 18 of the CA 1998 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). The PCR says that PlayStation users have paid higher prices for purchases of digital PlayStation games and add-on content than they would have done under circumstances of normal and effective competition. The PCR’s preliminary estimate of the aggregate losses suffered by the proposed class members is between £0.6 billion and £5 billion (excluding interest)
Last edited:
Mr Moose
Member
What does this mean? You need a PlayStation console to play PlayStation games?
Fbh
Member
That's fair. I just think it's a weird argument on their part.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
WitchHunter
Banned
Nop, ask chatgpt/bing, it will outline the answer just fine.
Also:
The PCR is a corporate entity which is controlled by a sole director, Alex Neill. The PCR seeks to represent a class of UK domiciled users of the Sony PlayStation. In particular, the PCR seeks to recover losses which are alleged to have been suffered by those users when purchasing digital games, or content which has been added to games, from the PlayStation Store. The proposed class is estimated to comprise some 8.9 million people.
note: lawyers get a 20-30% cut from class action lawsuits.
Last edited:
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Play on PC then