Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

massaschadeconsument.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 148 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#121

Post by andai »

HDBaseT wrote: post #87
andai wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's surprising to me that this is against the law. Is it an EU law, or a Dutch one? Does that mean this also applies to Apple, Steam, etc.?

The argument is that on PlayStation, the only option you have going forward is via the 'PlayStation Store'. Previously, you could buy a physical disc from GameStop, Walmart or trade with your friend. Now you are locked into one company. This isn't about digital or physical, its about there only being one option. Your question drags in Steam (Valve) but I question how they operate even remotely like this? You can buil…

I'm also not required to purchase a PlayStation.

The explainer video said Sony is breaking the law (which one?), so they're suing them to get rid of the platform fee.

How does a platform make money without a fee? That's why I invoked Steam and Apple.

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#122

Post by dpc_01234 »

I watched the English version video and it seems to have nothing to do with "Stop Killing Games".

I wish them well, but ... just stop buying Play Station? I can understand strong consumer protection for food, medicine, healthcare, basic services, utilities. But ... video game consoles? If you don't agree with "Sony tax" ... stop being a stupid sucker and don't buy their products?

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#123

Post by hnlmorg »

999900000999 wrote: post #62
hnlmorg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when the PS3 supported Linux, Sony didn’t give OtherOS full access to the GPU. So I doubt you’d get any benefit running Steam on a hypothetical Linux-powered PS5.

A right to unlock would mean that you get full access to your own hardware. No real reason to buy a Sony system anyway, PC will always win in the long run.

> A right to unlock would mean that you get full access to your own hardware.

That very much depends on the wording of such a law. My point is that you can guarantee that console makers will look for a loophole to cripple their “unlocked” hardware.

> No real reason to buy a Sony system anyway, PC will always win in the long run.

I’m not the one suggesting people should buy consoles to unlock them

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#124

Post by aurareturn »

andai wrote: post #121
HDBaseT wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that on PlayStation, the only option you have going forward is via the 'PlayStation Store'. Previously, you could buy a physical disc from GameStop, Walmart or trade with your friend. Now you are locked into one company. This isn't about digital or physical, its about there only being one option. Your question drags in Steam (Valve) but I question how they operate even remotely like this? You can buil…

I'm also not required to purchase a PlayStation. The explainer video said Sony is breaking the law (which one?), so they're suing them to get rid of the platform fee. How does a platform make money without a fee? That's why I invoked Steam and Apple.

Sony is in a way worse position than Steam and Apple. Apple makes high margins on every iPhone sale. Steam doesn't even need to make hardware. Meanwhile, Sony sells Playstations at cost or at a loss historically.

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#125

Post by kulahan »

tumidpandora wrote: post #15

Going digital was inevitable, i'd rather focus on making digital ownership better than fight to restore discs or game codes to 3rd parties

What’s happening is people are realizing how bad current rights for digital goods currently are, and are revolting at this obviously related scenario.

What people don’t realize is that physical != ownership. I remember wanting to pop The Dark Knight on Blu-ray into my ps4 for a date night… except the license on the disc expired, so I had to call WB for a new one??? Go figure.

Still, it’s fine if people react this way. If nothing else, it sends a message to lawmakers about priorities.

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#126

Post by danaris »

aurareturn wrote: post #110
dataflow wrote: post #105

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…

> Let the consumers decide what is best for them. Both business models should be allowed.

Yeah! And let's make sure the customers have the choice of whether flour should have asbestos in it! And whether watches should have radium dials!

Sorry, this only works when you've got a robust market with lots of competition. The console market is almost the textbook definition of a non-free market: only three players of any consequence, each of them giant, multi-hundred-billion-dollar megacorps, and with very few actual distinctions between them.

When one business model is more obviously beneficial to the megacorps—not just in terms of profit, but in terms of control—it's going to tend to dominate, regardless of "consumer choice". Let's make sure that we, the consumers, get to still have choices, shall we? And the only way to do that is with government regulation.

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#127

Post by aurareturn »

danaris wrote: post #126
aurareturn wrote: post #110

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…

> Let the consumers decide what is best for them. Both business models should be allowed. Yeah! And let's make sure the customers have the choice of whether flour should have asbestos in it! And whether watches should have radium dials! Sorry, this only works when you've got a robust market with lots of competition. The console market is almost the textbook definition of a non-free market: only three players of any c…

Playstation, Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam Machines, Steam Decks, iOS, Android, iPad, MacOS, VR headsets, GeForce Now, Luna.

How many more choices do you need to allow Sony to exclusively sell their own software on their $400 MSRP hardware?

Mobile gaming absolutely dwarfs Playstation in revenue by the way: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/video-games-industry-rev...

Let's bring back common sense to gaming.

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#129

Post by tripleee »

zamadatix wrote: post #58
unpopularopp wrote: post #14

So McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac? Because you can go to Burger King (Xbox) or KFC (Switch) or Sonic (PC) as well but this group is arguing they want to have a Big Mac but not from McDonald's? Or actually McDonald's doesn't have a monopoly because you can technically buy a Big Mac from Uber Eats or Doordash?

This same kind of note seems to come up repeatedly in threads like this with no regard to a similar question ever having been thought up or discussed every other time the topic comes up. Different brands of course, but I'm not sure I've actually seen a net new discussion of this point here in years. The usual answer is: If Sony raises the price of games in it's store, Sony denies 3rd party stores, and Sony removes th…

Their investment can still be used, though. The PS5 is compatible with 100% of their invested dollars. Just don't get a PS6. There was never any guarantee a PS6 would be backwards compatible.

Re: Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us

#130

Post by kergonath »

danaris wrote: post #126
aurareturn wrote: post #110

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…

> Let the consumers decide what is best for them. Both business models should be allowed. Yeah! And let's make sure the customers have the choice of whether flour should have asbestos in it! And whether watches should have radium dials! Sorry, this only works when you've got a robust market with lots of competition. The console market is almost the textbook definition of a non-free market: only three players of any c…

> Sorry, this only works when you've got a robust market with lots of competition.

It’s even worse than that. It only works with goods that are fungible and suppliers that are interchangeable. Otherwise it’s just a race to the bottom to build higher walls, increase friction and seek to extract rent from an audience that’s as captive as possible.

Post reply on HN