​

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

 

[tabzer]

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.

Limiting competition is kind of the core of both cases. I agree. All platforms will do what they can to win monopoly.

the importance of competition digital distribution going forward should be obvious.

My disagreement with @Foxi4 is that there are multiple paths forward. Some proposed that Sony allow other shops to exist on its platform. Foxi just believes his idea is better.

 

[Foxi4]

Limiting competition is kind of the core of both cases. I agree. All platforms will do what they can to win monopoly.

My disagreement with @Foxi4 is that there are multiple paths forward. Some proposed that Sony allow other shops to exist on its platform. Foxi just believes his idea is better.

Correction: it’s the only interpretation that makes sense based on the writing. If the suit was about opening the console to other storefronts, it would’ve stated as much in the claims - it doesn’t, the claim is about Sony having a dominant position in regards to sales. I’ve expanded on that idea above - what you’re suggesting does not apply to any other platform on the market and is a non-starter proposition. It would be dismissed in the UK for the same reason why it was dismissed in the case of Valve in the U.S. - practicality.

 

[tabzer]

If the suit was about opening the console to other storefronts, it would’ve stated as much in the claims - it doesn’t, the claim is about Sony having a dominant position in regards to sales

If the suit was about issuing game codes as per this non-existing "standard" on code distribution, it would've stated as much.

Like I said, these are potential solutions, not the cause of the complaint. Cart before the horse and all.

 

[Foxi4]

If the suit was about issuing game codes as per this non-existing "standard" on code distribution, it would've stated as much.

Like I said, these are potential solutions, not the cause of the complaint. Cart before the horse and all.

Okay bud. If Sony permitted publishers to sell direct codes and set their own pricing for said codes, this lawsuit wouldn’t exist, but you can carry on doing you. Here in reality land digital games are sold by way of keys you redeem on your platform of choice.

 

[tabzer]

Okay bud. If Sony permitted publishers to sell direct codes and set their own pricing for said codes, this lawsuit wouldn’t exist, but you can carry on doing you. Here in reality land digital games are sold by way of keys you redeem on your platform of choice.

If Sony permitted other storefronts on their console this lawsuit wouldn't exist.

You still don't understand that the potential solution is not the cause.

The tangential argument is that these keys are intrinsically tied to the storefront you redeem them through, and does not address the price gouging specifically. We don't know how Switch and Xbox handles the distribution of keys to do so. Because we know how Steam does it, does not make it the standard.

 

[Xzi]

My disagreement with @Foxi4 is that there are multiple paths forward. Some proposed that Sony allow other shops to exist on its platform. Foxi just believes his idea is better.

Sony's not required to do that to comply with regulations though, they're only required to do what the competition is already doing. Which is a better outcome for all parties involved.

 

[Foxi4]

If Sony permitted other storefronts on their console this lawsuit wouldn't exist.

The store is an intrinsic part of the platform, they do not exist separately. It’s pre-installed, it’s where your purchase history lives, it’s where all of your licenses are stored, it’s what makes digital content work at all. Without the store there would be no way for the platform to know if the content is legitimately purchased or just hanging out on the drive. In order for another store to exist, Sony would have to share details of their security infrastructure with any third-party that asks which does not behoove the customer at all, is not practical, would likely expose trade secrets and would introduce a myriad of security issues. Allowing third-parties to sell keys is a readily available answer that’s actively being used by every company in the same space. I get the point you’re trying to make, I’m just trying to explain to you that the point is stupid. Philips doesn’t open its own storefront at Target to sell their microwaves, they just put their microwaves on the shelf. They do that in Target, they do that in Best Buy, they do it in every store. There’s no practical reason to have a storefront on a storefront (although some have tried, Square-Enix runs their FF Online subscriptions entirely outside of any storefront).

Sony's not required to do that to comply with regulations though, they're only required to do what the competition is already doing. Which is a better outcome for all parties involved.

This is correct. They’re only required to trade in the exact same way as everybody else in the market. The “competitive/anti-competitive” part is a useful hint here.

 

[tabzer]

Sony's not required to do that to comply with regulations though, they're only required to do what the competition is already doing. Which is a better outcome for all parties involved.

I don't think that it simply distributing game codes in undefined terms is enough to bring the anti-competitive behavior to heel.

There needs to be clarity on the terms of distribution and commission; which is really the point. As far as I can read in this thread, an "undefined" standard is the best we have. We have Steam as an example, but they are operating on open platforms (PC) for which other storefronts can exist.

The store is an intrinsic part of the platform..................................................................

Controlling access is an intrinsic function of the console. I know it would be inconvenient (for Sony) and less realistic to expect them to allow storefronts like Steam or EPG on their platform. It could be a smart thing to do if they can figure out how to make a profit without being anti-competitive. They can do digital codes, they can open their system up, or they can come up with some other kind of innovation. I don't care.

The point is that the case isn't about ruling on whether Sony should distribute game codes.

 

[Foxi4]

Controlling access is an intrinsic function of the console. I know it would be inconvenient (for Sony) and less realistic to expect them to allow storefronts like Steam or EPG on their platform. It could be a smart thing to do if they can figure out how to make a profit without being anti-competitive. They can do digital codes, they can open their system up, or they can come up with some other kind of innovation. I don't care.

The point is that the case isn't about ruling on whether Sony should distribute game codes.

I think the problem here is that you don’t consider Steam, EGS or other platforms that exist on PC as “platforms” because they’re not physical things, like a console. The actual “platform” is PlayStation, the entire ecosystem, the whole shabam. You understand it as the physical piece of hardware that you put in your room, and that’s not what it is. The way you put Steam games in your Steam library is by redeeming a key. You do the same on EGS, eShop and Xbox Marketplace. They all use the exact same mechanism, and that’s no accident. You’ll continue meandering until you get over that mental hurdle. The games you buy on a specific platform are on that platform, not on the piece of plastic, metal and silicon you bought - that’s just the device you use to play them. The entire lawsuit is about equal access to the platform.

 

[tabzer]

I think the problem here is that you don’t consider Steam, EGS or other platforms that exist on PC as “platforms” because they’re not physical things, like a console. The actual “platform” is PlayStation, the entire ecosystem, the whole shabam. You understand it as the physical piece of hardware that you put in your room, and that’s not what it is. The way you put Steam games in your Steam library is by redeeming a key. You do the same on EGS, eShop and Xbox Marketplace. They all use the exact same mechanism, and that’s no accident. You’ll continue meandering until you get over that mental hurdle. The games you buy on a specific platform are on that platform, not on the piece of plastic, metal and silicon you bought - that’s just the device you use to play them. The entire lawsuit is about equal access to the platform.

It's pretty clear to me that you want to suggest that Steam is the same as PSN just to salvage your argument. It's pretty disingenuous. (I tried pre-emptively addressing it)

My position is that the consoles are just glorified PCs and the exclusives and IPs make for artificial forms of competition. I'd prefer IP not to be a thing so that we could potentially have the best form of everything.

The fact is that you have at least 3 storefronts in competition over games for Windows with options to ignore all of them, where with XBox, Switch, and PS5, you have only one channel. Just because XBox and Switch are not included in the lawsuit does not mean that they are in the right, which is something else you are suggesting.

"Equal access" is also not mentioned in the lawsuit. It's just a way for you to softball your position as plausible. Essentially, you are backpedaling. I think you are too focused on telling Sony on what they should do and ignoring the fact that the the complaint is about what they should not do (dominate). Hence your funny cake.

It's okay. I understand being stubborn. If you and @Xzi make babies, I would look forward to disagreeing with them.

 

[Foxi4]

It's pretty clear to me that you want to suggest that Steam is the same as PSN just to salvage your argument. It's pretty disingenuous. (I tried pre-emptively addressing it)

My position is that the consoles are just glorified PCs and the exclusives and IPs make for artificial forms of competition. I'd prefer IP not to be a thing so that we could potentially have the best form of everything.

The fact is that you have at least 3 storefronts in competition over games for Windows with options to ignore all of them, where with XBox, Switch, and PS5, you have only one channel. Just because XBox and Switch are not included in the lawsuit does not mean that they are in the right, which is something else you are suggesting.

"Equal access" is also not mentioned in the lawsuit. It's just a way for you to softball your position as plausible. Essentially, you are backpedaling. I think you are too focused on telling Sony on what they should do and ignoring the fact that the the complaint is about what they should not do (dominate). Hence your funny cake.

It's okay. I understand being stubborn. If you and @Xzi make babies, I would look forward to disagreeing with them.

I told you I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree on the matter. The claim is clear - the lawsuit claims Sony abused their dominant position on the market to rip-off UK customers, and the stated reason is that there are no other means to buy games on the platform. Whether you like it or not, the PlayStation Store is an integral part of that platform and the only feasible way to add games to the account from sellers other than Sony is via digital download codes, just like every other platform. You not understanding that Steam is a platform is not my problem either - even the judge in the lawsuit you quoted states it is one, so I’m just going to shrug that concern away also. There’s literally nothing to argue about here.

 

[Kadji]

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.

You can buy digitalSwitch games on Amazon and they can do theor own sale though.

 

[tabzer]

the lawsuit claims Sony abused their dominant position on the market to rip-off UK customers, and the stated reason is that there are no other means to buy games on the platform.

That's what I said in my very first response to you.

Whether you like it or not, the PlayStation Store is an integral part of that platform and the only feasible way to add games to the account from sellers other than Sony is via digital download codes,

I mentioned that in this scenario it would be via PSN storefront. Hence my previous statement about the need for clear terms of distribution and commission. You also have no imagination, so I don't care what you think is feasible.

You not understanding that Steam is a platform is not my problem either - even the judge in the lawsuit you quoted states it is one

You obviously aren't reading what I am saying. Whether Steam is a platform or not doesn't make it the same as PSN, XBox, and Switch/Nintendo. You are changing the argument far too late in the conversation. Alluding to Steam's distribution method as "an industry standard" is stupid--and that's all you are trying to do. Why aren't you making the argument that PSN should do what Nintendo does with eShop codes?

 

[Foxi4]

That's what I said in my very first response to you.

I mentioned that in this scenario it would be via PSN storefront. Hence my previous statement about the need for clear terms of distribution and commission. You also have no imagination, so I don't care what you think is feasible.

You obviously aren't reading what I am saying. Whether Steam is a platform or not doesn't make it the same as PSN, XBox, and Switch/Nintendo. You are changing the argument far too late in the conversation. Alluding to Steam's distribution method as "an industry standard" is stupid--and that's all you are trying to do. Why aren't you making the argument that PSN should do what Nintendo does with eShop codes?

Okay tabs. You clearly just want to argue for the sake of arguing. What I said still stands - every company in this space supports direct download codes except Sony. That’s, in large part, why their position in the digital market is “dominant”, which is a nice euphemism for “sole supplier”.

EDIT: Full disclosure, I know about this case from outside of GBAtemp since it’s been going through the court process for a while and this is just a recent development. The reason why I insist it concerns (at least in part) direct download codes is because *it does*, the point was argued from day 1. However, there have been some subsequent filings, so in the interest of clarity and fairness I sat down and went through *hundreds* of pages of filings to get up-to-date. This is the relevant segments I wanted to quote, plus my analysis of the case as a whole and personal opinion on the points raised so far. Warning, wall of text.

Spoiler

THE CHAIR: Just to be absolutely clear, to make sure we are understanding what you are showing us there in this comparison, I think it follows, doesn't it, we are talking about a single game which is sold digitally and physically and then comparing the price and then doing that on eight occasions or occasions?

MR PALMER: If you buy God of War on a disc, I don't know specifically that game but a specific game on a disc, you can also buy it direct digitally --

THE CHAIR: Same game and it will, according to this, be --

MR PALMER: It's a different price and we say that is a direct result of Sony's limitation of the means of distribution of digital games.

MR BEARD: To be clear, we don't accept the comparison or these numbers, but that's obviously not for today.

MR PALMER: No, that's for trial. No, this is our case.

THE CHAIR: Understood. Yes, thank you.

MR PALMER: That's despite the fact that, of course, when you are supplying a game digitally, you are removing the cost of the third party retailer from the process, as well as the costs of providing that physical media. In other words, the other costs, the server capacity. To deliver that game digitally and that, obviously, will also have to be looked at. But the expectation has been that the move to digital games rather than physical games would tend to drive the price down rather than up. That hasn't happened, we say because of this restriction on distribution. So too when it comes to in-game content on the PlayStation. Sony also had a near monopoly for PlayStation games. With only very limited exceptions, all transactions go through the PlayStation Store. If I take you to page 336 of the same report, that's 339 digital, you just have a screenshot based illustration of what the process of buying in-game content actually is. This is taken from Fortnite game and you can see screenshots from the PlayStation, figure 3.4. The first step, the consumer selects the currency purchase from within the game. So he's buying a number of V-Bucks which can be exchanged within the game for various game items but they have in each case, beneath the V-Bucks, a price expressed in GB pounds. This is all within the game. Over the page, step 1(b), you select the currency purchase from within the game again. On pressing purchase, you get into step 2, it takes you into the PlayStation Store which you see in that second screenshot on that page, where the transaction is done through the PlayStation Store, 1,000 V-Bucks for £6.49. That then gets processed by PlayStation and they take that commission figure which I've mentioned from that transaction. Figure 3.5 and 3.6, you can then spend your virtual currency within the game. Also there is a Fortnite in-game item shop in the virtual currency, where you can go. Also, you can buy, sorry, through a real world currency, as an alternative within the game. That's figure 3.6. Again, as you see over the page, 3.7, that leads you again into the PlayStation Store to complete that transaction, even if you avoid the virtual currency. So at a limited exception is something called cross play or cross commerce, where it's possible if you play Fortnite on another device, such as an Xbox or a PC and you make a transaction for the currency in that form, you can, to a limited extent, carry that through to use on your PlayStation but that is limited. There are various hedges and limits on that ability which are detailed in Mr Harman's evidence. I won't take time up with that now but the basic point is almost all in-game purchases operate through the PlayStation Store. Now it's right to note that formerly also, it was possible to buy digital download codes from third party retailers and publishers but since 1 April 2019, Sony withdrew that facility.

(…)

LORD RICHARDSON: Mr. Palmer, just an issue with, sorry, something you mentioned some time ago but I've been wondering about it. Am I right in understanding that until -- I think you gave us a date of April 2019, was it possible for someone to buy, as it were, a digital product from some other source rather than the PlayStation Network and then you would get a code or something and download the product itself from the --

MR PALMER: My understanding is that would still ultimately go through the PSN because of the download function. It's pleaded, if you look on page 73 or 76 electronic 56(a) you'll see that reference.

LORD RICHARDSON: Yes.

MR PALMER: (Several inaudible words) codes by third party retailers and publishers.

LORD RICHARDSON: I am just interested in how you'd characterise a download code, in the sense that is that something that is requiring distribution through the PSN, would you have it or was it not, in the sense that if I understand correctly, I am buying my code from someone else?

MR PALMER: Yes, you can buy the code from (several inaudible words) check out on a range of cards that you can buy --

LORD RICHARDSON: Yes.

MR PALMER: Yes, you can buy it from someone else, and that will entitle you, having paid your purchase price to WHSmith, to use that card to enter a code on the PlayStation and download the game digitally.

LORD RICHARDSON: Yes.

MR PALMER: Now the precise contractual arrangements between the various parties in that transaction we don't have detail of.

LORD RICHARDSON: No.

MR PALMER: I assume, unless told otherwise, that that was all obviously Sony approved and still taking a commission but it allowed at least a prospect, I don't know how widely it was used, for retailers to compete on price by reducing the margin that they took, (several inaudible words).

LORD RICHARDSON: Leaving the finer points to which you are not in a position to help me with anyway, leaving that to one side, I am just interested as a matter of characterisation really, would I be right, therefore, that you would say that that did represent an alternative means of obtaining a digital product which has now gone?

MR PALMER: Yes.

LORD RICHARDSON: So, yes. No, that's helpful. So you see that as being -- that is an alternative source of obtaining a digital product?

MR PALMER: Yes, it's somewhat hybrid because it still uses the PSN.

LORD RICHARDSON: Uses PSN for distribution but not for sale. That's helpful.

MR PALMER: I don't know, of course, what conditions Sony placed on the sale of those and whether there was contractual freedom for retailers to reduce the price on those offers or chuck them in with something else or whatever. I don't know but, of course, having that sort of avenue creates that sort of potential for competition but that has been academic since 1 April 2019. These are the digital distribution restrictions, as we plead them to be, in that paragraph 56. Since you have it open, you'll see at the top of 74, electronic 77, our complaint was (ii) through the PSN, that carries on from (c), imposing the contractual restrictions in the GDPA by which digital games and add-on content may only be distributed through PSN. Obviously, a reference to 9.2.1 as pleaded on the previous page specifically, so that's that point. So those are the digital restrictions on which we claim and we claim those amount to an infringement. So let me now come on to legal characterisation of those matters.

Alex Neill Class Representative Limited V. SIE, CPO Application Hearings

Tl;dr of the case so far, for people who are not interested in a very boring read. There’s a specific complaint about the ability to sell PSN codes by third-parties being removed, and that’s one of the few points that catch the judge’s attention. This is explored in the context of a “hybrid sale”, where the content is still provided via PSN, compliant with the Sony licensing agreement, but the payment itself is processed by a third-party (with commission). The judge sees a distinction between the sale and providing the content, which is consistent with my argument so far. It’s recognised as a viable alternative that has been taken away from consumers as of April 2019, but some further objections are raised as the code is ultimately redeemed via PSN. That’s a non-issue to me, but they don’t seem fully satisfied.

The argument that the licensing agreement *already* permits publishers to distribute content is raised, but the document is found to be somewhat self-contradictory due to being restricted to distribution via PSN only, and parts of it should potentially be struck.

There’s mention of 5 alternatives to the current status quo in the documents bundle, but we’re not privy to them as they’re not hosted alongside the transcripts from what I can tell. The discussion skews towards alternative stores/distribution mechanisms angle in subsequent filings, which I find odd compared to the initial filing. They had a good argument about third-party sales of keys that caught the judge’s attention from the start and instead focus on an angle that the judge seems more skeptical about. It’s possible they’re aiming high, but the proposition is unrealistic. Various cases are brought up, including Apple v. Epic and AMD v. Intel and, based on the outcome of the discussion, I don’t think it does them any favours.

It’s argued that bundling the PlayStation Store and PSN with a PlayStation is unfair “tying”, which is the same argument Microsoft faced when they bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. The legal standard for ”tying” is that two products can be unified *if* a consumer, in all likelyhood, would buy one anyway as a result of owning the other. I wish them good luck in arguing that a PlayStation owner wouldn’t download the PlayStation store on their PlayStation - it’s a stupid angle. Of course they object to this by stating that a consumer could certainly wish to buy both products, but from different sources, so the point stands. This clarification is also stupid and they should retreat from it, no closed device on the market works the way they suggest.

Sony’s response to all this is obvious and exactly as I described it would be - they argue that a third-party store or a separate distribution/installation mechanisms would require a fundamental redesign of the ecosystem and would jeopardise the system’s security.

The fact that no other console manufacturer offers alternative storefronts or installation methods (i.e. side loading) is brought up very quickly. I think the third-party store on the console itself as an angle is dead in the water just based on that, but I was clear on that already.

The comparisons to Steam are brought up, but aren’t hard-hitting, not so much because there are no alternatives to Steam keys on Steam, but rather because there are alternatives *to Steam itself* as a platform on PC. They only discuss Steam in the context of a storefront and neglect to touch upon the platform aspect, which also includes a messaging system, anti-cheat, forums, launcher and all the associated shabam. They recognise that PC is an open platform and the two devices are not analogous. As I argued earlier, if they want to pursue this, they’d have to explore Steam as a platform, not just as a storefront - they have to compare like to like. Maybe they will at a later date, but I don’t expect them to, it’s a dead end.

Overall, they’re arguing for alternatives in general and throw everything but the kitchen sink at the wall. Out of everything mentioned, digital code sales by third-parties are brought up multiple times, including by the judge himself, so he’s clearly interested in that angle before the trial even starts.

Anyone who’s interested in the filings can find them with basic Google-fu. So far there are three hearings available, plus some miscellaneous filings formally setting the case up, but there’s no meat there. If you want the spicy goss, read through the CPO filings.

In short, turns out I *don’t* have dementia and the tribunal did explore the recently removed ability to sell direct codes via third-parties like I remembered they did, but as of today other topics have also been explored, including alternative storefronts, sideloading etc., as well as general legal quandaries with Sony’s restrictive licensing.

 

[tabzer]

What I said still stands - every company in this space supports direct download codes except Sony. That’s, in large part, why their position in the digital market is “dominant”, which is a nice euphemism for “sole supplier”.

The claim

1. By way of summary, the PCR alleges that, due to restrictive terms andconditions and/or technical restraints imposed by Sony:
   1. Sony does not permit other third-party operating systems to be used on PlayStations or other third-party applications to be used to enable consumers to play games.
   2. Digital games for use on the PlayStation can only be sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
   3. Associated add-on content can, with limited exceptions, likewise onlybe sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
   4. Sony charges developers a commission on all purchases of games and add-on content made through the PlayStation Store which has largely been set at 30% [of the price paid by the consumer].
   5. As a result, game developers and publishers wishing to sell digital gamesto PlayStation users are compelled to sell via the PlayStation Store; and PlayStation users wishing to purchase digital games have no alternative but to purchase them on the PlayStation Store. Similarly, add-on content must, with limited exceptions, be sold and purchased via the PlayStation Store.

You want to nix the primary claim and suggest that your absence of your proposed solution for the second claim is the cause of the entire case. What you don't understand is that you had the same kind of approach as those you suggested as being wrong or inaccurate. Not only that, you want to claim that there is an "industry standard" that you cannot even demonstrate. The reason you do not respond to me asking why you aren't comparing PSN to eShop instead of Steam is because it proves that your claim is bs.

If SONY said,"lol we'll do what @Foxi4 suggested and sell digital game codes," and did so, they could still control the market and demand %30 commission in revenue sharing. Game Codes aren't a magical solution that undoes monopoly or anti-trust. It's the method of implementation, and those of the likes of Steam are different from Xbox and Nintendo's, for, what should be, very obvious reasons.

 

[Foxi4]

The claim

1. By way of summary, the PCR alleges that, due to restrictive terms andconditions and/or technical restraints imposed by Sony:
   1. Sony does not permit other third-party operating systems to be used on PlayStations or other third-party applications to be used to enable consumers to play games.
   2. Digital games for use on the PlayStation can only be sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
   3. Associated add-on content can, with limited exceptions, likewise onlybe sold and purchased through the PlayStation Store.
   4. Sony charges developers a commission on all purchases of games and add-on content made through the PlayStation Store which has largely been set at 30% [of the price paid by the consumer].
   5. As a result, game developers and publishers wishing to sell digital gamesto PlayStation users are compelled to sell via the PlayStation Store; and PlayStation users wishing to purchase digital games have no alternative but to purchase them on the PlayStation Store. Similarly, add-on content must, with limited exceptions, be sold and purchased via the PlayStation Store.

You want to nix the primary claim and suggest that your absence of your proposed solution for the second claim is the cause of the entire case. What you don't understand is that you had the same kind of approach as those you suggested as being wrong or inaccurate. Not only that, you want to claim that there is an "industry standard" that you cannot even demonstrate. The reason you do not respond to me asking why you aren't comparing PSN to eShop instead of Steam is because it proves that your claim is bs.

If SONY said,"lol we'll do what @Foxi4 suggested and sell digital game codes," and did so, they could still control the market and demand %30 commission in revenue sharing. Game Codes aren't a magical solution that undoes monopoly or anti-trust. It's the method of implementation, and those of the likes of Steam are different from Xbox and Nintendo's, for, what should be, very obvious reasons.

That’s not what I said, I’m not “nixing” anything. I said that the underlying claim is Sony abusing its dominant position in the market to overcharge customers. The removal of the ability to sell codes by third-parties is evidence of this kind of abuse and is explored extensively in the case files. PCR says as much in their plea. The 30% fee may or may not apply to direct codes - this information is not available in the suit and PCR is not privy to it. It is more than likely that the revenue split is (or rather, was, since this method was axed) different, and the judge is only interested in how/where the content is bought, not whether or not the final distribution mechanism involves PSN in some capacity. The quote is right there. The judge wants to know if this allows the consumer to buy things elsewhere, how that content is ultimately delivered is less important.

You said that the matter is wholly unrelated to the case and an idea I introduced. That is not the case, it’s been a part of the suit from the start - I know this because I’ve read it with my eyeballs. Overall the lawsuit is about the ability to distribute content in ways other than directly through the PlayStation store, and the related technological/legal restrictions associated with that. The initial claims are broad and vague because they have to be to give wiggle room in the discussion of potential solutions. In practical terms, this is the best avenue to achieve third-party sales without throwing the baby out with the bath water - that’s what I remembered of the case at the time of writing and that’s what I maintain now. The judge seems to share the sentiment, and so does the PCR, however reluctantly. I say that it is an industry standard because it is - you can buy direct codes for every platform other than Sony. That’s all I need to demonstrate to prove it’s a standard - Sony’s the only exception. You have no rebuttal to that, repeatedly saying that “it’s not a standard” doesn’t make it so.

I’ll happily meet you half-way since alternative stores are mentioned in subsequent filings, but to say that sales of direct codes are “unrelated” is disingenuous when it’s one of the core issues discussed, from day 1. It might not be a method you like, but it’s the method with the highest chance of success, which is why it stuck in my mind in the first place. You cannot remove the Sony commission in its entirety because it is Sony who delivers SDK’s to make content for the platform, so naturally they’ll want a cut of the sales from said content - that too is explored in the filings.

 

[AndorfRequissa]

i have always thought these controlled shops and stores are blasphemy. hopefully this lawsuit goes after apple next they are the worst imo at the premise of forcing away basic technology and usage to build a slave system in which the customer cannot do basic things they can do with devices of 30years ago but they can steal ur heartbeat, sleeping patterns, and so much more because idiots have no other options but to enslave themselves.

ive never bought a single thing from the playstation store and never will.

if people actually had brains and werent lemmings like most of you are (dont mean it disrespectfully but most people are braindead lemmings) these stores wouldnt even exist because people would have a big enough spine to say no in mass.

 

[SeventhSon7]

Far be it for me to side with Sony, but why should Sony (or any console/physical platform) sell hardware as a 'loss leader' and not have it be 'closed' and control the terms that third-parties may sell on? The logic of the suit seems to indicate that 'closed platforms' should be illegal; therefore, the 'markeshare' of loss leader hardware (hardware sold at or below cost) no longer exists to attract users, and all the third-parties (such as Epic) will be bereft of platforms to sell on, unless they themselves want to put out their own hardware (which of course they aren't allowed to control, etc).

Again, I'm not in favor of 'price gouging' on online stores (this is why the death of physical, outside of pure piracy, means the end of price competition on the retail level, as well as the end of liquidity for end users), but the logic of this suit seems to destroy the entire economics of certain types of hardware as 'closed platforms.' If the only alternative is open platforms, then there is no longer the price level attractive (in general) to a mass market to justify publishing on it (PC notwithstanding, but that is largely due to 'evil' Valve's Steam platform).

 

[tabzer]

@Foxi4, while I find your goalpost-shifting flattering, I'll just point out where our conversation started.

In response to people basically repeating the primary claim, you said:

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.

Which is wrong. It does nix the primary claim.

You said that the matter is wholly unrelated to the case and an idea I introduced.

"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." Which is true because you literally had to go outside the context of the article and its subsequent sources to introduce it into the discussion.

I also said, "Basically, the lawsuit has nothing to do with the lack of digital codes for games. The lawsuit is about Sony monopolizing their own platform." To that I can see your complaint. While the lawsuit can serve as a platform for discussion about digital codes as evidence of Sony controlling their platform, my intention was to point out the horse before the carriage logical missteps you were taking.

Here's an example of our miscommunication:

You: Google playstore is about Angry Birds.

Me: Google playstore has nothing to do with Angry Birds.

you can buy direct codes for every platform other than Sony.

Lol, no. Google Play store and Apple doesn't allow it. Nintendo is very limited in terms of selection/availability. While XBox is the most accessible for the primary 3 systems, it pales in comparison to the type of "equal access" (lol) that Steam does, and even Steam is being targeted for anti-trust (monopolizing behavior). Basically, "digital download codes" aren't enough to curb anti-trust, anti-competitive practices. It's a shame that you seem to even disregard the court's interest in the caveats of said codes.

some further objections are raised as the code is ultimately redeemed via PSN. That’s a non-issue to me, but they don’t seem fully satisfied.

That's probably another point I agree with them about and disagree with you on. But the fact that you can go rogue is kind of inspiring.

 

[Foxi4]

@Foxi4, while I find your goalpost-shifting flattering, I'll just point out where our conversation started.

In response to people basically repeating the primary claim, you said:

Which is wrong. It does nix the primary claim.

"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." Which is true because you literally had to go outside the context of the article and its subsequent sources to introduce it into the discussion.

I also said, "Basically, the lawsuit has nothing to do with the lack of digital codes for games. The lawsuit is about Sony monopolizing their own platform." To that I can see your complaint. While the lawsuit can serve as a platform for discussion about digital codes as evidence of Sony controlling their platform, my intention was to point out the horse before the carriage logical missteps you were taking.

Here's an example of our miscommunication:

You: Google playstore is about Angry Birds.

Me: Google playstore has nothing to do with Angry Birds.

Lol, no. Google Play store and Apple doesn't allow it. Nintendo is very limited in terms of selection/availability. While XBox is the most accessible for the primary 3 systems, it pales in comparison to the type of "equal access" (lol) that Steam does, and even Steam is being targeted for anti-trust (monopolizing behavior). Basically, "digital download codes" aren't enough to curb anti-trust, anti-competitive practices. It's a shame that you seem to even disregard the court's interest in the caveats of said codes.

That's probably another point I agree with them about and disagree with you on. But the fact that you can go rogue is kind of inspiring.

I specified what I meant by that in subsequent posts, but it’s no bother. As I said earlier, I didn’t find out about this lawsuit yesterday, it’s been going on for months, and I was going by memory. What I remembered of it was that it broached the subject of codes directly and that it was a major part of the claim, which it is. It seems that since that time they’ve moved on to other things as well. PCR can argue about the issue more broadly if they want, but they’re not finding a lot of fertile ground given the fact that they’re making extraordinary requests. They have to know how to choose their battles, that’s my take. It’s about giving publishers the option to distribute things outside of the on-board store, whether publishers choose to use that option or not is up to the publishers, so I don’t take your claims about Nintendo or Microsoft on-board. The main reason why direct keys are more popular on PC than on console is because PC gamers have abandoned physical media a while back, so it’s a necessary evil if you want to target customers broadly. Consoles are still clinging to physical media, so there’s a readily available distribution alternative, but the writing is on the wall so it’s worth striking early.

Far be it for me to side with Sony, but why should Sony (or any console/physical platform) sell hardware as a 'loss leader' and not have it be 'closed' and control the terms that third-parties may sell on? The logic of the suit seems to indicate that 'closed platforms' should be illegal; therefore, the 'markeshare' of loss leader hardware (hardware sold at or below cost) no longer exists to attract users, and all the third-parties (such as Epic) will be bereft of platforms to sell on, unless they themselves want to put out their own hardware (which of course they aren't allowed to control, etc).

Again, I'm not in favor of 'price gouging' on online stores (this is why the death of physical, outside of pure piracy, means the end of price competition on the retail level, as well as the end of liquidity for end users), but the logic of this suit seems to destroy the entire economics of certain types of hardware as 'closed platforms.' If the only alternative is open platforms, then there is no longer the price level attractive (in general) to a mass market to justify publishing on it (PC notwithstanding, but that is largely due to 'evil' Valve's Steam platform).

PCR goes as far as to complain that they can’t code games for systems other than a PlayStation while using the PlayStation SDK, or something to that effect. Uhh, yeah mates - you can’t. They certainly seem to have high expectations. Since this is a suit specifically about alleged anti-competitive behaviour, they should focus on the core issue at hand - allowing consumers to purchase digital PlayStation content by means other than through the PlayStation store. There are readily available mechanisms that could enable this without upending the “closed” infrastructure. I don’t see why Sony should be compelled to supply features they do not advertise, such as compatibility with systems other than their own, but they should certainly allow competition on the platform and shouldn’t be the sole supplier of software. If it works for everybody else, it should work for them also.