3 ms·

I view consoles as the same way I do phones. A single store to purchase goods is anti consumer. I can see someone taking them to court since the only way to bu

I view consoles as the same way I do phones. A single store to purchase goods is anti consumer. I can see someone taking them to court since the only way to buy games locally on your Xbox, Playstation, or Switch is through the first party stores.

gernb 4y ago
Is it though? What if the price to buy a playstation went to $1200 because that was the only way it's affordable for Sony if they can't subsidize it with a restricted store. So now the consumer can side load but they can't afford the device in the first place. I'm just pulling a price out of thin air but I don't think it's quite a simple as "single store = anti consumer" It's similar to carrier locked phones. They'll give you the phone for a 1/10th it's list price if you sign up for 2yrs of service. Is that anti-consumer? Vs forcing the consumer to pay full price up front?
- babl-yc 4y ago
  I was curious what the added price on a $400 console would be if Sony couldn't guarantee a cut of game revenue, so here's some napkin math. Avg 9.6 games sold per console [1] * $70 game * 30% take rate [2] =~ $200 additional. Current pricing: $400 + $70/game Restructured pricing: $600 + $49/game So it's more costs upfront, but not insanely more expensive. It would certainly change marketing and incentives though, if Sony made more money by selling consoles than continuing to extend the lifecycle of the current generation. [1] https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_software_attach_rate_average_player_owns_around_ten_games https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_... [2] https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-pricing-lawsuit https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-...
- aequitas 4y ago
  There is always the second hand market if you don’t want to pay full price. Which currently for digital games doesn’t exists, because everything needs te be bought through first party stores and is DRMed.
- error503 4y ago
  Nothing's stopping Sony (or more likely, retailers) from offering a payment plan for your hypothetical $1200 PlayStation, just like the phone carriers do for handsets. The difference is that they extract the money directly from the consumer, who can make an informed decision about it that has market impact, rather than on the back-end through strongarm deals with the publishing companies where the consumer has no direct influence. I would say that carrier locked phones are undeniably anti-consumer though, and they are banned in many jurisdictions. Their sole purpose is to add friction and give the customer less choice, and due to 'collusion' between the few carriers that exist, impossible to avoid, even if you did choose to purchase the phone outright; it's practically the definition of anti-consumer. The phone purchase should be a separate contract, with a defined monthly payment against the retail price of the phone. Offering this is a profitable enterprise for BestBuy etc. on other electronics, so why not phones? The user should be free to switch carriers with little friction, to maintain as competitive a market as possible in a market that is a natural monopoly. It reminds me a lot of the equipment monopoly in the Bell System until the early '80s.

gernb 4y ago

Is it though? What if the price to buy a playstation went to $1200 because that was the only way it's affordable for Sony if they can't subsidize it with a restricted store. So now the consumer can side load but they can't afford the device in the first place. I'm just pulling a price out of thin air but I don't think it's quite a simple as "single store = anti consumer" It's similar to carrier locked phones. They'll give you the phone for a 1/10th it's list price if you sign up for 2yrs of service. Is that anti-consumer? Vs forcing the consumer to pay full price up front?

babl-yc 4y ago
I was curious what the added price on a $400 console would be if Sony couldn't guarantee a cut of game revenue, so here's some napkin math. Avg 9.6 games sold per console [1] * $70 game * 30% take rate [2] =~ $200 additional. Current pricing: $400 + $70/game Restructured pricing: $600 + $49/game So it's more costs upfront, but not insanely more expensive. It would certainly change marketing and incentives though, if Sony made more money by selling consoles than continuing to extend the lifecycle of the current generation. [1] https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_software_attach_rate_average_player_owns_around_ten_games https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/ps4_has_a_very_high_... [2] https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-pricing-lawsuit https://hypebeast.com/2022/8/sony-playstation-digital-games-...
aequitas 4y ago
There is always the second hand market if you don’t want to pay full price. Which currently for digital games doesn’t exists, because everything needs te be bought through first party stores and is DRMed.
error503 4y ago
Nothing's stopping Sony (or more likely, retailers) from offering a payment plan for your hypothetical $1200 PlayStation, just like the phone carriers do for handsets. The difference is that they extract the money directly from the consumer, who can make an informed decision about it that has market impact, rather than on the back-end through strongarm deals with the publishing companies where the consumer has no direct influence. I would say that carrier locked phones are undeniably anti-consumer though, and they are banned in many jurisdictions. Their sole purpose is to add friction and give the customer less choice, and due to 'collusion' between the few carriers that exist, impossible to avoid, even if you did choose to purchase the phone outright; it's practically the definition of anti-consumer. The phone purchase should be a separate contract, with a defined monthly payment against the retail price of the phone. Offering this is a profitable enterprise for BestBuy etc. on other electronics, so why not phones? The user should be free to switch carriers with little friction, to maintain as competitive a market as possible in a market that is a natural monopoly. It reminds me a lot of the equipment monopoly in the Bell System until the early '80s.