4 ms·
This is not a lawsuit about Sony "taking away my discs", it's something like "Sony allegedly used its control over the PlayStation ecosystem to restrict competi
by aurareturn 2mo ago
This is not a lawsuit about Sony "taking away my discs", it's something like "Sony allegedly used its control over the PlayStation ecosystem to restrict competition in digital distribution, allowing it to keep prices artificially high and harm consumers".
Sony sells their consoles at break even or sometimes at a loss. They hope to make money from their software sales.
Console business has always operated this way. This is why the PS5 launched at $400 and had the graphics horse power of a computer that cost $1,500-$2,000 in the year 2020.
So it makes absolute sense for Sony to "restrict competition" because that's literally the reason why a $400 PS5 was possible.
Can we please have some common sense here? I know this post could very well be unpopular here because HN crowd often detest companies trying to make money. Sony's console business does not always make a profit. There are often huge risks. For example, the PS3 era was a financial disaster. The Wii U era nearly broke Nintendo. Xbox overall has lost Microsoft money.
The tides are clearly pointing to non-physical game sales. PC gaming has long moved onto digital sales via Steam, GOG, Microsoft, etc. Mobile games are 100% digital. It makes sense for consoles to do this as well in order to stay profitable.
Let the free market choose. If physical console games are important to them, then Microsoft's next Xbox could capitalize or gamers can buy games for Switch 2.
- jcranmer 2mo ago> Console business has always operated this way. Actually, I think the practice of selling the console at a loss only started with roughly the PS2 or PS3 generation. (The PS3 and later were very definitely sold for a loss, but I've been unable to track down verifiable statements for the PS1 or PS2.)
- aurareturn 2mo agoSega Dreamcast sold at a loss. I'm sure there were others in the past as well.
- MiroslavPokorny 2mo agoPretty sure the SNES and megadrive were sold at a loss as well.
- chaostheory 2mo agoNintendo does not sell hardware at a loss. That's one of their quirks.
- aurareturn 2mo agoBut they do sell hardware at very tiny margins and have to rely on software sales to keep the business going.
- dataflow 2mo agoSo 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 $X/unit then it isn't? Am I representing your stance correctly and if so do you see any potential issues with this?
- aurareturn 2mo agoNo, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the business of gaming consoles is to not make money on the hardware or even make a loss in hopes of making money on software. There are gaming businesses that make a profit on hardware such as Nvidia GPUs, AMD gaming CPUs, etc. Consumers should have a choice: - Expensive gaming hardware but more choices for gaming app stores - Cheap gaming hardware but only one gaming app store allowed Let the consumers decide what is best for them. Both business models should be allowed.
- dataflow 2mo agoI still don't see how this is inconsistent with what I described. If your business is to sell consoles at >$X/unit then your business is to sell consoles at a profit. If it is to sell at <$X/unit then your business is to sell them at a loss and make up for it later at the gaming app store. Console businesses prefer the latter model nowadays; of course they can still always go for the former model too. So you believe the console businesses following the latter model should be able to restrict the app store but not those following the former. That means $X/unit is where you draw the line for the cutoff where they earn that right to restrict app store competition... how is this not what you're saying?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- aurareturn 2mo agoYou are drawing a line I'm not drawing. There is no magic cut off. My point is that cheap/subsidized hardware and a closed store is one viable business model. The other business model is expensive hardware and an open ecosystem, which already exists in the PC. Consumers should have a choice instead of forcing Sony into the PC model.
- kergonath 2mo ago> Sony sells their consoles at break even or sometimes at a loss. They hope to make money from their software sales. I don’t have a strong opinion in this case (of the games marketplaces on consoles), but this argument is fallacious. The question would not be whether they’d always done it, it would be whether that’s legal. It is not difficult to find business plan that don’t work because of laws and regulations. Anything related to health and safety, for a start. Basically, if society thinks strongly enough that your business should not be run that way, then tough luck. Either change your business plan or die. For example, if locking out competitors’ cartridges in your printer is ruled anticompetitive, then don’t do it. Just because HP has been doing it for 20-odd years is no excuse.
- aurareturn 2mo agoIf locking out competition in your own platform breaks the law, then nearly no business is legal. Common sense needs to prevail.
- kergonath 2mo agoThe 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.
- aurareturn 2mo agoSony 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.
- xboxnolifes 2mo agoYour 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.