​

Back on 2022, Sony received a lawsuit from consumer advocate Alex Neill of the United Kingdom, on behalf of 9+ million users in the region, with the claim that Sony is abusing its standing as the main seller by allowing the sale of any kind of digital content only through their PlayStation Store, which charges a 30% commission to developers and publishers, and therefore also overcharging customers for any kind of digital content being sold on it, be it actual games, or DLC itself.

According to the reports, Sony's lawyers tried to dismiss the lawsuit, but on November 21st, 2023, London's Competition Appeal Tribunal has allowed the lawsuit to go forward, although with the customers that have made any kind of purchase since the filling of the lawsuit back in 2022 not being accounted for as part of the claimants.

The case against Sony is valued to a possible worth of up to $5 billion pounds, but with the aggregate damages, the sum is now estimated to be around $6.23 billion pounds, amounting to something close to 7.84 billion USD in case the lawsuit rules in favour of the customers.

Source

 

[Metoroid0]

Seeing corporations being sued for whatever reason brings me joy.
They should know their place and come down to earth once in a while.

I think lawsuits should be standard practice so they dont pull shits to much.

Im glad we have EU.

Post automatically merged: Nov 23, 2023

price fixing and antitrust comes to mind. I hope they nail Sony, but sadly, that would only mean a big jump in the next gen console costs. And games as well... $$$...

If prices would be to high but that meaning normalizing gaming industry and putting them in their place, than so be it.

I am sick of Sony and other giant corporations manipulating prices and arbitrarily deciding on the operational span of my purchased devices.

Imagine if an automobile company decided you travel to fast or have too many speeding tickets, so they use wifi and lock up or worse, 'brick' your electric car?

Why is this suit only being brought in the UK? Doesn't Sony practice the same antitrust behaviour in the US? And EU?

Aparantly only UK cares for their people and Sonys bullshit.

 

[Foxi4]

Nah, pre-orders on Green Man Gaming regularly go for like $15 to $20 off the full price on Steam, and games hit half off much quicker. Not all Steam games are available of course, only those with participating publishers, but there are a fair number of indies available as well. Same deal with Humble, owned by IGN. They don't consult Valve on anything, they just have their own discounts with stackable membership discounts.

You are correct, @tabzer is wrong. Price parity between third-party sellers and the console’s native storefront isn’t a requirement, nor should it be. Sony is not doing developers a favour by allowing their content on the platform, it’s the developers that are doing Sony a solid by supplying their platform with content. Hosting and sales are two completely separate elements of online distribution which have been unnecessarily conflated by unified digital storefronts. How costs are divvied up in relation to the revenue stream should be up to the publisher, not the host. There’s absolutely nothing that prevents a digital storefront from hosting the data itself and taking a modest fee for doing so while the publisher distributes their download codes however they please. This is the case with Green Man Gaming, it *could* be the case on console if lawsuits like this keep popping up. If the publisher feels like putting their game on offer, they magically have a 30% of wiggle room in terms of price if they choose to eat the cost of getting the code to the customer themselves.

 

[tabzer]

You are correct, @tabzer is wrong. Price parity between third-party sellers and the console’s native storefront isn’t a requirement, nor should it be. Sony is not doing developers a favour by allowing their content on the platform, it’s the developers that are doing Sony a solid by supplying their platform with content. Hosting and sales are two completely separate elements of online distribution which have been unnecessarily conflated by unified digital storefronts. How costs are divvied up in relation to the revenue stream should be up to the publisher, not the host. There’s absolutely nothing that prevents a digital storefront from hosting the data itself and taking a modest fee for doing so while the publisher distributes their download codes however they please. This is the case with Green Man Gaming, it *could* be the case on console if lawsuits like this keep popping up. If the publisher feels like putting their game on offer, they magically have a 30% of wiggle room in terms of price if they choose to eat the cost of getting the code to the customer themselves.

The thing is that I'm questioning the veracity of the "should be," "could be," language and questioning how "it is". If you think I am wrong for questioning it, you should use stronger more confident, terms. For certainty, it would be accompanied by an actual number or a sample of an actual agreement. I don't question Steam, hence my previous apology, but I do question gated platforms where the proprietary storefront is literally the only method to get digital content, regardless of the facilitation of codes.

I have no reason to doubt that Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo gatekeep. I can only question how much. Idealism is nice though.

Sony is not doing developers a favour by allowing their content on the platform

They are literally doing a service, as is any storefront that is capable of charging %30. You and I should be able to agree that it isn't simply one sided, but this statement is betraying.

 

[Spider_Man]

But isn't this the whole point of you having your own digital store, so you can sell.

I dont get the beef here because this is what everyone does.

UBEREATS charge shit loads of commission when customers buy using their platform, they also get away with charging customers a fixed % fee of an order they place ontop of service charges and delivery.

JUSTEAT exactly the same

MICROSOFT also set their own prices for its digital content and also charge commission based sales.

Everyone does this, and in terms of gaming the excuse of reducing costs to pass onto the consumer was a load of bollocks and only the idiots that pay for this digital shit fall for it.

You are still paying the same if not more when the only ones saving are the devs by not having to physically produce the game and its content vs it been a retail version.

The only thing I could see this making any sort of sense is that digital prices do not reflect as such the price reductions to physical content be it purchased from a retailer. Over a period of time a game retail price reduces whereas you will find the likes of Microsoft, Sony prices remains the same which costs more.

Then we have the likes of Nintendo getting away with recycling its old shit yet slapping a higher retail price on it in both digital and physical forms, when the physical format doesn't even contain the physical game and requires you the consumer to purchase additional (expensive) media storage in order to obtain the actual game.

This here i completely disagree with and Nintendo should be punished by law to compensate its customers or force them to stop cutting corners to save themselves money.

We can also now add Microsoft in a sense to this too now that they own CoD, another that gets away false advertising a product that is not given on the physical media that is clearly depicted as on its packaging and then forcing you to download it digitally, but here at least Microsoft are not being cheap cunts like Nintendo by not giving you adequate media storage for said downloads.

But fact remains the entire game that you are purchasing should be by law on the physical media that you are purchasing.

But because its companies with billions of money, they get to make up the rules and get away with what ever they like.

End of the day, if you are paying for a physical product then it should come complete.

If you want to buy digital then thats a different choice and should not be forced upon a consumer.

 

[paxycrone]

How the hell do you get to this ridiculous amount? Isn't Sony allowed to besuccessful? What the hell are these 'aggrevated' damages that are worth over a freaking billion pounds?

 

[Foxi4]

The thing is that I'm questioning the veracity of the "should be," "could be," language and questioning how "it is". If you think I am wrong for questioning it, you should use stronger more confident, terms. For certainty, it would be accompanied by an actual number or a sample of an actual agreement. I don't question Steam, hence my previous apology, but I do question gated platforms where the proprietary storefront is literally the only method to get digital content, regardless of the facilitation of codes.

I have no reason to doubt that Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo gatekeep. I can only question how much. Idealism is nice though.

The stronger, more confident terms I used was “Sony is the only company in the marketplace that *doesn’t* issue direct game download codes”. Even if you wanted to compete with PSN’s storefront, you quite literally can’t - they only offer digital credit, so whatever pipeline you pick, you always give money to Sony, be it directly or indirectly. We *know* they have the capacity to publish full games as codes because they’re often bundled with hardware/software in this fashion, so it’s not a technical issue, it’s a deliberate choice. They don’t provide them because they don’t want to, and they may need to be compelled to do so for the benefit of the consumer. There’s nothing more to add here, the question isn’t whether availability of digital codes on third-party storefronts does or does not improve pricing, it’s that the ability for them to exist at all is restricted artificially, and it shouldn’t be. Sony running a store is their business, that operates separately from hosting. Those two things shouldn’t be one fee to begin with, running the PSN store behooves Sony primarily and the publisher’s secondarily.

 

[Lumstar]

damn, must be hard to be such a poor country that you can’t even spend 60$ on video game

It's not that. Owners of digital model consoles are at a distinct disadvantage. Digital PS4/PS5 games are only sold on the Playstation Store, there's no secondary market of selling codes you don't need.

 

[Andy2001]

*Nintendo looking at london tribunal be like*: "i fucking dare you mfs!"

 

[tabzer]

The stronger, more confident terms I used was “Sony is the only company in the marketplace that *doesn’t* issue direct game download codes”, even if you wanted to compete with PSN’s storefront, you quite literally can’t - they only offer digital credit, so whatever pipeline you pick, you always give money to Sony, be it directly or indirectly. We *know* they have the capacity to publish full games as codes because they’re often bundled with hardware/software in this fashion, so it’s not a technical issue, it’s a deliberate choice. They don’t provide them because they don’t want to, and they may need to be compelled to do so for the benefit of the consumer. There’s nothing more to add here, the question isn’t whether availability of digital codes on third-party storefronts does or does not improve pricing, it’s that the ability for them to exist at all is restricted artificially, and it shouldn’t be. Sony running a store is their business, that operates separately from hosting. Those two things shouldn’t be one fee to begin with, running the PSN store behooves Sony primarily and the publisher’s secondarily.

In your evasiveness, you are suggesting that by buying Nintendo digital codes, from Nintendo, you can somehow compete with Nintendo on their own console.

Steam isn't the only provider of PC games, so their business model adjusts for the fact of that.

Xbox and Nintendo though? Think it through. Why would you expect them to undercut themselves? Digital codes existing isn't "competition".

 

[Taleweaver]

You can't officially buy digital Playstation games anywhere except the playstation store.

You want a digital game, it's Sony's store or no where.

Microsoft allow devs to sell game codes elsewhere, Nintendo allow devs to sell game codes elsewhere, Steam allow devs to sell game codes elsewhere.

Sony used to allow it, but not anymore. You want a digital game, it's PSN store or no where, no competition.

I guess that makes sense, but in that case I'm mistaken. As in: i thought that Nintendo, Microsoft and even valve always gets paid for every redeemed key on their platform (except perhaps a bunch the developer can freely distribute) . Meaning: i think third platforms like humble bundle, fanatical and so on buy their keys in bulk, and then make a profit by selling them for more than bought (but because they're cheaper in bulk, that's still less than on the main store).

 

[Foxi4]

In your evasiveness, you are suggesting that by buying Nintendo digital codes, from Nintendo, you can somehow compete with Nintendo on their own console.

Steam isn't the only provider of PC games, so their business model adjusts for the fact of that.

Xbox and Nintendo though? Think it through. Why would you expect them to undercut themselves? Digital codes existing isn't "competition".

I don’t know what’s confusing here. You can sell codes redeemable on the eShop from third-party sellers and the pricing does not have to match Nintendo’s. You can sell Steam codes on shopfronts other than Steam. You can do the same with Microsoft codes. You can’t do that with Sony codes, it’s not a thing. There’s nothing “evasive” in the answer, the storefront doesn’t provide shit besides hosting, the publisher themselves provides the content they published. The entire transaction *can* take place outside of the storefront, but this ability is restricted in the case of PlayStation.

You can't officially buy digital Playstation games anywhere except the playstation store.

You want a digital game, it's Sony's store or no where.

Microsoft allow devs to sell game codes elsewhere, Nintendo allow devs to sell game codes elsewhere, Steam allow devs to sell game codes elsewhere.

Sony used to allow it, but not anymore. You want a digital game, it's PSN store or no where, no competition.

I only explained it a 100 times, what’s the harm in 101?

I guess that makes sense, but in that case I'm mistaken. As in: i thought that Nintendo, Microsoft and even valve always gets paid for every redeemed key on their platform (except perhaps a bunch the developer can freely distribute) . Meaning: i think third platforms like humble bundle, fanatical and so on buy their keys in bulk, and then make a profit by selling them for more than bought (but because they're cheaper in bulk, that's still less than on the main store).

They always get a cut by the virtue of hosting the data, but the revenue split is different. If you go to Amazon and buy a code, you can bet your ass that they get a kickback from that, and as a retailer they do receive the codes at a discounted price, not just by the virtue of buying them in bulk but rather by the virtue of buying them as a retailer entity with the intent to sell them, not as an end user.

 

[tabzer]

I don’t know what’s confusing here. You can sell codes redeemable on the eShop from third-party sellers and the pricing does not have to match Nintendo’s. You can sell Steam codes on shopfronts other than Steam. You can do the same with Microsoft codes. You can’t do that with Sony codes, it’s not a thing. There’s nothing “evasive” in the answer, the storefront doesn’t provide shit besides hosting, the publisher themselves provides the content they published.

Are you sensing that something is "confusing"? I'm not confused.

You can resell PSN digital currency cards the same way you can resell Pikmin 4 cards. You can get similar discounts on both.

Show me where the "competition" happens against these gated platforms.

 

[Foxi4]

Are you sensing that something is "confusing"? I'm not confused.

You can resell PSN digital currency cards the same way you can resell Pikmin 4 cards. The pricing doesn't have to match, regardless if it's pikmin or psn dollars.

Show me where the "competition" happens against these gated platforms.

I can buy a digital code of Modern Warfare 3 on Xbox right now if I want to and never touch an Xbox throughout the entire process.

https://www.game.co.uk/en/m/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-iii-cross-gen-bundle-2928390

I can’t do that on PlayStation, I have to buy £70 worth of digital credit (since they only do increments of £5) and buy it that way.

If that game was, say, £46, I have two options. I can buy £50 worth of PSN credit or I can go fuck myself.

I don’t know how to explain this better to you.

EDIT: Actually, I *do* know how to explain in better. You’re asking me to buy shit I didn’t want to buy in the first place, take my tail between my legs and grovel to get the item that I actually intended to buy, and say thank you at checkout. That’s ridiculous - I want to buy a code for a game. Maybe I want to give it to someone as a gift, or maybe I just don’t want to fuck around with wallet funds, doesn’t matter. I can’t buy the thing that I wanted to buy, and publishers can’t sell it via any other avenue because Sony said no. That’s what the lawsuit is about.

 

[tabzer]

I can buy a digital code of Modern Warfare 3 on Xbox right now if I want to and never touch an Xbox throughout the entire process.

https://www.game.co.uk/en/m/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-iii-cross-gen-bundle-2928390

I can’t do that on PlayStation, I have to buy £70 worth of digital credit (since they only do increments of £5) and buy it that way.

If that game was, say, £46, I have two options. I can buy £50 worth of PSN credit or I can go fuck myself.

I don’t know how to explain this better to you.

That's not true. You can pay the exact cost of games on PSN, and you don't even need to own a playstation console to do it. I don't know how you can explain "this" better to me, either. It looks like a pointless scruple.

Whether you're paying for PSN bux via card, or paying for their game direct, the existence of Pikmin codes doesn't decrease the cost of Pikmin on the eShop or vice versa.

 

[Foxi4]

That's not true. You can pay the exact cost of games on PSN, and you don't even need to own a playstation console to do it. I don't know how you can explain "this" better to me, either. It looks like a pointless scruple.

Whether you're paying for PSN bux via card, or paying for their game direct, the existence of Pikmin codes doesn't decrease the cost of Pikmin on the eShop or vice versa.

You absolutely cannot pay the exact cost of a game, receive a code via e-mail and do whatever you please with it. In fact, you can’t even shop without a PSN account. Do you know how I buy physical games? I go to a shop, any shop of my choosing, I grab it from the shelf, I take it to the till, I pay and I leave. That’s how digital distribution should work, but doesn’t.

Whether you're paying for PSN bux via card, or paying for their game direct, the existence of Pikmin codes doesn't decrease the cost of Pikmin on the eShop or vice versa.

I can buy the Mario Kart 8 Booster Pack for £21.49 on Amazon or £22.49 on the eShop. Since it’s the same bloody Booster Pack redeemed in the same way, I’m going to buy the cheaper one given the option.

www.amazon.co.uk/Deluxe-Booster-Course-Pre-Load-Nintendo/dp/B09S8H17VS

store.nintendo.co.uk/en/mario-kart-8-deluxe-booster-course-pass-P00085

What is this discussion?

 

[tabzer]

You absolutely cannot pay the exact cost of a game, receive a code via e-mail and do whatever you please with it. In fact, you can’t even shop without a PSN account. Do you know how I buy physical games? I go to a shop, any shop of my choosing, I grab it from the shelf, I take it to the till, I pay and I leave. That’s how digital distribution should work, but doesn’t.

You think digital media should work the same as physical media? That's funny. Do you not know the distinction?

So, this digital code, is somehow more valuable than the game itself? Like an NFT? Are you trying to hold it and sell it at a later date, at a higher price?

 

[Foxi4]

You think digital media should work the same as physical media? That's funny. Do you not know the distinction?

So, this digital code, is somehow more valuable than the game itself? Like an NFT? Are you trying to hold it and sell it at a later date, at a higher price?

There’s absolutely no difference other than the delivery medium, all you’re actually buying is a license to use software.

 

[tabzer]

I can buy the Mario Kart 8 Booster Pack for £21.49 on Amazon or £22.49 on the eShop. Since it’s the same bloody Booster Pack redeemed in the same way, I’m going to buy the cheaper one given the option.

www.amazon.co.uk/Deluxe-Booster-Course-Pre-Load-Nintendo/dp/B09S8H17VS

store.nintendo.co.uk/en/mario-kart-8-deluxe-booster-course-pass-P00085

What is this discussion?

You can get similar competition on PSN cards. Guess who wins, guess who loses. The same kinds of people on both sides. There's no magical introduction of "more competition" just because one gated platform decides to distribute game cards while another distributes "cash" cards. It's all marketing.

There’s absolutely no difference other than the delivery medium, all you’re actually buying is a license to use software.

That we can *mostly* agree on (except, good luck selling/giving it away once redeemed). So where's the beef? You want to have a temporary NFT you can choose to burn?

 

[Foxi4]

You can get similar competition on PSN cards. Guess who wins, guess who loses. The same kinds of people on both sides. There's no magical introduction of "more competition" just because one gated platform decides to distribute game cards while another distributes "cash" cards. It's all marketing.

There’s a world of difference.

That we can agree on. So where's the beef? You want to have a temporary NFT you can choose to burn?

If I so feel like it, I can on any platform other than Sony’s. I can buy enough codes for Halo to cover my entire house in’em if that is my fancy, I don’t see how that’s any of your business. What if I do want to resell it? Maybe I want to buy a bunch of codes when they’re on sale and sell them later when they’re not on sale anymore? What’s it to you?

 

[tabzer]

There’s a world of difference.

If I so feel like it, I can on any platform other than Sony’s. I can buy enough codes for Halo to cover my entire house in’em if that is my fancy, I don’t see how that’s any of your business. What if I do want to resell it? Maybe I want to buy a bunch of codes when they’re on sale and sell them later when they’re not on sale anymore? What’s it to you?

So you are just upset that Sony isn't electing to do NFTs like everyone else? I fail to see where that is their obligation.