Kuroshin: Gonna fail hard.  Sony doesn't set prices for cross-platform games, and the 30% commission is standard in the industry.  Probably won't even go to a settlement.

XBox and Steam set their own policies, and they are the same as Sony, so unless the suit is against the entire industry over price-fixing (to include Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, CD Projekt, Activision, Bandai Namco, SEGA, etc.), it's dead in the water.

Probably the dumbest moonshot I've seen in a few years.

Flappyhead: They're blaming Sony for in game purchases?  WTF?

Lumbar Puncture: Kuroshin: Gonna fail hard.  Sony doesn't set prices for cross-platform games, and the 30% commission is standard in the industry.  Probably won't even go to a settlement.

XBox and Steam set their own policies, and they are the same as Sony, so unless the suit is against the entire industry over price-fixing (to include Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, CD Projekt, Activision, Bandai Namco, SEGA, etc.), it's dead in the water.

Probably the dumbest moonshot I've seen in a few years.

Yep all this. It'd be one thing if only Sony was charging a higher rate, but they aren't. It's standard.

Maybe they're fishing for a settlement but it's a bad suit.

huma474: Lumbar Puncture: Kuroshin: Gonna fail hard.  Sony doesn't set prices for cross-platform games, and the 30% commission is standard in the industry.  Probably won't even go to a settlement.

XBox and Steam set their own policies, and they are the same as Sony, so unless the suit is against the entire industry over price-fixing (to include Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, CD Projekt, Activision, Bandai Namco, SEGA, etc.), it's dead in the water.

Probably the dumbest moonshot I've seen in a few years.

Yep all this. It'd be one thing if only Sony was charging a higher rate, but they aren't. It's standard.

Maybe they're fishing for a settlement but it's a bad suit.

Ya, it feels very much like a lawyer trying to get rich on a big class action settlement because people had problems with the Apple and Google walled gardens. The biggest thing Sony can almost immediately point to is the fact that for a large number of titles people could have bought them from a brick and mortar store instead of buying them from the PS store for the same exact price. Its a sham legal case that's just trying to waste the money of everyone involved.

KB202: Is it really a rip-off when it's about a luxury product that people willingly paid for and would have willingly paid even more for?
I'm all for protecting consumers from scam and price-gouging when it comes to food, medicine, public transportation... but games?

FatherChaos: sniderman: "Sonic"? That's Sega's mascot, subby. For Sony, I think I'd go with Sly Cooper maybe? He's a thief, so, sure, why not?

Crash Bandicoot.

/it seems the console's mascots are always platformer characters. Now they all have their own -kart games.

Ketchuponsteak: Flappyhead: They're blaming Sony for in game purchases?  WTF?

No they're not.

Why do you think that?

Cuz TFA said that?

"Sony PlayStation is being sued for £5bn in the UK over allegations it "ripped off its customers" with overpriced games and in-game purchases."

Lumbar Puncture: Ketchuponsteak: Lumbar Puncture: Kuroshin: Gonna fail hard.  Sony doesn't set prices for cross-platform games, and the 30% commission is standard in the industry.  Probably won't even go to a settlement.

XBox and Steam set their own policies, and they are the same as Sony, so unless the suit is against the entire industry over price-fixing (to include Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, CD Projekt, Activision, Bandai Namco, SEGA, etc.), it's dead in the water.

Probably the dumbest moonshot I've seen in a few years.

Yep all this. It'd be one thing if only Sony was charging a higher rate, but they aren't. It's standard.

Maybe they're fishing for a settlement but it's a bad suit.

There's no government set standard.

Its fine if its tested to see whether 30% is fair. It doesn't seem fair at all to me. It ought to be 0%, and the platform sold at a price that reflected that. Similar to PCs.

Steam takes 30%. Retail stores take roughly 27%.

It may not seem fair to you, but it's a standard that is reflective across similar marketplaces both retail and digital for all of it's competitors. They're not a charity.

Lumbar Puncture: Ketchuponsteak: Lumbar Puncture: Ketchuponsteak: Lumbar Puncture: Kuroshin: Gonna fail hard.  Sony doesn't set prices for cross-platform games, and the 30% commission is standard in the industry.  Probably won't even go to a settlement.

XBox and Steam set their own policies, and they are the same as Sony, so unless the suit is against the entire industry over price-fixing (to include Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, CD Projekt, Activision, Bandai Namco, SEGA, etc.), it's dead in the water.

Probably the dumbest moonshot I've seen in a few years.

Yep all this. It'd be one thing if only Sony was charging a higher rate, but they aren't. It's standard.

Maybe they're fishing for a settlement but it's a bad suit.

There's no government set standard.

Its fine if its tested to see whether 30% is fair. It doesn't seem fair at all to me. It ought to be 0%, and the platform sold at a price that reflected that. Similar to PCs.

Steam takes 30%. Retail stores take roughly 27%.

It may not seem fair to you, but it's a standard that is reflective across similar marketplaces both retail and digital for all of it's competitors. They're not a charity.

The difference is two fold.

Retail stores aren't a monopoly on any given platform, so their take is "what the market will bear",

Neither is Sony. Retail for one is a competitor. For digital Steam, Xbox Live, Epic, GOG, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, etc are all competitors in the digital market. The prices are "what the market will bear".

The second is taking an additional 30% cut on something that Sony, likely, has nothing to do with.

It's on their marketplace, on their hardware.

I am mostly familiar with Apple being sued over the same practise, but I assume the Playstation works similar.

You aren't familiar with Apple being sued for the same practice otherwise you'd realize there was a world of difference between that ruling and what this is. Apples to oranges, pun intended. Not just in market saturation, type of device and different markets entirely.

Your musing about charity is irrelevant. But thank you for the information,

My musing was relevant to your comment that they should operate their marketplace at a loss and host games at no charge. You're welcome.

Lumbar Puncture: Ketchuponsteak: Well, you are ofcourse welcome to offer any insights into how Sony and Apple is different

You're the lawyer aren't you? There can't actually be two people in the world that think iPhones and Playstations are the same thing.

Herr Flick's Revenge: Ketchuponsteak: Lumbar Puncture: Ketchuponsteak: Lumbar Puncture: Ketchuponsteak: Lumbar Puncture: Kuroshin: Gonna fail hard.  Sony doesn't set prices for cross-platform games, and the 30% commission is standard in the industry.  Probably won't even go to a settlement.

XBox and Steam set their own policies, and they are the same as Sony, so unless the suit is against the entire industry over price-fixing (to include Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, CD Projekt, Activision, Bandai Namco, SEGA, etc.), it's dead in the water.

Probably the dumbest moonshot I've seen in a few years.

Yep all this. It'd be one thing if only Sony was charging a higher rate, but they aren't. It's standard.

Maybe they're fishing for a settlement but it's a bad suit.

There's no government set standard.

Its fine if its tested to see whether 30% is fair. It doesn't seem fair at all to me. It ought to be 0%, and the platform sold at a price that reflected that. Similar to PCs.

Steam takes 30%. Retail stores take roughly 27%.

It may not seem fair to you, but it's a standard that is reflective across similar marketplaces both retail and digital for all of it's competitors. They're not a charity.

The difference is two fold.

Retail stores aren't a monopoly on any given platform, so their take is "what the market will bear",

Neither is Sony. Retail for one is a competitor. For digital Steam, Xbox Live, Epic, GOG, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, etc are all competitors in the digital market. The prices are "what the market will bear".

The second is taking an additional 30% cut on something that Sony, likely, has nothing to do with.

It's on their marketplace, on their hardware.

I am mostly familiar with Apple being sued over the same practise, but I assume the Playstation works similar.

You aren't familiar with Apple being sued for the same practice otherwise you'd realize there was a world of difference between that ruling and what this is. Apples to oranges, pun intended. Not just in market saturation, type of device a ...

bad news for you:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/7/22567532/google-play-store-antitrust-lawsuit-state-ag-app-fees