Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I couldn’t care less about this campaign and the waste of resources and attention on it. Might as well sue Lego because I want backwards compatibility with the wooden blocks from 1950 or something.
    by dyauspitr
  • I have mixed feelings about this campaign. Their main ask is that Sony give up exclusivity for the Playstation store, which prevents anyone selling PS games without Sony's approval (and a 30% cut of revenue generated); their main argument is that Sony has total market domination makes it subject to specific EU rules.

    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.

    by anigbrowl
  • I don't think that potential reputational damage should be used as an excuse for monopolizing software distribution. Sony can have a tightly curated PlayStation Store and build its reputation around it without that necessarily implying that nobody else may sell software for the hardware. "Bad third-party software might exist" (we have examples of that existing on the PS Store anyway, but I digress) is an argument for giving consumers ways to distinguish trusted software from untrusted software, not automatically an argument for eliminating the competing distribution channel altogether.
    by braiamp
  • Okay so if I understand this correctly they want Sony to compensate (Dutch) customers because Sony no longer sells digital download codes/game keys to third-parties? If they started doing that, would they still have a case?

    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.

    by xyzzy_plugh
  • I don't know how the specifics would work, but if they reversed course immediately, they would have still caused some harm to some consumers during a specific amount of time.
    by braiamp
  • Just stop buying their consoles. That'll piss them off a lot more than suing them. Get a steam machine and it'll play 99% of the playstation library. It's not like they have a monopoly on gaming
    by tripleee
  • yay suing Sony! I think that countries should start disallowing hardware sales where the user doesn't have the root key. We are not renting the hardware, we are buying it.
    by georgehotz
  • I don't see the point. It's a private, for-profit entity that controls a walled garden platform that they invented, developed and commoditized. It was always a walled garden, never advertised as anything otherwise. All video games have been a license to play since the days of Pong, unless explicitly indicated otherwise. We never owned the actual software and by buying the game, we agreed that our access to the software could change at any point in the future. Does this lawsuit hope to upend ~60 years of contract law?
    by glitchc
  • I'm too small brain to understand the whole monopoly in my own business aspect. Because they are not arguing about game exclusivity, you can buy the same game most of the time on Xbox, Switch, PC (and if not that's an entirely different story) but the fact they want to buy on that platform (Playstation) but from a different store (not Sony). Can't wrap my head around that logic.
    by thrownawaysz
  • Taking Switch as an example, I can buy digital games at Walmart or Amazon. For instance, Amazon might have a sale where their price for a given digital game is ~10% lower than Nintendo's eShop.
    by xyzzy_plugh
  • I watched the English version video and it seems to have nothing to do with "Stop Killing Games".

    I wish them well, but ... just stop buying Play Station? I can understand strong consumer protection for food, medicine, healthcare, basic services, utilities. But ... video game consoles? If you don't agree with "Sony tax" ... stop being a stupid sucker and don't buy their products?

    by dpc_01234
  • So McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac? Because you can go to Burger King (Xbox) or KFC (Switch) or Sonic (PC) as well but this group is arguing they want to have a Big Mac but not from McDonald's? Or actually McDonald's doesn't have a monopoly because you can technically buy a Big Mac from Uber Eats or Doordash?
    by unpopularopp
  • >So McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac?

    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.

    by Barrin92
  • No, they're arguing that you shouldn't have to make your home kitchen a McDonalds franchise in order to eat Big Macs in it.
    by kmeisthax
  • If McDonalds were the only restaurant allowed to sell food within a particular market, and you couldn't buy food there from anyone else, then yes, your analogy would work. Otherwise it doesn't. A closer analogy would be Apple or the old company store model in company towns. In fact, why didn't you go with those?
    by braiamp
  • Your analogy falls apart somewhere for me but I can't pinpoint the exact correction to make your analogy work for me. Either way I agree. If they don't like only being able to buy digital PS games via Sony's platform, go to one where they can.

    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.

    by dabbz
  • This same kind of note seems to come up repeatedly in threads like this with no regard to a similar question ever having been thought up or discussed every other time the topic comes up. Different brands of course, but I'm not sure I've actually seen a net new discussion of this point here in years.

    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".

    by zamadatix
  • While I'm all for sueing Sony, and digital games cost more than physical games sound wrong and shouldn't happen, I feel like they focus on the wrong thing to sue Sony for. Like someone mentions in this thread, this feels like sueing McDonalds for having a monopoly on Big Mac, and only sell Big Mac in their stores. I don't know what the alternative solution to this problem is, but this doesn't feel right to me. For me, I would rather focus on digital rights and access.
    by yuerino
  • It is not a new phenomena, and would be illegal in any other physical market. =3

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

    by Joel_Mckay
  • Going digital was inevitable, i'd rather focus on making digital ownership better than fight to restore discs or game codes to 3rd parties
    by tumidpandora
  • Why not going with both? Choice is never bad for the consumer, even if the majority or sales is digital. I usually buy both and they just lost me, I won't buy into their dystopian store
    by hollowturtle
  • What’s happening is people are realizing how bad current rights for digital goods currently are, and are revolting at this obviously related scenario.

    What people don’t realize is that physical != ownership. I remember wanting to pop The Dark Knight on Blu-ray into my ps4 for a date night… except the license on the disc expired, so I had to call WB for a new one??? Go figure.

    Still, it’s fine if people react this way. If nothing else, it sends a message to lawmakers about priorities.

    by kulahan
  • I actually feel like Nintendo's game key cards are a reasonable compromise, or at least a step in the right direction. Trade-able, lend-able, sell-able, fully offline with no need to periodically auth with a server as long as you have the game downloaded already. They also let you transfer games peer to peer so you don't even need to get it from their servers.

    The issue with full digital ownership is I don't see how it can be implemented without totally killing the original owner's sales. Imagine if you could resell games on steam and undercut the developers: no-one would buy from them anymore after the initial round of sales, as there's no practical difference.

    by tripleee
  • That's not what TFA is on about at all, it's about the monopoly Sony has on selling digital games exclusively through their store. Physical discs don't enter into it.
    by mikestew
  • People don't focus on improving digital ownership because that requires butchering the sacred cow of copyright and DRM. These are the root of the problems and no one wants to touch them.
    by ronsor
  • Exactly. This is stupid. Physical is dead, there’s no point in arguing otherwise. And you will not win. Sony never signed a contract with you saying they would keep making physical forever.

    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.

    by MBCook
  • If people actually read the claims... it's about fair business practices, this is why they are suing Sony:

    > ... 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".

    by braiamp
  • So it's surprising to me that this is against the law.

    Is it an EU law, or a Dutch one?

    Does that mean this also applies to Apple, Steam, etc.?

    by andai
  • Hmm but when that argument was applied to phones, Android essentially got punished for being more open than Apple - you actually can have other app stores on Android, therefore Google could be held accountable for anti-competitive actions in the Android app marketplace. Whereas Apple doesn't allow any third party app stores so there's no competition in the first place and they're fine!

    Retarded logic but I feel like if you apply the same logic to Sony, they'll also be fine.

    by IshKebab

  •   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".
    Sony sells their consoles at break even or sometimes at a loss. They hope to make money from their software sales.

    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.

    by aurareturn