This isn’t adding up. I’m all for consumer protections and I love European countries forcing global countries to behave, but this reads more like a console-war fanboy hit piece than legitimate criticism.
According to the article, Sony “is enjoying the position of a monopolist with 80% of the Dutch console market”. That number does not pass the smell test, and there’s no further details provided or sources given. I know Xbox sales are considerably worse in Europe, but the only way I can imagine Sony hitting 80% markets are is if we ignore the Switch and Switch 2 as “handhelds”, and also ignore gaming PC’s and the Steam Deck. Which seems like a bad faith argument to use when evaluating software markets.
The article also claims that “Sony can easily control game pricing in its digital store”. So is this lawsuit exclusively discussing Sony-published titles, or are they just ignoring the role of the publisher in this?
It looks like the goal of this lawsuit is… To force Sony to allow 3rd party platforms to sell download keys that can be redeemed on the Sony store. Which… Is fine I suppose but I don’t expect that to really help the consumer or have an impact on competition. The article doesn’t provide any data on that and I’m not sure whether any actual research has been done there, but in my anecdotal experience those kinds of sites either just follow the MSRP and sales, or are doing shenanigans with different regional price rates or FX rate arbitrage, which can occasionally lead to issues for users depending on how the game works and how important the region is to it. There might be some reduced fees from Sony in the transaction, but I expect that to be made for by similar fees from the 3rd party, or the publisher pocketing the difference. It doesn’t seem material enough to change the price consumers see. Digital “goods” don’t have supply restrictions, so this won’t increase the supply and I don’t see how it changes demand.
Also there’s a lot more questions I have about their methodology. Maybe things are different in the US than Europe, but Nintendo is famous for having fewer sales with shallower discounts than anyone else, with multiplatform games (both physical and digital) being more expensive. The phrases “Switch tax” and “Nintendo tax” have been around the Switch for almost its entire life. Is the Switch just being excluded as a “handheld”? And when they are looking at disc prices, does that include used copies too, or perhaps include a factor for resale value that is reducing the cost?
Maybe they are right, but this article leaves a lot more questions than answers, and I can’t find those answers from a quick Internet search.
I mean… if Apple has to allow side-loading and alternative app stores then I think Sony should have to as well. It wouldn’t make sense to say that only Apple has dominion over the devices it makes and no other manufacturers operate the same.
Well, this isn’t about side-loading or alternative app stores though. The lawsuit is looking to force Sony to allow 3rd party key sellers. So you would have to use a different device like your phone or PC to go to another website, process your payment and get a code, then go to the PlayStation store and redeem that code to have the game added to your account and available for download. Just like there are 3rd party sellers for Steam keys. I know Nintendo allowed that for the 3DS, because there was a period of time where you couldn’t process payments on the 3DS’s eShop, but you could still redeem those codes.
What you’re suggesting would be akin to allowing Ubisoft, EA, or Rockstar to have their own stores on consoles where you could bypass the PlayStation Store/Xbox store/ Nintendo eShop if you want. Potentially 3rd parties like GOG, Steam, or Epic, but certainly there would be restrictions there. For examples, Steam would probably just be the Store without all the other platform features Steam offers. GOG’s anti-DRM stance probably would not fly.
Another key difference is that consoles have physical media. As far as I know, you’ve never been able to go to an Apple store or any other electronics store and buy a physical copy of an app. Even the digital edition of the PS5 now has an optical disc drive available for purchase.
This isn’t adding up. I’m all for consumer protections and I love European countries forcing global countries to behave, but this reads more like a console-war fanboy hit piece than legitimate criticism.
According to the article, Sony “is enjoying the position of a monopolist with 80% of the Dutch console market”. That number does not pass the smell test, and there’s no further details provided or sources given. I know Xbox sales are considerably worse in Europe, but the only way I can imagine Sony hitting 80% markets are is if we ignore the Switch and Switch 2 as “handhelds”, and also ignore gaming PC’s and the Steam Deck. Which seems like a bad faith argument to use when evaluating software markets.
The article also claims that “Sony can easily control game pricing in its digital store”. So is this lawsuit exclusively discussing Sony-published titles, or are they just ignoring the role of the publisher in this?
It looks like the goal of this lawsuit is… To force Sony to allow 3rd party platforms to sell download keys that can be redeemed on the Sony store. Which… Is fine I suppose but I don’t expect that to really help the consumer or have an impact on competition. The article doesn’t provide any data on that and I’m not sure whether any actual research has been done there, but in my anecdotal experience those kinds of sites either just follow the MSRP and sales, or are doing shenanigans with different regional price rates or FX rate arbitrage, which can occasionally lead to issues for users depending on how the game works and how important the region is to it. There might be some reduced fees from Sony in the transaction, but I expect that to be made for by similar fees from the 3rd party, or the publisher pocketing the difference. It doesn’t seem material enough to change the price consumers see. Digital “goods” don’t have supply restrictions, so this won’t increase the supply and I don’t see how it changes demand.
Also there’s a lot more questions I have about their methodology. Maybe things are different in the US than Europe, but Nintendo is famous for having fewer sales with shallower discounts than anyone else, with multiplatform games (both physical and digital) being more expensive. The phrases “Switch tax” and “Nintendo tax” have been around the Switch for almost its entire life. Is the Switch just being excluded as a “handheld”? And when they are looking at disc prices, does that include used copies too, or perhaps include a factor for resale value that is reducing the cost?
Maybe they are right, but this article leaves a lot more questions than answers, and I can’t find those answers from a quick Internet search.
I mean… if Apple has to allow side-loading and alternative app stores then I think Sony should have to as well. It wouldn’t make sense to say that only Apple has dominion over the devices it makes and no other manufacturers operate the same.
I get your point but you are comparing phones with consoles. I don’t think that apple’s case can be used as precedent here.
Well, this isn’t about side-loading or alternative app stores though. The lawsuit is looking to force Sony to allow 3rd party key sellers. So you would have to use a different device like your phone or PC to go to another website, process your payment and get a code, then go to the PlayStation store and redeem that code to have the game added to your account and available for download. Just like there are 3rd party sellers for Steam keys. I know Nintendo allowed that for the 3DS, because there was a period of time where you couldn’t process payments on the 3DS’s eShop, but you could still redeem those codes.
What you’re suggesting would be akin to allowing Ubisoft, EA, or Rockstar to have their own stores on consoles where you could bypass the PlayStation Store/Xbox store/ Nintendo eShop if you want. Potentially 3rd parties like GOG, Steam, or Epic, but certainly there would be restrictions there. For examples, Steam would probably just be the Store without all the other platform features Steam offers. GOG’s anti-DRM stance probably would not fly.
Another key difference is that consoles have physical media. As far as I know, you’ve never been able to go to an Apple store or any other electronics store and buy a physical copy of an app. Even the digital edition of the PS5 now has an optical disc drive available for purchase.
Baby steps. Epic originally sued Apple because they couldn’t sell access to Fortnight outside of the App Store.
My main point was that Sony shouldn’t get special treatment.
But dude,
aPPLE bADdER!!!