111–120 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what TFA is on about at all, it's about the monopoly Sony has on selling digital games exclusively through their store. Physical discs don't enter into it.
It's not a monopoly in the console market. There are two other competitors all of whom have roughly equal market share. And they are all walled gardens so Sony is not doing anything differently from its competitors.
Silly idea. I would rather have a right to unlock. Make it law that Sony can't prevent alternatives OS installation. Then when you get Arch running on a PS5 you can install Steam on top
No. What you actually want is a $400 console that sells at a loss or break even and has the graphics power of a $1,500 - $2,000 PC hardware and you want to be able to install anything on it.
How the heck does that make any sense financially for Sony? Common sense is often lacking in gaming communities.
You can sue whoever you want. But this reads of backpedaling and righteousness to me. The quote below are not my words, but are from a prior comment on HN, which I think are relevant. ``` I in no way mean this to be rude, but I think a big part of why the EU isn't in the same galaxy as the US in the realm of business in general, is in some part, the knee jerk reaction to turn to the government to make products and se…
2 Points; Regulation is not the antithesis of Innovation, Monopolies break the Game. This point keeps coming up, regulation in europe stifles their innovative capacity, with silicon valley's companies brought up as show horses. Outside of tech I'm not sure what other "business" the US is so dominant in. In tech, so much can be attributed to network effects and compounding interest (loosely speaking) that it can't be…
Monopolies break the Game.
If people actually read the claims... it's about fair business practices, this is why they are suing Sony: > ... In the EU, it is forbidden for large companies to abuse their position to make more profit at the expense of consumers. Yet Sony does not fully abide by these rules. > > If you buy a digital game or in-game content, Sony will only ensure that you can do so through its own PlayStation Store. Sony keeps the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let's say the breakeven price was $X. You're saying if they sell at ($X-$0.01)/unit then restricting competition is OK but if they sell at $X/unit then it isn't? Am I representing your stance correctly and if so do you see any potential issues with this?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the business of gaming consoles is to not make money on the hardware or even make a loss in hopes of making money on software. There are gaming businesses that make a profit on hardware such as Nvidia GPUs, AMD gaming CPUs, etc. Consumers should have a choice: - Expensive gaming hardware but more choices for gaming app stores - Cheap gaming hardware but only one gaming app sto…
If people actually read the claims... it's about fair business practices, this is why they are suing Sony: > ... In the EU, it is forbidden for large companies to abuse their position to make more profit at the expense of consumers. Yet Sony does not fully abide by these rules. > > If you buy a digital game or in-game content, Sony will only ensure that you can do so through its own PlayStation Store. Sony keeps the…
This is not a lawsuit about Sony "taking away my discs", it's something like "Sony allegedly used its control over the PlayStation ecosystem to restrict competition in digital distribution, allowing it to keep prices artificially high and harm consumers". Sony sells their consoles at break even or sometimes at a loss. They hope to make money from their software sales. Console business has always operated this way. Th…
I don’t have a strong opinion in this case (of the games marketplaces on consoles), but this argument is fallacious. The question would not be whether they’d always done it, it would be whether that’s legal. It is not difficult to find business plan that don’t work because of laws and regulations. Anything related to health and safety, for a start. Basically, if society thinks strongly enough that your business should not be run that way, then tough luck. Either change your business plan or die.
For example, if locking out competitors’ cartridges in your printer is ruled anticompetitive, then don’t do it. Just because HP has been doing it for 20-odd years is no excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a lawsuit about Sony "taking away my discs", it's something like "Sony allegedly used its control over the PlayStation ecosystem to restrict competition in digital distribution, allowing it to keep prices artificially high and harm consumers". Sony sells their consoles at break even or sometimes at a loss. They hope to make money from their software sales. Console business has always operated this way. Th…
> Sony sells their consoles at break even or sometimes at a loss. They hope to make money from their software sales. I don’t have a strong opinion in this case (of the games marketplaces on consoles), but this argument is fallacious. The question would not be whether they’d always done it, it would be whether that’s legal. It is not difficult to find business plan that don’t work because of laws and regulations. Anyt…
Common sense needs to prevail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the business of gaming consoles is to not make money on the hardware or even make a loss in hopes of making money on software. There are gaming businesses that make a profit on hardware such as Nvidia GPUs, AMD gaming CPUs, etc. Consumers should have a choice: - Expensive gaming hardware but more choices for gaming app stores - Cheap gaming hardware but only one gaming app sto…
I still don't see how this is inconsistent with what I described. If your business is to sell consoles at >$X/unit then your business is to sell consoles at a profit. If it is to sell at <$X/unit then your business is to sell them at a loss and make up for it later at the gaming app store. Console businesses prefer the latter model nowadays; of course they can still always go for the former model too. So you believe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the business of gaming consoles is to not make money on the hardware or even make a loss in hopes of making money on software. There are gaming businesses that make a profit on hardware such as Nvidia GPUs, AMD gaming CPUs, etc. Consumers should have a choice: - Expensive gaming hardware but more choices for gaming app stores - Cheap gaming hardware but only one gaming app sto…
I still don't see how this is inconsistent with what I described. If your business is to sell consoles at >$X/unit then your business is to sell consoles at a profit. If it is to sell at <$X/unit then your business is to sell them at a loss and make up for it later at the gaming app store. Console businesses prefer the latter model nowadays; of course they can still always go for the former model too. So you believe…
My point is that cheap/subsidized hardware and a closed store is one viable business model. The other business model is expensive hardware and an open ecosystem, which already exists in the PC. Consumers should have a choice instead of forcing Sony into the PC model.