Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by tripleee » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

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

I actually feel like Nintendo's game key cards are a reasonable compromise, or at least a step in the right direction. Trade-able, lend-able, sell-able, fully offline with no need to periodically auth with a server as long as you have the game downloaded already. They also let you transfer games peer to peer so you don't even need to get it from their servers.

The issue with full digital ownership is I don't see how it can be implemented without totally killing the original owner's sales. Imagine if you could resell games on steam and undercut the developers: no-one would buy from them anymore after the initial round of sales, as there's no practical difference.

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

#142

Post by xboxnolifes » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:19 PM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #134

kergonath wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law draws a line. Plaintiffs think that line was crossed, Sony thinks they it was not. We have mechanisms to arbitrate this kind of dispute, and I am not taking sides. My point is that it can be perfectly legitimate for a law to outright ban or effectively prevent some business models.

Sony sells the PS5 for $400 that can produce the graphics of a $1,500 - $2000 PC. In return, only Sony can have an app store in the Sony hardware. No! This business model is not allowed! Just yikes. Like I said, let's bring back some common sense.

Your other replies were insightful, but you're just getting emotional in this one. You like the sell at a loss model. Thats fine. Its not really relevant to whether or not it breaks existing laws.

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

#143

Post by SR2Z » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 1:43 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #99

keoneflick wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they have a better price?

How can a physical store that pays rent possibly beat a website that costs $10/month to host?

Because the margin on digital goods is effectively 100%. As long as a retailer can secure a license for less than the publisher directly charges customers, they can undercut the publisher and still make a profit.

At least in theory. I'm not sure GS is making it through this decade, because it doesn't seem like there's enough volume to make that work.

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

#144

Post by aurareturn » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 4:09 AM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #142

aurareturn wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sony sells the PS5 for $400 that can produce the graphics of a $1,500 - $2000 PC. In return, only Sony can have an app store in the Sony hardware. No! This business model is not allowed! Just yikes. Like I said, let's bring back some common sense.

Your other replies were insightful, but you're just getting emotional in this one. You like the sell at a loss model. Thats fine. Its not really relevant to whether or not it breaks existing laws .

Any existing law that prevents this should be repealed. Common sense needs to come back. That's my point.

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

#145

Post by dataflow » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 6:29 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #138

dataflow wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense, I'm sorry. The criteria ultimately need to be clear so people know what is allowed and what is not. Either the fact that Sony has a sell-console-at-a-loss business model is why they deserve a pass for anticompetitive behavior... or it is not. In the first case (what you're arguing) then Sony indeed gets a pass like you want, but it comes with uncomfortable questions you apparently would rather av…

I'm arguing that what Sony is doing isn't anticompetitive behavior at all. Period.

That's your desired conclusion, not an explanation of how you're reaching it.

And the only way that would make any sense is if you also believe that what Sony is doing wouldn't be anticompetitive even if they were selling their consoles at a profit.

Which makes that argument a complete distraction, given the sheer number of opportunities you've evaded to simply clarify that that criterion (or any other, for that matter) would actually make a difference in your eyes. Honestly, how hard you've avoided approaching this speaks volumes for itself IMO, but perhaps other readers will see this differently.

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

#146

Post by andai » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 6:49 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #124

andai wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. So Apple's allowed to do it, and Sony has an even more valid reason to do it.

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

#147

Post by aurareturn » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 7:15 AM UTC

andai wrote: post #146

aurareturn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. So Apple's allowed to do it, and Sony has an even more valid reason to do it.

Does Playstation fall under DMA?

If so, the DMA law is seriously flawed.

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

#148

Post by aurareturn » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 7:25 AM UTC

dataflow wrote: post #145

aurareturn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm arguing that what Sony is doing isn't anticompetitive behavior at all. Period.

That's your desired conclusion, not an explanation of how you're reaching it. And the only way that would make any sense is if you also believe that what Sony is doing wouldn't be anticompetitive even if they were selling their consoles at a profit. Which makes that argument a complete distraction, given the sheer number of opportunities you've evaded to simply clarify that that criterion (or any other, for that matt…

The reason it doesn't make any sense to you is you're still arguing against a criterion I never proposed.

You haven't established why Sony making its own app store the only app store on its subsidized Playstation hardware is anticompetitive. You're simply assuming it is anticompetitive and demand that I invent a hardware margin cutoff disprove it.