​

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

 

[nubman33]

Can the UK fick off for once?

 

[Foxi4]

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.

We’ll see if the court has a different opinion on the matter, considering they currently have a monopoly on digital content for PlayStation and are potentially in violation of consumer rights. If my car could only take fuel from a specific gas station even though I know there are other gas stations perfectly capable of serving me fuel, I’d have a big problem with that. When I want to buy a burger, I’m getting a burger. I’m not getting a gift card that I can redeem at another window for restaurant credit which I can then use to buy a burger with, that’s stupid. I’m buying a burger.

 

[tabzer]

We’ll see if the court has a different opinion on the matter, considering they currently have a monopoly on digital content for PlayStation and are potentially in violation of consumer rights. If my car could only take fuel from a specific gas station even though I know there are other gas stations perfectly capable of serving me fuel, I’d have a big problem with that.

Playstation has a monopoly on Playstation. That is true. It is too bad that no other gas stations are perfectly capable of serving you Playstation content.

The case is interesting, don't get me wrong.

I'd take the argument more seriously if you were upset at the fact that all of these PCs blocked access of playing PC games on them.

 

[Foxi4]

Playstation has a monopoly on Playstation. That is true. It is too bad that no other gas stations are perfectly capable of serving you Playstation content.

The case is interesting, don't get me wrong.

I am struggling to understand where the disconnect it. Do you not find it the least bit odd that Green Man Gaming can sell Steam content at prices competitive with (and often better than) Steam, Amazon can sell Nintendo content that is priced competitive with (and often better than) the eShop, GAME can sell Microsoft content at prices competitive with (and often better than) Microsoft, but *nobody* can sell Sony content the exact same way? I’m not sure what your issue is, and I’ve ran out of ways to explain this to you.

 

[tabzer]

I am struggling to understand where the disconnect it. Do you not find it the least bit odd that Green Man Gaming can sell Steam content at prices competitive with (and often better than) Steam, Amazon can sell Nintendo content that is priced competitive with (and often better than) the eShop, GAME can sell Microsoft content at prices competitive with (and often better than) Microsoft, but *nobody* can sell Sony content the exact same way? I’m not sure what your issue is, and I’ve ran out of ways to explain this to you.

I already mentioned a couple of times how PC is a different type of beast because it isn't gated by a singular content provider.

Playstation, Switch, Xbox, are all PCs built with the sole function of limiting who has access.

Just because Microsoft can skirt the grey line of PC and Xbox doesn't mean they aren't trying to corner their own market of consoles.

Amazon often sells PS stuff at discounts, as well. They do that with everything, probably at a loss, but for the sake of onboarding future repeat customers.

Your argument boils down to that nobody can sell PS NFTs because they don't make NFTs. I get that you want them. I just don't understand why you think you are owed them.

People think that because they buy their Nintendo codes from Amazon, that they are not somehow paying Nintendo. This is ridiculous @Foxi4

 

[VartioArtel]

I don’t think people quite understand what this lawsuit is about. It’s not about having another store on the console itself besides PSN’s, it’s about third-party sellers being able to sell digital codes for games on their storefronts outside of Sony’s jurisdiction. Nintendo and Microsoft both allow this - you can go on Amazon right now and buy digital codes for games from their catalogue, Microsoft especially. Sony is the only company out of the big three that only offers digital credit, not direct codes. In an ideal world all games from digital storefronts should be available for sale by third-party sellers just like physical copies are, that introduces an element of competition that is currently lacking in the marketplace.

At the top of my head, it's not even like Sony has a reputation as a 'secure' console the way Apple did, so they can't even make the claim Apple did to smack Epic out of the Courtroom here in America. Even then the Judge ruled that Apple had to allow 3rd party payment processes available other than their own payment system that could be used for Apps on their iPhones.

This does not make a good look for Sony. This one seems a little more cut and dry.

 

[Foxi4]

I already mentioned a couple of times how PC is a different type of beast because it isn't gated by a singular content provider.

Playstation, Switch, Xbox, are all PCs built with the sole function of limiting who has access.

Just because Microsoft can skirt the grey line of PC and Xbox doesn't mean they aren't trying to corner their own market of consoles.

Amazon often sells PS stuff at discounts, as well. They do that with everything, probably at a loss, but for the sake of onboarding future repeat customers.

Your argument boils down to that nobody can sell PS NFTs because they don't make NFTs. I get that you want them. I just don't understand why you think you are owed them.

People think that because they buy their Nintendo codes from Amazon, that they are not somehow paying Nintendo. This is ridiculous @Foxi4

I don’t think you understand the Steam argument. There are no alternative Steams, there’s only one Steam, and it’s ran by Valve. Irrespective of that, publishers are still allowed to distribute Steam codes however they please, including physically, in regular jewel cases that not so long ago would’ve contained a CD/DVD. Steam just issued codes for content hosted on their servers, what the publisher does with that is entirely up to them. Steam is the platform, and you can run it on whatever runs Steam. Nobody’s taking about foregoing Steam in favour of another launcher, we’re talking about the availability of Steam codes outside of Steam. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the rest, you don’t see this as a monopolistic move and apparently the rest of the world does.

 

[tabzer]

I don’t think you understand the Steam argument. There are no alternative Steams, there’s only one Steam, and it’s ran by Valve. Irrespective of that, publishers are still allowed to distribute Steam codes however they please, including physically, in regular jewel cases that not so long ago would’ve contained a CD/DVD. Steam just issued codes for content hosted on their servers, what the publisher does with that is entirely up to them. Steam is the platform, and you can run it on whatever runs Steam. Nobody’s taking about foregoing Steam in favour of another launcher, we’re talking about the availability of Steam codes outside of Steam. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the rest, you don’t see this as a monopolistic move and apparently the rest of the world does.

Steam is a storefront for PCs. If Steam could monopolize PC games, they would try. They can't manipulate prices of games the way Sony, Xbox, and Nintendo can. Steam literally competes with the capability publishers have in being able to release games without their permission. It is a mistake to conflate them with eShop, XBox, and PSN.

The whole "consoles are just gated PCs" point seemed to have went over your head. Of course it's monopolizing. Just not in the way you think it is. Whether it's your Pikmin game codes or your PSN bux, you are still captured in the economic system of a singular entity.

Get a game code from Xbox or Switch. Who pays for the code to exist and how much did they have to pay? You think publishers can print out their own Nintendo/Xbox branded DLC code cards? You think they can issue unlimited codes and sell them without paying the gatekeepers? What part of having game codes as a transaction medium introduces a competitor?

 

[Foxi4]

Steam is a storefront for PCs. If Steam could monopolize PC games, they would try. They can't manipulate prices of games the way Sony, Xbox, and Nintendo can. Steam literally competes with the capability publishers have in being able to release games without their permission. It is a mistake to conflate them with eShop, XBox, and PSN.

The whole "consoles are just gated PCs" point seemed to have went over your head. Of course it's monopolizing. Just not in the way you think it is. Whether it's your Pikmin game codes or your PSN bux, you are still captured in the economic system of a singular entity.

Get a game code from Xbox or Switch. Who pays for the code to exist and how much did they have to pay? You think publishers can print out their own Nintendo/Xbox branded DLC code cards? You think they can issue unlimited codes and sell them without paying the gatekeepers? What part of having game codes as a transaction medium introduces a competitor?

The respective storefront issues codes for content, but the revenue split is different depending on where the code was purchased. Third-party sellers have their own margin separate from Nintendo’s/Microsoft’s, so even if the price is *exactly the same*, the storefront issuing the code gets a different amount as a kickback. I’ve tried explaining this to you repeatedly, but it’s falling on deaf ears, so I’m okay with ending the discussion right here.

 

[tabzer]

the storefront issuing the code gets a different amount as a kickback

1.That's precisely the claim that is wanting of substantiation.
2.I have no reason to believe that the storefronts benefit more from those than the if they were to sell PSN credits, which they can and do. Regardless if the retailers buy PSN/eShop credit codes or eShop game codes, the entity controlling the rate is singular--which is the "monopoly"; not the medium itself.

You seem to think, for some reason, that entities like Nintendo and Xbox are giving storefronts leverage to compete against them, to decrease rates/profit margins. That makes no sense in a capitalistic model. They have control over their codes and distribution. There's no reason to assume that they are doing charity.

At the end of the day, you just want PSN to make you a specific type of cake.

There is no cake. It's just your choice of mega-corporation receiving your money for games that would be cheaper to get on a PC.

 

[leon315]

Next they'll sue Steam, then Nintendont eStore, then x-bot store and finally(a big maybe/maybe not) Epic game store.

Desperate €ash grab in my opinion.

tbh EGS give more shared cut in favor to developers in order to stay competitive in PC market

 

[LightBeam]

I mean, Sony is also culprit of raising prices, comparing british to american prices it's pretty wild (haven't seen if it's the same for other countries in EU but I don't see why it would be different)
So everytime they can get a slap, I'm happy. Same for Nintendo or Xbox btw, it's just that Xbox have a incentive to « behave » and appeal to the average gamer's eyes but they aren't inherently better. Sony is just too damn comfortable so they need a slap and Nintendo ... Well I think it's just common knowledge they just hate their fans so they don't care either

Post automatically merged: Nov 24, 2023

tbh EGS give more shared cut in favor to developers in order to stay competitive in PC market

Yay lower cut with the privilege of being burried in the Fortnite store just to be sure that no one knows my game exists

 

[tabzer]

@Foxi4, I'm reading through our argument and I am not being concise/clear as I can be.

Steam's Valve is facing a similar lawsuit.

Sony facing $7.9 billion mass lawsuit over PlayStation Store prices

1. In this material, there is no suggestion that having Steam/PSN direct game codes or the lack thereof is meaningful. It's an idea you introduced, independent of the text. We can still play with the idea though:

• Steam: It's OK to run a discount for Steam Keys on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
  • This means that while there is a narrow, technical, window in which price disparity can happen, it is temporary, as the overall position of Steam is price parity--so as to not create competition with Steam.
  • If you are getting Steam keys cheaper than you can from Steam, it is probably because someone is breaking rules.

2. Even if PSN offered Game Codes, it doesn't cut PSN out. It'd have to be done in a specific way for which you haven't demonstrated a standard to exist with comparable platforms (Nintendo eShop, Xbox Store). It's unreasonable to assume that XBox and Nintendo have the same policy in digital key distribution as Steam.

Basically, the lawsuit has nothing to do with the lack of digital codes for games. The lawsuit is about Sony monopolizing their own platform. At best, the idea of digital codes for games could be one potential solution, but you are still trying to force Sony to bake you that cake.

 

[Foxi4]

In this material, there is no suggestion that having Steam/PSN direct game codes or the lack thereof is meaningful. It's an idea you introduced, independent of the text.

”Alex Neill, a consumer advocate who has worked on previous campaigns, is bringing the case against Sony which is valued at up to 5 billion pounds ($6.23 billion) plus interest. (…) She says the company abused its dominant position by requiring digital games and add-ons to be bought and sold only via the PlayStation Store (…)”

You put a lot of effort into writing a response instead of just reading the article. The lawsuit is specifically about Sony restricting the ability to purchase games and add-ons from stores other than the PlayStation Store. It’s *right there*, you linked the article. Digital games are distributed by third-parties by way of download codes, you can infer that meaning without having it explained like the reader is 5 years old. You can stop now, I lost interest.

 

[tabzer]

You put a lot of effort into writing a response instead of just reading the article. The lawsuit is specifically about Sony restricting the ability to purchase games and add-ons from stores other than the PlayStation Store. It’s *right there*, you linked the article. You can stop now, I lost interest.

That doesn't mention anything about game codes. Lol.

It's just as logically coherent to take it to mean that Sony isn't allowing another storefront to exist on their platform in software form, for which you suggested people assuming so to be "not understanding". You can just admit that you made a mistake and overshot.

Yours and theirs are potential solutions, not the cause of the complaint.

 

[Foxi4]

That doesn't mention anything about game codes. Lol.

It's just as logically coherent to take it to mean that Sony isn't allowing another storefront to exist on their platform in software form, for which you suggested people assuming so to be "not understanding". You can just admit that you made a mistake and overshot.

The lawsuit’s claim is that Sony abused its dominant market position in order to overcharge customers. The reason why they have a dominant position is specifically because there are no other means to acquire digital content on PlayStation systems besides directly through the PlayStation store. Unlike other companies in the same/similar industry, Sony does not permit direct game/add-on codes, which is the industry standard for digital distribution. The rest is you spinning around and wasting my time, it really doesn’t bother me if you understand the claim in the suit or not.

EDIT: Just as a closing statement, you should probably read the article about the lawsuit Valve is facing. If you did so in advance, you’d know why it was partially dismissed and why it’s weak. Hint: It’s because Valve *does* allow key distribution outside of the storefront. Sony does not. The article says as much, in no uncertain terms. The judge specifically rejected the claim that the Steam Platform and the Steam Store are separate entities, using the integrated mechanisms for third-party sellers makes sense and separating them is not practical. Judge’s words, not mine. You’re being a contrarian, and I’m not sure why.

 

[tabzer]

Unlike other companies in the same/similar industry, Sony does not permit direct game/add-on codes, which is the industry standard for digital distribution. The rest is you spinning around and wasting my time, it really doesn’t bother me if you understand the claim in the suit or not.

The lawsuit isn't about what other companies are or are not doing.

I demonstrated with the introduction of the Valve lawsuit that Valve is getting sued via the same kind of complaint, and they do provide codes, which means that your focus is falling short of addressing the industry-wide issue at hand.

This "industry standard" for digital distribution doesn't exist in any meaningful expression you've shared so far.

 

[Foxi4]

The lawsuit isn't about what other companies are or are not doing.

I demonstrated with the introduction of the Valve lawsuit that Valve is getting sued with the same kind of complaint, and they do provide codes, which means that your focus is falling short of addressing the industry-wide issue at hand.

This "industry standard" for digital distribution doesn't exist in any meaningful expression you've shared so far.

The reason why Valve’s lawsuit is getting a partial pass is because the judge wants to see evidence of games being delisted specifically because they’re available cheaper elsewhere in order to limit competition. That’s the core claim being investigated, since that’s anti-competitive behaviour. It’s written in plain English.

Wolfire claimed that “the Steam Platform and Steam Store operate in separate markets”, and therefore it should be possible/permitted to use the platform without using the actual store purchasing mechanisms. The court again rejected this and all related claims, noting that the store part is how you pay for the underlying platform. It doesn’t make practical sense for them to be split.

Additionally, it was claimed that Valve is enforcing pricing parity. The claim? “[Valve] imposes a [platform most-favored nation] regime to non-Steam-enabled games to ‘prevent price competition from rival storefronts’”. Now, the court acknowledges the more detailed claim that “a Steam account manager informed Plaintiff Wolfire that ‘it would delist any games available for sale at a lower price elsewhere, whether or not using Steam keys.’” And it wants to see if there’s more alleged evidence like that. So that claim can go to the next phase.

From legalese to English - “the games are what pays for the whole platform, there’s no reason for the store and the platform to exist separately. If you want to buy Steam games, you use Steam’s mechanism to do so, which means keys. If Valve is delisting games to stop third-parties from competing with them in a meaningful way, we want to see evidence of that”.

 

[Xzi]

I demonstrated with the introduction of the Valve lawsuit that Valve is getting sued via the same kind of complaint

It's not the same type of lawsuit. It's a single indie developer claiming that Valve is engaged in price-fixing for the digital codes they distribute to publishers. With Sony, the issue is that they don't provide game keys to publishers or third-party sites at all. They do allow third-party physical sales, of course, but the importance of competition digital distribution going forward should be obvious.

 

[Foxi4]

It's not the same type of lawsuit. It's a single indie developer claiming that Valve is engaged in price-fixing for the digital codes they distribute to publishers. With Sony, the issue is that they don't provide game keys to publishers or third-party sites at all. They do allow third-party physical sales, of course, but the importance of competition digital distribution going forward should be obvious.

In tabzerland the lawsuit is about sending games to your PlayStation as 1’s and 0’s by way of smoke signals, not using keys like on every digital storefront ever. You *could* interpret it as a demand to allow other storefronts onto the platform, but if that was the case, the claim would be more specific (and more stupid). That’s *not* an industry standard and *doesn’t* apply to any other platform.