PlayStation Hit By $5.9 Billion Lawsuit For 'Ripping People Off' On Digital Games (kotaku.com) 65
A consumer rights advocacy group has filed a class action lawsuit against Sony, claiming they are "ripping people off" by charging a 30 percent commission fee on all digital purchases made through the UK PlayStation Store. Kotaku reports: "Sony dominates the digital distribution of PlayStation games and in-game content," said one of the lawyers leading the lawsuit. "It has deployed an anti-competitive strategy which has resulted in excessive prices to customers that are out of all proportion to the costs of Sony providing its services."
The argument here is that Sony has a "near-monopoly" on the sale of digital games, particularly PlayStation games, and so it shouldn't be using that power to enforce unreasonable prices on consumers. Sony is not the only platform that enforces a 30 percent take (most major storefronts do, with the notable exception of the Epic Games Store). We'll have to wait and see whether or not the courts uphold that the PlayStation ecosystem is a monopoly, and whether or not that will have an impact on other walled gardens like app stores or Steam. Kotaku reached out to the legal team about what it considers to be a reasonable commission fee, but did not get a comment by the time of publication.
The plaintiffs point out that gaming is the biggest entertainment industry in the UK, and Sony is hurting consumers who can't afford their games. "We're in the midst of a cost of living crisis and the consumer purse is being squeezed like never before," said Alex Neill, a consumer rights advocate who filed the lawsuit. While I'm sympathetic to how inflation makes it difficult for players to afford more games, I'm not sure if I would lump gaming together with a cost of living crisis. Paying rent is a necessity. Playing God of War Ragnarok on launch is not.
The argument here is that Sony has a "near-monopoly" on the sale of digital games, particularly PlayStation games, and so it shouldn't be using that power to enforce unreasonable prices on consumers. Sony is not the only platform that enforces a 30 percent take (most major storefronts do, with the notable exception of the Epic Games Store). We'll have to wait and see whether or not the courts uphold that the PlayStation ecosystem is a monopoly, and whether or not that will have an impact on other walled gardens like app stores or Steam. Kotaku reached out to the legal team about what it considers to be a reasonable commission fee, but did not get a comment by the time of publication.
The plaintiffs point out that gaming is the biggest entertainment industry in the UK, and Sony is hurting consumers who can't afford their games. "We're in the midst of a cost of living crisis and the consumer purse is being squeezed like never before," said Alex Neill, a consumer rights advocate who filed the lawsuit. While I'm sympathetic to how inflation makes it difficult for players to afford more games, I'm not sure if I would lump gaming together with a cost of living crisis. Paying rent is a necessity. Playing God of War Ragnarok on launch is not.
What BS. (Score:2, Insightful)
And Ford dominates the Ford car and truck industry.
And lawyers dominate the legal services industry. Shakespeare 2 Henry VI, 4.2.59.
Re: What BS. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That "Industry standard" is the problem.
Theres another word for this, its "Price fixing".
Its cartel behavior.
Standards are good. Standards are healthy. But price fixing is not. It artificially disables the market mechanisms designed to strike a balance between producers and consumers and as a result we've long considered it a corrupt behavior.
If we want a free market, we need to protect that market by kicking out rent seekers, monopolists, and price fixers. Otherwise its no free market at all.
Re: What BS. (Score:2)
No. De facto standard pricing models are absolutely allowed in anti-competition law. Talking to each other and saying âoeno no, youâ(TM)re fine, we wonâ(TM)t lower our prices, so you shouldnâ(TM)t eitherâ is not.
Re: What BS. (Score:2)
Re:What BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
"And Ford dominates the Ford car and truck industry."
Ford only charges for ford parts. You don't have to buy your seat covers at the ford dealer, or your fuel, or your bumper stickers. Anything a 3rd party wants to sell you for use with, in, or on your ford, you can purchase directly from the 3rd party.
If you can't see the difference, pull your head out of your ass.
A better analogy would be that Costco takes a cut of everything sold inside a costco. But again, there isn't much you can't buy somewhere else if you don't want to buy it at costco.
You do have to buy your games from 3rd party publishers at the sony store, precisely because sony prevents the 3rd parties from offering them elsewhere.
That's not to say sony should necessarily lose here, but, but app store monopolies ARE monopolies in a way that costco's control over what's in a costco isn't equivalent, and Fords, whatever metaphor you were trying to make sure as shit isn't equivalent.
And I personally, at least, think the likes of the apple app store IS abusive.
I'm personally, more tolerant of the gaming console app stores for an number reasons, despite the similarities.
A smartphone is almost indispensible, and its only really reasonable to own one, and your choices are quite limited -- you are much more 'captive' to monopolists control.
Consoles are far less indispensible, and many people do own multiple, or none at all, and there are a lot of pratical open competing solutions, so the ability to "abuse the monopoly" is quite a bit more limited.
But that's just my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
> Ford only charges for ford parts. You don't have to buy your seat covers at the ford dealer, or your fuel, or your bumper stickers.
Fuel -> Electricity is 3rd party
Seat Covers -> Cosmetic Case Mods are 3rd party
Bumper Stickers -> Bumper Stickers are 3rd party
You may have a point somewhere. But that comparison and those example did nothing because there are equivalents for the PlayStation.
Ford doesn't take a 30 percent chunk of the toll (Score:2)
The purpose of a video game console is to play video games. The purpose of a vehicle is to travel on roads to destinations. Ford doesn't take a 30 percent chunk of the toll for driving on a toll road.
Re: What BS. (Score:2)
The point being made is that you *can* get these from third parties. Sony doesnâ(TM)t allow you to buy the âoefuelâ for the PlayStation from a third party. You have to go via Sony and pay their 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
The point was that this is the case for _everything_ 3rd party with Ford.
If you buy a playstation and then want to put a 3rd party game on it-- those are also 3rd party products -- not made by sony, that you are required to buy at the sony store.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford only charges for ford parts.
If you've ever taken your car to Ford for a service you'll find significantly higher costs than going to an independent garage. Talking about "parts" is just stupid as precisely no part of this discussion is around a product, it's all around a service provided (Sony's online store). To quote something I read recently: "If you can't see the difference, pull your head out of your ass."
You do have to buy your games from 3rd party publishers at the sony store, precisely because sony prevents the 3rd parties from offering them elsewhere.
Except they don't. Walk into a Bestbuy and look for yourself, and then don't pretend that Bestbuy don't take a cut of the sale
Re: (Score:2)
"Talking about "parts" is just stupid as precisely no part of this discussion is around a product,"
I view individual 'games' as a "product", I even kind-a-sorta-view costmetic items in games purchased via microtransactions as a 'product'.
"Except they don't. Walk into a Bestbuy and look for yourself, and then don't pretend that Bestbuy don't take a cut of the sale."
Except there are lots of games I can't buy at bestbuy, the majority at this point even I'd say aren't offered in store anymore.
You really think i
Re: (Score:2)
>Sony dominates the digital distribution of PlayStation games and in-game content
And Ford dominates the Ford car and truck industry.
And lawyers dominate the legal services industry. Shakespeare 2 Henry VI, 4.2.59.
Are you really that daft. I can buy Brembo brakes for a ford, I don't need to go to Ford to do it. I can buy legal services from anywhere, I don't have to go to a single supplier. What other supplier can a Playstation user get playsation content from?
This is also why I'm a PC gamer. Screw being locked in and then abused like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony doesn't have to open their system to third party developers. They could do everything in house if they wanted. Third party developers are not restricted to Playstation, they can develop for a different console, or P
Don't buy them... (Score:4, Interesting)
The plaintiffs point out that gaming is the biggest entertainment industry in the UK, and Sony is hurting consumers who can't afford their games.
If you cant afford something then don't buy it. You are not "owed" video games. You don't need games to survive.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes 100% video games are a pure luxury.
But take them away and you'll have a LOT of teenage boys with a LOT of free time.
probably cheaper for the government to subsidize video games over jails.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you take away the boys then the politicians will have a LOT of free time.
probably cheaper for the government to not expose the Epstein list.
Re: (Score:2)
I get that you're old, because you assume that video gamers are all teenaged boys.
Why they would be going to jail if they can't play Nintendo is much less clear. I'd foresee some rise in pregnancies and poverty, because the girls may not be able to get abortions, according to the prevalence of local Republican disease. After all, nothing quite spells "permanent poverty" so much as kids trying to raise their own children.
Re: (Score:2)
Why they would be going to jail if they can't play Nintendo is much less clear
What does Nintendo have to do with an article about PlayStation?
Re: (Score:2)
I see middle aged women with more free time as less of a problem, Karen.
Re: (Score:3)
But take them away and you'll have a LOT of teenage boys with a LOT of free time.
probably cheaper for the government to subsidize video games over jails.
You can't be serious. Do you think child crime was reduced by video games? People had no idea what to do with their lives prior to playing Horizon Forbidden West and therefore just went out and spray-painted the town and robbed people?
I am genuinely concerned about your view of how people work. You should really consider just not playing any computer games for a few months and get some perspective on what else life has to offer you as a human being (other than going and assaulting someone I mean).
Re: (Score:2)
But take them away and you'll have a LOT of teenage boys with a LOT of free time.
probably cheaper for the government to subsidize video games over jails.
You can't be serious. Do you think child crime was reduced by video games? People had no idea what to do with their lives prior to playing Horizon Forbidden West and therefore just went out and spray-painted the town and robbed people?
I am genuinely concerned about your view of how people work. You should really consider just not playing any computer games for a few months and get some perspective on what else life has to offer you as a human being (other than going and assaulting someone I mean).
Actually yes, a lot of petty crime by teenagers is stopped by simply giving them something else to do. This is a well known phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
And I believe my comment was the fucking brain dead assertion that the *ONLY* thing to do is play a video game.
But yes, everyone was a criminal before the Playstation came out. /MOCKING SARCASM
Re: (Score:2)
Reality disagrees with you. Areas of high poverty have violent gangs, and the primary cause is always, ALWAYS because the youth have nothing to occupy them other than hanging around because they have no income, no cheap entertainment and no prospects. Gang violence was curtailed as much if not more so by providing the kids something to do and the young adults employment opportunities than it was by zero-tolerance policing. Video games are just a thing to do, nothing magical about them and it's things to do
Re: (Score:2)
ALWAYS because the youth have nothing to occupy them
Oh yeah sorry I forgot. Prior to the Playstation coming out kids were high crime murder machines. The only activity any child could possibly do is play video games. There's absolutely nothing else.
Normally I'd put a /s here, but let me be clear I'm not just being sarcastic. I'm actively mocking you with sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to actually look at the data. Unless you enjoy being wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.wired.com/2008/04/... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The plaintiffs point out that gaming is the biggest entertainment industry in the UK, and Sony is hurting consumers who can't afford their games.
If you cant afford something then don't buy it. You are not "owed" video games. You don't need games to survive.
Yeah, that's right. Sony should be able to abuse consumers as much as they like because video games aren't mandatory...
What colour is the sky on your planet and are you allowed out to see it for more than an hour a day?
I'm not a fan of consoles for this (and other) reasons but ultimately I cant abide a company abusing a dominant position to stifle competition and rip off consumers... even if those users volunteered for it. If we allow Sony to get away with abusing their market position, where does it
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's right. Sony should be able to abuse consumers as much as they like because video games aren't mandatory...
Charging (or overcharging in this case) for services is abuse? It is not. You charge what the people are willing to pay. If they can't pay for something then they go somewhere where it is cheaper.
I'm not a fan of consoles for this (and other) reasons but ultimately I cant abide a company abusing a dominant position to stifle competition and rip off consumers... even if those users volunteered for it. If we allow Sony to get away with abusing their market position, where does it stop
Sony get a 30% of games from the store, Microsoft (12%), Steam(30%), Epic (12%), Nintendo(30%), Google(15%, 30% if you sell over 1M) , Apple (27%-30%). That percent is the average so Sony is not really overcharging, that percent is the norm. Also are you so naive that you think games will be cheaper if the percent
And? (Score:3)
The plaintiffs point out that gaming is the biggest entertainment industry in the UK, and Sony is hurting consumers who can't afford their games.
Since when is playing a video game a right? I'd like to have a Koenigsegg [koenigsegg.com], but you don't hear me bitching the company is hurting me because I can't afford their car no matter how much fun I'd have driving it.
If Sony was making people pay and pay and pay some more after the person bought the game, without telling people they'd have to pay and pay and pay, then maybe they'd have a case. But whining people can't afford a game is somehow illegal or duplicitous is just that, whining.
Re: And? (Score:2)
Yes, but Koeeenningggseg doesnâ(TM)t require that you buy fuel for the car from them. They sell a car, and then the transaction is complete. The lawsuit is over whether anti-competition law requires the same to be true here. Does Sony have to sell the console (presumably for a much higher price) and then butt out of the sale of the âoefuelâ that other people make?
I'm a tad confused (Score:1)
Seems to me like a case of the horse-and-buggy industry suing the automotive industry for monopolizing cross-country travel.
The case for breaking up the Apple store
Re:I'm a tad confused (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm a tad confused (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not "their freakin' console". They shouldn't have any say on what you do with the hardware you bought. Should Dell, Lenovo, or whoever get to decide what software you put on your computer? You wouldn't put up with that, so why are you so hot to give Sony that kind of control?
Yeah, yeah, I've heard all the crap from the walled garden apologists. If you want to live that way, fine. I don't really care. But let those of us who like freedom opt-out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a choice. The console model is generally the maker (except nintendo) makes no profit on the hardware or in many cases even eats a loss, hence they make it back on the games. If we want to push the game margin down then expect a large hike in next gen prices.
So we are defending the retail dumping of consoles now? "I get it cheaper so anti-consumer practices are A-OK with me!"
Re: (Score:2)
The console model with its walled garden and iron-fisted publishing limitations allowed for investment of money, manpower and time into games that simply couldn't exist when crank-em-out was the only way to succeed in a saturated market riddled with piracy. There are obviously exceptions, but without something controlling the flow of money and eyeballs, your open platform PC will be choked as hard with low effort copy/paste trash as bad as the apple store. And many a Steam publisher will argue it's already
Re: (Score:2)
If your business model depends on draconian anti-consumer practices, it doesn't deserve to exist.
The consoles allowed "AAA gaming" to exist.
Meh, those all look the same to me. High-budget "safe" productions lacking any real innovation. Not that I count, I don't really play games.
Get a home theater PC (Score:2)
There's always the option to buy or build a desktop computer and connect it to your television instead of buying a PlayStation product in the first place. Almost any new TV sold since 2007 has an HDMI input compatible with any PC whose video card outputs DVI-D or HDMI. PC-exclusive games outnumber PlayStation-exclusive games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well with that logic I guess Apple is off the hook. After all, there's always the option to buy Android and load any app store you want. I'll let Tim Cook know!
Now you're getting it!
Sony's royalty on physical copies (Score:2)
Can't people still install games on playstation using a DVD?
Yes. Sony takes a sizable chunk of the price of a physical copy as well.
Re: I'm a tad confused (Score:2)
Yes they can - but Sony charges their cut there too.
By this logic: (Score:1)
Mobile app stores rips consumers with their fees and online game stores rips customers with their fees. And so are credit card companies and banks ripping consumers off with their fees.
Will they go after those two multi-trillion dollar businesses as well as the digital markets?
And then finally after they decide not to, will the Government acknowledge they too have been ripping consumers off with their fees (masqueraded under acronym of taxes) since the first kings were self proclaimed? Will they too support
"out of all proportion to the costs" (Score:5, Insightful)
I always find amusing how people believe that the price of goods or services has anything to do with their cost, other than the cost defining the price floor.
Re: (Score:2)
I always find amusing how people believe that the price of goods or services has anything to do with their cost, other than the cost defining the price floor.
Price substantially above cost in the long term allegedly indicates failure of a competitive market.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the prices will come down in 200 years when the government granted monopoly on the content expires.
Re: (Score:2)
Not marxists, but definitely young people. This 30% became standard before digital distribution, as it was the cut taken by brick and mortal retail supply chains. This way, digital copies and physical copies can have the same price, leading less confusion in the market and efficiencies in the ad campaigns for the games, which sadly are a large portion of the "development costs".
RO (Score:1)
"What a rip-off! I paid for decent games and all I got was a third-person perspective and mandatory auto-aim."
There's way more to this than just the storefront (Score:3)
Taking a 30% cut of a game like Call of Duty certainly is a huge profit for Sony/MS/Nintendo. But most games aren't Call of Duty.
The vast majority of games don't sell a ton. They still go through certification testing - often several rounds of it - before release, and again for updates.
Development software is provided to developers for free. Development hardware is sold to them at cost, or in many cases given to them for free.
A lot of third party engines and middleware are provided for free to licensed developers.
The vast majority of developers are pretty small, and get a great deal here. If you've got a big hit, you can work out deals with the console makers where they provide advertising support, better terms, etc. The big hits negotiate better deals.
A lot of the games that do well get PS+ / Games with Gold / GamePass deals and get big payouts from the console makers.
There's a fairly narrow range where games do well enough where what the console makers provide is worth less than the 30% cut, but you don't get other perks offered.
what BS (Score:2)
Just like Steam? (Score:1)
AFAIK they take 30% + additional 5% for taxation.
Microsoft probably takes ~30% of XBOX game sales.
Etc.
So ~30% seems like "normal practice".
But what kind of expenses do these companies have? I expect e.g. Steam to do very well even with 20% cut, but I'm merely assuming.
Re: (Score:2)
This will fail (Score:2)
One cannot simply point to profits or monopoly to make a case like this. The question is what does Sony charge in relation to the rest of the industry. Sorry kiddos but the 30% value was determined by what is very clearly a market standard, not just on consoles but the wider tech industry. And you can't sue someone for making money literally the standard way everyone else does. That's not how antitrust laws work.
Now if Sony charged 35% then you may have had a case.
Re: (Score:2)
One cannot simply point to profits or monopoly to make a case like this. The question is what does Sony charge in relation to the rest of the industry. Sorry kiddos but the 30% value was determined by what is very clearly a market standard, not just on consoles but the wider tech industry. And you can't sue someone for making money literally the standard way everyone else does. That's not how antitrust laws work.
Now if Sony charged 35% then you may have had a case.
So, do you agree the same argument applies to Apple and their App Store?
Do they cost the same in stores? (Score:2)
And can you rationally call the PlayStation store a monopoly given that you can get the same games at a number of retail outlets?
News to Apple and Google (Score:2)
I suppose they can use this court case as a defence when they are accused of having a near monopoly?
How to get the console cancelled (Score:1)
I, for one, will be in the queue for this (Score:1)
Have been using PS4 VR since it first came out, and there were clear benefits over the early Vive and Oculus h/w. Folks tend to forget how bad those were at the time the PS4 VR came out. The kids and I have been playing with it fairly regularly since it came out. Some of the party games (also available on other platforms) like "Keep talking and nobody explodes" or "Job Simulator", jump scare games and flight simulators are the most fun. We were gifted an Oculus Quest 2 recently, but we tend not to use it as