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 compatible on the PS5! Wow, aren’t they nice.
We need laws providing consumer rights. Nothing else will work.
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
Have you seen the Warhammer franchise? lol... Thank you, I will see myself out.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Even when the PS3 supported Linux, Sony didn’t give OtherOS full access to the GPU. So I doubt you’d get any benefit running Steam on a hypothetical Linux-powered PS5.
This would help but doesn’t solve the problem these people want solved (Sony being able to take away games after purchase and reselling games being impossible because the games are all digital)
So they want Sony to be required to sell slightly discounted codes to resellers who then sell them to consumers? How does that matter to anyone besides resellers? I guess the resellers could pass some of that discount on to consumers? This seems like a pretty irrelevant concern since Sony is has no state granted or effective monopolies in game sales, they aren't a common carrier, they aren't benefiting from access to public right of ways or other exclusivity that gives them a market advantage that citizens need to be compensated for. I don't think this matters and I don't care about this.
It matters to consumers because businesses have greater financial power to pressure Sony into reducing prices than individual consumers.
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.
i can think of 3-5 bigger issues hitting the games industry than this. It's a sort of bike-shed issue that everyone can pile onto. I'm sure people have a lot of angst over the decline of games, and this is an easy focal point. But I would like the other issues addressed.
Ballooning budgets, unnecessary hardware upgrades, un-skippable cutscenes, low player expectations, distracting or subversive narratives, pathetic mechanics, and so on.
"Stop Killing Games" is pure gamer slopulism. This idea is even sillier and more pointless than the last couple. There is a ton of competition in the games industry for games, platforms, hardware, etc.
Going digital was inevitable, i'd rather focus on making digital ownership better than fight to restore discs or game codes to 3rd parties
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 compatible on the PS5! Wow, aren’t they nice.
We need laws providing consumer rights. Nothing else will work.
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
"Choice is never bad for the consumer"
nonsense that dumb people say without giving any thought to the nonsense
Have you seen the Warhammer franchise? lol... Thank you, I will see myself out.
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
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?
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.
It’s that there is a large upfront cost (buying a PlayStation) which isn’t in the analogy.
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.
The large upfront cost is lower than it would be because its subsidized by buying the games for it!
Sony does make the games, they have many excellent first party studios!
What are you talking about!
I can imagine that BK’s “have it your way” branding does enable the occasional off-menu Big Mac style burger sandwich transaction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Announcement post: https://xcancel.com/StopKilingGames/status/20868405145197285...
Silly idea.
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
Even when the PS3 supported Linux, Sony didn’t give OtherOS full access to the GPU. So I doubt you’d get any benefit running Steam on a hypothetical Linux-powered PS5.
This would help but doesn’t solve the problem these people want solved (Sony being able to take away games after purchase and reselling games being impossible because the games are all digital)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUHyYkPnJv0
I expected this to be geohots diss track to Sony (https://youtu.be/9iUvuaChDEg)
So they want Sony to be required to sell slightly discounted codes to resellers who then sell them to consumers? How does that matter to anyone besides resellers? I guess the resellers could pass some of that discount on to consumers? This seems like a pretty irrelevant concern since Sony is has no state granted or effective monopolies in game sales, they aren't a common carrier, they aren't benefiting from access to public right of ways or other exclusivity that gives them a market advantage that citizens need to be compensated for. I don't think this matters and I don't care about this.
It matters to consumers because businesses have greater financial power to pressure Sony into reducing prices than individual consumers.
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.
What prevents Sony from charging the retailers $60 for the code to a $60 game?
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.
No english translation?
i can think of 3-5 bigger issues hitting the games industry than this. It's a sort of bike-shed issue that everyone can pile onto. I'm sure people have a lot of angst over the decline of games, and this is an easy focal point. But I would like the other issues addressed.
Ballooning budgets, unnecessary hardware upgrades, un-skippable cutscenes, low player expectations, distracting or subversive narratives, pathetic mechanics, and so on.
"Stop Killing Games" is pure gamer slopulism. This idea is even sillier and more pointless than the last couple. There is a ton of competition in the games industry for games, platforms, hardware, etc.