Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Sony Playstation sued for five million pounds in UK for ripping off gamers. Sonic dispatched to the scene in London   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Operating system, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Sony Computer Entertainment, Game, Law, MIPS architecture, market leader  
•       •       •

823 clicks; posted to Fandom » and Business » on 22 Aug 2022 at 5:50 PM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



41 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-08-22 5:57:39 PM  
FTA: The estimated damages per individual in the claim is said to be between £67 and £562

I wonder if the lawyer pushing this is opting for the 67* or 562* payout? I am not going to be hurt if Sony gets dinged in this, but I have a hard time believing the altruistic and noble words of the lawyer leading the charge.


* in millions
 
2022-08-22 6:07:41 PM  
Remember when the Playstation had a bit of a harder edge?

Playstation - golfers and pornstars
Youtube eHKRuhHDtVE
 
2022-08-22 6:14:55 PM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-22 6:18:26 PM  
Isn't this the marketing model for consoles? Sell the console at a loss but generate the vast majority of your revenue from commissions on game sales?
 
2022-08-22 6:22:31 PM  
Da fuq? Why does TFA keep referring to "Sony PlayStation" like it's a separate company from Sony?
 
2022-08-22 6:34:17 PM  

red230: Remember when the Playstation had a bit of a harder edge?

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHKRuhHDtVE?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]


WTF?
 
2022-08-22 6:36:16 PM  
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.
 
2022-08-22 6:37:50 PM  

red230: Remember when the Playstation had a bit of a harder edge?

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHKRuhHDtVE?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]


It's like a nut you play with, outside!
 
2022-08-22 6:41:12 PM  
They're blaming Sony for in game purchases?  WTF?
 
2022-08-22 7:14:30 PM  

jso2897: red230: Remember when the Playstation had a bit of a harder edge?

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHKRuhHDtVE?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]

WTF?


Chris Cunningham (Come to Daddy, Windowlicker (both Aphex Twin), Come on My Selector (Squarepusher), Bjórk and others) did a PS ad back in the day, too:
Chris Cunningham: Play Station
Youtube KkbHsa0qing
 
2022-08-22 7:20:34 PM  

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.
 
2022-08-22 7:38:12 PM  
"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?
 
2022-08-22 8:23:28 PM  

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?


I missed it by one.
 
2022-08-22 8:47:32 PM  

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.
 
2022-08-23 1:24:15 AM  
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?
 
2022-08-23 1:37:17 AM  

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?


As much as this suit seems to be nonsense for a lot of reasons, "They just do it for stuff you don't HAVE to have" seems like a pretty shiatty excuse
 
2022-08-23 3:23:44 AM  

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?


The lie that's always brought up is that if the digital storefronts took less of a cut, the publisher would charge less to the consumer out of the goodness of their cold, black hearts. As if regionalised price gouging based on spurious cost of living calculations wasn't somehow a longstanding proof of the opposite.
 
2022-08-23 3:25:32 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: 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?

As much as this suit seems to be nonsense for a lot of reasons, "They just do it for stuff you don't HAVE to have" seems like a pretty shiatty excuse


It isn't an excuse. It's business. For luxury products, they should charge as much as people will pay. And we should invest in the companies and get some of the profits.
 
2022-08-23 3:31:44 AM  

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.


He mentioned Apple and Android as comparisons of customer lockin.

Clearly Steam is not comparable, because you can just buy games directly, or through another store.

Android is also wrong, since Android doesn't lock the consumer into Google Play. But I got his point.
 
2022-08-23 3:32:26 AM  

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


No they're not.

Why do you think that?
 
2022-08-23 3:35:28 AM  

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.
 
2022-08-23 3:36:59 AM  

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.


Google isn't a walled garden. You can install anything you want on it, which obviously include other stores.
 
2022-08-23 3:38:56 AM  

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?


There's lots of stuff people don't strictly need.

Thankfully there's still consumer protection for vacations, cars, etc.
 
2022-08-23 4:40:59 AM  

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."
 
2022-08-23 5:14:33 AM  

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."


TFA is talking about the 30%. It has no opinion on in game purchases.
 
2022-08-23 5:59:23 AM  
The other problem is everyone with two brain cells knows the increase in game prices are due to graphics quality and nothing else. Even then most games are still criminally underpriced compared to every other consumer good on the market
 
2022-08-23 7:47:20 AM  

Concrete Donkey: The other problem is everyone with two brain cells knows the increase in game prices are due to graphics quality and nothing else. Even then most games are still criminally underpriced compared to every other consumer good on the market


Somewhere, there's a sad bridge waiting for you to come back
 
2022-08-23 8:09:19 AM  
I like the convenience of digital games, since I'm not changing discs and it's less wear on the drive, but I don't like the prices.  I own a lot of them, but only because 95% were purchased with free PSN cards gotten through a work rewards program.  If a game I own physically hits a sale price of maybe $7 or below and I'm sitting on some cards, I'll buy it so that I only have to fire up the system and pick it from the list.

Jesus, I can't believe I'm PAYING for no-cd cracks.
 
2022-08-23 9:40:43 AM  

IdentInvalid: I like the convenience of digital games, since I'm not changing discs and it's less wear on the drive, but I don't like the prices.  I own a lot of them, but only because 95% were purchased with free PSN cards gotten through a work rewards program.  If a game I own physically hits a sale price of maybe $7 or below and I'm sitting on some cards, I'll buy it so that I only have to fire up the system and pick it from the list.

Jesus, I can't believe I'm PAYING for no-cd cracks.


I try to think of it as not so much paying for no-cd cracks as it is paying for lack of prosecution for having no-cd cracks
 
2022-08-23 10:44:57 AM  
Suit sounds like someone woke up one morning wondering 'who has deep pockets' and saw their PlayStation by the TV and thought EUREKA!
 
2022-08-23 10:52:38 AM  

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.
 
2022-08-23 12:22:27 PM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: Concrete Donkey: The other problem is everyone with two brain cells knows the increase in game prices are due to graphics quality and nothing else. Even then most games are still criminally underpriced compared to every other consumer good on the market

Somewhere, there's a sad bridge waiting for you to come back


Somewhere, you brain is waiting for you.

An atari 2600, adjusted for inflation, would cost 900 bucks today. A game for it would cost 150
 
2022-08-23 1:14:33 PM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: IdentInvalid: I like the convenience of digital games, since I'm not changing discs and it's less wear on the drive, but I don't like the prices.  I own a lot of them, but only because 95% were purchased with free PSN cards gotten through a work rewards program.  If a game I own physically hits a sale price of maybe $7 or below and I'm sitting on some cards, I'll buy it so that I only have to fire up the system and pick it from the list.

Jesus, I can't believe I'm PAYING for no-cd cracks.

I try to think of it as not so much paying for no-cd cracks as it is paying for lack of prosecution for having no-cd cracks


With any luck, I'd get a judge who remembered having to dig through stacks of discs just so he could start Quake III.
 
2022-08-23 1:54:46 PM  

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",

The second is taking an additional 30% cut on something that Sony, likely, has nothing to do with. I am mostly familiar with Apple being sued over the same practise, but I assume the Playstation works similar.

Your musing about charity is irrelevant. But thank you for the information,
 
2022-08-23 2:08:22 PM  

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.
 
2022-08-23 3:15:52 PM  

Concrete Donkey: Some Junkie Cosmonaut: Concrete Donkey: The other problem is everyone with two brain cells knows the increase in game prices are due to graphics quality and nothing else. Even then most games are still criminally underpriced compared to every other consumer good on the market

Somewhere, there's a sad bridge waiting for you to come back

Somewhere, you brain is waiting for you.

An atari 2600, adjusted for inflation, would cost 900 bucks today. A game for it would cost 150


Which would be a preposterous sum of money to spend on such a thing, if they weren't charging people money to play it in their smoky pool hall
 
2022-08-23 4:16:39 PM  

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.


Apple and Sony are precisely identical, because they're a Monopoly on their respective ecosystem.

As opposed to Google, which is why Google weren't sued.

Well, you are ofcourse welcome to offer any insights into how Sony and Apple is different.
 
2022-08-23 5:23:31 PM  

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.
 
2022-08-23 7:51:12 PM  

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
 
2022-08-24 4:43:55 AM  

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.


Apples and oranges are both different, but also the same depending on the context.

There's probably a few people who can't figure that out.
 
2022-08-24 4:47:38 AM  

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


Not really, as I don't own any stock.

I assumed Apple would be the more obvious target, as they don't allow other stores on their platform.

But of course, that argument didn't help Microsoft with Explorer being bundled.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.