
First reported on back in August 2022, a consumer rights campaigner named Alex Neill set out to sue Sony for £5 billion (roughly $6.7 billion). The basis of the class action lawsuit alleged that the PlayStation-maker charges "excessive" amounts of money for digital content through the PS Store — something that it can supposedly get away with by being a market leader.
"The actions of Sony is costing millions of people who can't afford it, particularly when we're in the midst of a cost of living crisis and the consumer purse is being squeezed like never before," is what Neill said at the time.
And now, over a year later, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that the lawsuit can proceed to trial. This basically means that Sony will now be forced to defend itself in court. Previously, the company had attempted to dismiss the lawsuit before it could even get off the ground, but clearly, that hasn't worked.
"This marks a significant first victory for the claimants as Sony lost their battle to block the claim on both the merits of the case and the funding arrangements," reads Neill's newly posted press release.
Neill herself writes: "This is the first step in ensuring consumers get back what they’re owed as a result of Sony breaking the law. PlayStation gamers’ loyalty has been taken advantage of by Sony who have been charging them excessive prices for years."
One of the arguments against Neill's lawsuit was that Sony isn't the only company to take a 30% cut of sales made from its digital storefront — the supposed cause of PS Store prices being so "excessive" to begin with. Indeed, Microsoft and Nintendo do the same with their own console-based marketplaces — but again, that obviously hasn't stopped the lawsuit, against Sony specifically, from progressing to trial.
For the record, the lawsuit is being fought on behalf of everyone (unless they opt out) who spent money through the PS Store between the 19th August 2019 and the 19th August 2022. If Neill is successful, affected consumers could potentially receive between £67 and £562 (plus interest) in estimated damages.
It's also worth noting that trials like this are very, very rarely settled overnight. It could well take years for it to be resolved, so don't be surprised if this whole thing continues to rumble on in the background for a long while yet.
[source playstationyouoweus.co.uk, via videogameschronicle.com]
Comments 229
If this means I get to spend less money on online purchases,then I am all in against Sony for this one. If anything, I don't know why anyone here would ever back Sony on this.
Wait so is his argument based on Sony's cut of store sales vs what devs see, or the "high" price consumers have to pay for games on the store? Both? Frankly I think PlayStation games are extremely cheap if you shop carefully. Right now on sale for under $10 are Horizon ZD, Bloodborne, Metro Exodus, Titanfall 2, Bioshock Collection, Batman Arkham Knight- all top games. And that doesn't even account for the extensive library of top games that were available to any PS5 user free to own for a couple years there, or the insane value you can find in an PS Plus extra subscription... Advocate away, but I think this is a first world problems' first world problem.
@zhoont seems like one of those lawyers chasing an ambulance. Good luck to her, this is an uphill battle.
Too little too late for me, I already stopped paying for games a while ago because of excessive pricing coupled with greedy devs (looking at you Atlus). But I'll be looking forward to my compensation in a few years lol.
What a silly lawsuit. This isn't any different than the Apple App Store lawsuit Apple won. I agree it was a mistake on Sony's part to not let retailers sell digital game codes anymore, like Xbox still does, but there are alternatives to buying games from the PlayStation Store: not buying the games and buying physical games.
Best case scenario, this lawsuit fails but Sony is scared and allows retailers to sell game codes again (even though it makes sense why they stopped that practice in the first place).
Price of videogame in 2000: £60 for Perfect Dark or Majora's Mask on.N64.
Price of videogame in 2022: £60 for Horizon Forbidden West or Gran Turismo 7 on PS4
What did I miss?
Proving that a digital entertainment product is priced excessively high seems literally impossible.We’re not talking about essential medication or something, they’re games.
@RadioHedgeFund The argument people make is that online purchase games should be cheaper because Sony isn't paying for the disk, the box, rent for the store, staff wages to stack shelves.
To me however this is just another method the industry have used to keep prices of games the same despite dev cost sky rocketing.
Doesn’t everyone just wait for a sale? There are so many games out that I can’t keep up, so haven’t felt the need to buy day one for a long time. Plus there is the option of buying second hand physical if you want. This seems like a massive case of entitlement.
I’m not so poor that I’d want see PlayStation crippled for a few hundred pound in my pocket. If I were I wouldn’t spend money on frivolous things like games in the first place.
"The actions of Sony is costing millions of people who can't afford it, particularly when we're in the midst of a cost of living crisis and the consumer purse is being squeezed like never before,"
This annoys me. Sony aren’t forcing anyone to buy games. If you can’t afford a game then wait for a sale or buy it used.
@Terra_Custodes Couldn't this eventually lead to Amazon and all the rest just saying: well I can just sell the digital version now and save on all that warehouse space and delivery costs?
@zhoont all old games though and i'd expect those to be a lot cheaper via the psn store but they are not. Of course those games are very cheap via amazon,ebay etc but not on the psn store.
"The actions of Sony is costing millions of people who can't afford it"
They're video games, nobody has to buy them, if you can't afford a game, don't buy it. I think its comical that this has got so far
@rachetmarvel Oh there will be always be that person who defends the billion dollar company for some reason
I remember when Sony increased the prices for PS Plus a few months back and one person in the comment section immediately started to defend Sony like there life depens on it
I never buy day one games on the store as they in my personal opinion over priced. I always buy my day one games physical via online outlets and i always save between £15-£20. I'll never pay £70 upwards.
Weird times. On one hand one allows for market consolidation (recent huge acquisitions). On the other hand one tries to go against monopolistic behaviour.
@RadioHedgeFund
Did you miss Spiderman 2, cod mw3 and FC24? These are definitely not £60?
@mariomaster96 and there will always be that person decrying sonys corporate greed and predatory money grubbing whilst still paying the extortionate prices of digital games on that digital console they bought cheaper. This i can never fathom. They despise corporate greed but support it by purchasing said corporates products 🤣
Whatever method gets me to pay less for digital games I will back 🤷 I don't understand why someone would be against this assuming that person doesn't work for Sony or has stock, why would you be anti consumer when you're a consumer?
Problem is not the price of the games, problem is the difference between disc and digital.
As I see it we have two solutions, or Sony allows retainers to sell codes, or Soy starts selling "physical" copies, with only the serial code, that translates to retainers to sell codes too..
Maybe its time to say good by to physical copies to get a fair price in digital
My biggest gripe against Sony is them not allowing third party retailers to sell games like Microsoft do. I know you can get the wallet vouchers cheaper and do it like that but I’d prefer the actual games to be able to be brought elsewhere than paying full price on store.
Their main argument is that devs are upping prices because Sony are taking a 30% cut right? The same thing Microsoft does? which is strange that they aren't being sued as well 🤔
The whole case is a joke, they fully belive if Sony take a lower cut then games won't be £70 and us UK players will be paying less for digital games, If Sony lose that case then I fully expect every game on the store to be lowered in price by £10-£15.
Just did some digging and the Xbox Store, Google Play Store, Nintendo Eshop and Steam also all take a 30% cut, I just can't fathom why Sony are the only ones being targeted by this unless those who started the case were obvious fan boys with a grudge, hopefully Sony brings this up and either all stores have to take a lesser cut or things carry on as they are now. But either way I can't see games becoming cheaper for us consumers.
first of all, the price of games is always set by the publisher, not sony (unless we are talking about 1st party titles). so to put the blame on sony for what other publishers are charging on the psn store makes no sense. sure, it would be nice if older games got a permanent msrp drop sooner — in some case they never drop — look no further than sekiro etc. but compared to nintendo there is no comparison.
the best price you are going to get on various nintendo titles is something like 35% off (on sale), even for 7 year old games. keep in mind that the msrp of most nintendo games never drops for the lifetime of the title. that is quite outrageous but nintendo is entitled to set its own prices. sony on the other hand usually drops the cost of its games by 50% (on sale) after 12-18 months and a permanent msrp drop usually occurs by the end of this cycle as well, eventually reaching the $20 msrp.
so yea, i find this lawsuit confusing. the market will decide what is and what isn't appropriate. if people stopped purchasing games due to their high costs, the prices would come down. clearly, most people have no problem with the current business model.
And people need to understand that if Sony lose this case it will dmagae sony quite badly, They aren't Microsoft who would class it as loose change, £5 billion is something that will have a knock on effect in terms of more closures, game cancellations, no more acquisitions and more people losing their jobs as Sony try to gather that money, and all for what? Because I can guarantee now game prices won't change and all us consumers will get out of this is a weaker Sony.
Good digital games should not cost the same as physical media. Ridiculous,!
@UltimateOtaku91 lol yep digital games will still cost as much.
@bluesylvanite Exactly, so I don't get how this lawsuit is for the consumers, we will get a refund yes but then continue to pay the same prices as before.
At the risk of sounding like I'm protecting the multi billion dollar company from consumer interests, I don't really get how this case has any legs to stand on. PS Store prices seem roughly in line with those of its main competitor, and the 30% cut is essentially an industry standard with Xbox, Nintendo and Steam doing the same.
It's also running substantial sales on large parts of its catalogue almost the entire year round. With a bit of careful spending, you can consistently grab tons of games without spending a lot of money.
I'm all for digital store prices dropping a little, but I can't really get behind this wording:
"The actions of Sony is costing millions of people who can't afford it, particularly when we're in the midst of a cost of living crisis and the consumer purse is being squeezed like never before,"
I mean, it's a luxury product, no one has a right to demand access to it, so to speak. If you can't afford it, get the discounted games you can afford and wait for a sale on the other ones. As someone who has been buying through the PS Store for a decade now, I certainly don't feel like Sony owe me anything.
It's pretty much only the brand new games that make my wallet hurt but the frequent discounts and PS plus subscription sort of makes up for it. At least for me..
But yeah I don't think digital should cost the same as physical even for new games. It surely cost them less money to deliver a digital download than the manifacturing of a physical copy of the game. And they should promote digital copies rather than physical as per the current environment issues we have with plastics.
As a company this is the kind of stuff they should do to follow with the times I think.
@Juanalf
It isn't anti-consumer to be aware a nonsensical lawsuit succeeding is a bad thing.
I hope I get some money from it 😅
@carlos82 or better yet, get a pc so sony cant rip anyone off anymore
An utterly absurd and frivolous lawsuit.
Here's the point: the price of video games is not a legal, or even a moral, issue. If Sony decided to charge £1000 for a game, that is their right as the service provider - and it is my right as a consumer to decide whether or not to pay this; which, obviously, I would not.
What next, suing Cartier because their watches cost tens of thousands of pounds, which most people can't afford? Or Rolls Royce, etc. etc.?
Personally, I can't afford to spend £60-70 on new games, which is why I never do. But if I started suing every company whose products I couldn't afford, I'd never be out of court.
@nomither6 thank god i understand what a luxury mean and i can be ripped off without bitching about it like these guys.
I think this is the equivalent of 5 minutes of fame but for lawyers.
I wonder if the clients are actually paying this guy.
Do I want better prices? Sure.
Do I think sony has to pay more than what they paid for bungie to some guys who don't understand how buying things works? Hell no, lol
Compared to Nintendo prices PS seem a lot cheaper if you go second hand.
The entitlement is real. When I can't afford something, I simply wait for a sale and play the games thay I'm interested in and can afford. Even when I have disposable income to buy whatever I want, I still wait for a sale, unless it's an indie game that I want to support.
I don't understand this lawsuit, yes digital games are priced highly, but no one is forcing them to buy them, these are not essential items like food, water or gas. Does this mean we can sue our energy suppliers for the high prices?
This is a bit like sueing Ferrari for when they charge me £300,000 for a new car that I did not actually need to spend
@rachetmarvel Maybe people will defend Sony because it's a stupid lawsuit that's a waste everyone's time...as well as tax payers's money.
Not to mention that if it was somehow successful it would have a huge impact on Sony's quality output going forward. And for what? Just because some people want to save a few quid? Just wait for a sale.
@DaniPooo the argument is that if digital costs less than physical, that will seriously hurt all the shops selling physical copies. How will they be able to compete? Even if they sell digital copies, who would go to a physical store just to buy a digital copy of the game?
"it's costing millions who can't afford it"
I would understand this argument, if important things such as electricity, gas (both high due to poor UK government pricing controls) and other bills were targeted here, but not for what is in essence a luxury, non essential product.
I concur that digital pricing is ridiculous and something needs to change, but this argument makes little sense and is weak at best.
Shame this wasn't a thing when I was a teen, I could have gotten a legal team Involved to get me a cheaper NeoGeo and games, but no back then I just sucked it up and either saved pocket money or I dunno, just realised I cannot have everything I want..
@Mad001 it could be argued, that you pay for the convenience of having the game be all digital.
@DaniPooo OK, but the whole cost of physical v digital is a bit of a red herring. Manufacturing and distribution of physical discs accounts for only about 5% of a game's costs - so about £3.50 of a £70 game. In other words, it doesn't really make much of a difference.
@gymratAmarillo im all about being angry at consumers for complaining about prices instead of being angry at corporations for charging them in the first place
consumes love to go against eachother for some reason, crabs in a barrel mentality i guess.
It’s a weird one, digital is more expensive than physical for some strange reason that no one really knows.
Of course I want to pay less, who doesn’t.
But on the flip, Sony doesn’t charge more (maybe minor differences) for a game than other platforms. Had MS not increase prices to £70 then perhaps they had a better argument. What exactly is excessive?
So yeah I can’t see it winning.
They should sue Nintendo who almost never put their games on the eShop with a discount. Nintendo is far worse than Microsoft, Sony, Steam when it comes to digital games.
If anyone can’t afford a new digital game (me included) then save up then buy it if you really really want it.
It’s extreme nonsense to me.
Did anyone force consumers to buy at this price? Nope, also if you don't have the money or tough economy..how about don't buy? Playstation, consoles , games etc. Its a luxury not a need. It's like going to the store buying bread and milk, then you buy some chocolate and it puts you over budget so you sue Mars, because it was expensive and put you out.,cost more than you originally wanted to spend.... it aint the companies fault dumb lawsuit
They deserve to be taken to the courts about this. Nothing will change in prices when physical is stopped so it absolutely needs to be addressed by the powers that be.
I imagine if they manage to win this, let's say Sony draws their fee to lower percentage, making games cost not 80 euros anymore, but back to 70 etc this will provoke gaming industry to just raise the price back to 80 because "cost of making", which would increase Sony's bag too.
Alex Neill is Jim Ryan spelled backwards.
Finally Sony are going to be held accountable for all those times they held a gun to my head and forced me to buy £70 digital games day one when I couldn’t afford it. Thank you Alex Neill, I can’t think of a more important use of the court’s time!
I think the only real issue here is when the digital copies cost way more than physical, considering there's less cost involved as you don't have to make the physical media. However, it does move that data onto servers that need to be constantly maintained and the rest of the infrastructure needed to deliver them.
I DO think the prices are stupid, but at the same time, that's why I don't own a Lambo. I simply don't buy them. For me, the problem is solved. I just wait for sales.
Personally, I think the court will rule that Sony can charge what they like because options do exist between ignoring digital sales altogether, waiting for sales or buying discs.
Now that all changes if Sony move to an ENTIRELY digital storefront and stop producing physical media that can be resold at better prices, but we aren't there yet. I can't help feel this should have waited until then...
@ecurb7 Still, give me a 5% discount then
Wonder if the entire legal team is made up of M$ lawyers?
Overlord Spencer sat in a plush Xbox chair and steepled fingers, smiling, ‘Got get ‘em boys and girls’.
@naruball I don't care, I guess they have to go out of business or find other ways to make money then.
More focus on merch, and aftermarket, retro and whatever perhaps?
In the country where I reside most if not all classic game stores are gone already, physical games are found at more general electronics and hardware stores as well as toy stores and some super markets. These places are not 100% relying on the video game business so they do not have the same worries
But yeah it's really not my issue as a customer to solve the problem for the game shops, they have been a dying breed for many years now. And more general stores will just have to buy less physical games so that they can be assured that they can sell them all or most of them. (Which takes some adjusting but it will be fine)
Perhaps if the game companies brought back physical games with proper manuals that gave them some extra value then they could bring up the demand again.
But I don't see why I should worry about the game shops going out of business if they are not really required when physical games can be found at other places.
@dnb word like I don't even think of spending money on luxuries until my bills r paid and I got enough food to last me these people complaining about privileges is wild 😒
This will get thrown out. It's not a monopoly or anything close to an essential service like utilities or food. Sony will also show that it has regular discounts and subscription services.
We'd all like cheaper games but there's no legal case here, surely.
I demand Ferrari drop the prices of their luxury sports cars!!!
In this cost of living crisis, I believe not many people can afford them either!
Stunned and appalled that this lawsuit is being allowed to go ahead. I prefer a boxed, physical copy when buying games but will buy digital if it's an easier option such as when stock is low, it comes with add-ons or extras or if it's on sale. If I think a digital copy was unfairly priced or not good value, I'd think outside the box and not buy it... I don't know this Alex Neill but I get the feeling she's luring consumers on to the bandwagon with the promise of compensation without understanding the consequences this lawsuit could have. Firstly it opens the floodgates for consumers to appeal against purchases they've made off any retailer as they retrospectively feel it was poor value - because surely people only buy things that they see as good value at that time? Secondly this would damage Sony and developers massively. Weekly we read reports of devs having to make staff redundant and something like this obviously isn't beneficial to the industry. Finally this adds gas to the fires of self-entitlement, a growing issue where some people don't take responsibility in this case for their spending. Hopefully this gets thrown out as it deserves to be.
The purchasing power in my Eastern European country is really low, yet the price for a full game that's usually 70 EUR is actually around 77 EUR with added VAT. Prices should be localized.
@ecurb7 Do you have a source for that £3.50? Regardless I can only assume this DOESN'T include other cuts like retailers fees that physical has.
This is a nuanced subject I DO believe Digital pricing should be cheaper than physical not least that retailers and others middle men don't make a cut anymore, all that additional revenue is going to the platform holder or publisher, when some of it should come to the consumer. It's likely a stealth price increase.
That said you could argue, and I have in the past, that games should be more expensive than they were 30 years ago considering spiralling development costs, and yet they aren't, especially when inflation is accounted for. To be clear I don't WANT more expensive games, but I also don't expect games to stay roughly the same cost when virtually everything else is 2, 3, 4+ times the cost in that timeframe even after accounting for inflation. Perhaps this is a happy medium?
Yet this case seems wildly opportunistic. As @dnb passionately wrote games are a luxury, they aren't needed. Should Ferrari be sued for selling cars for millions of pounds? If this was an essential service, gas, electricity, internet, then I would be on board, but games? No. It's a sellers market, they can charge what they want and we can choose whether to buy or not.
This seems like madness. I'm not for sticking up for corporations price gouging but let's face it, your PS5, your PS5 accessories, your PS5 games... Well they ain't a necessity, surely this gets thrown out rapid.
What I would like to see pushed for however is the ability to purchase digital games elsewhere. Sony has a closed shop on this which could no doubt be viewed as anti consumer, especially when you can pick up digital games for other platforms on other site (not talking mobile here, talking console).
I can go and pick up a digital game for my Xbox or Switch via numerous other sites, I have access to various storefronts for PC and various site will also sell keys for these. I have choices.
The most you can do with Sony is pick up some cheap(er) voucher codes elsewhere.
I would like this to be looked into, in an ideal world sort of situation. Not gonna lose sleep over it however.
Good, these company’s have no interest in fairness unless forced to so I am all for this legal action being brought
But they know they can get away with it as people don’t collectively stand up to these companies
The consumer could have it so awesome if they had a collective backbone
Have no idea how powerful we as the consumer can be if we stood together but it never happens or almost never happens so these companies get away with it time and again
@TrickyDicky99 imagine how much money 5% is for a moment.
Even on just one game..
I will make you an example that will open your eyes.
Spiderman Miles Morales had sold over 6.5 million units by July 2021, The current price of that game is about
30.56 USD (Converted from my currency) And this is a heavily discounted price.
But still, let's imagine that they get 5% of that.
That's 9.9million USD if my calculations are correct.
And that's using the current discounted price rather than including the full price when the game was new, it's also only 5% which was the lowest rate you said.
And the number of sold units was from 2021 so you can bet your grandmother that the number of games sold will be far greater.
Now.. That's only one game.. Imagine what happens when you have that sort of revenue coming from a LOT of games as well as subscriptions.
Yeah they ONLY get like 5-10% Lol
Developers have debated for a while why games should cost more based on production value and costs. I find it silly how people feel pressured to buy games at full price when it is entirely optional and with the ability to wait for used games and sales still available openly…
In my opinion some of them are honestly true to their value and we can use our own initiative to justify if a game is truly worth a single pence of our money.
This is applicable to literally the whole world in many other various industries where products are over priced or being sold above retail value, yet people still buy these out of discretion.
Removed - inappropriate
It's dissapointing, but not suprising at all, that so many are sticking up for the corporation and not the consumer. The usual fanboys are in the trenches defending their corporate overlords.
The reason its Sony is obvious; This has been on the cards since they stopped supplying game keys to 3rd parties, they created a monopoly for themselfs.
I thought everyone on here was dead against monopolies thr last 2 years, so why support this one?
@ChrisDeku No one is claiming they're essential. Non-essential things can be overpriced.
Well, here in Brazil the prices are really high. There are many new releases I didn't bought because of that. I hope this lawsuit at least pushes Sony to more reasonable prices.
@rachetmarvel Indeed, backing Sony is bootlicker behaviour.
@mariomaster96 How many times can you sell Zelda game at full price. Didnt they make the Mario64 a digital game go in a fault a timed digital release to drive up the prices.
For me digital is no issue I have not bought more then 10 games max digital sinds the PS3 PS4/PS5 and all of those where discounted.
Plus are videogames a necessity thing you need to survive nobody forces you to buy at release for full price. Can't wait to see which old Zelda game is coming to the Switch 2.
And my favorite thing is that people are screaming that we want digital only less options and cry that the market gets more expensive.
I rather see a lawsuit that broken games can get a real refund all the time every time. Look at Cyberpunk/GTA remasters where you need to hope that a broken game like those get a refund because the developers let you do that. Or for me to make a easy backup of my console without forcing me to delete my console the same option as on my PS4.
Isn’t this more about how Playstation have tried to wall off other resellers; whereas Xbox hasn’t? It’s not about a game selling for £70 digitally. If that is the cost, that is the cost. But the lawsuit is about the fact there is no other method to obtain that digital game so therefore Sony can keep the price there or raise it and there is nothing you can do about it (in terms of purchasing it - of course you could just not buy it but thats not the point). With Xbox you have CDKeys selling a game code, usually a couple of quid cheaper than the Xbox store. When Xbox puts its games on sale, so does CDKeys to keep it cheaper. It’s a choice for the consumer and it forces competition. I think almost everyone is taking this out of context and defending Sony without understanding it? Or have I got this all wrong since the first 50 or so comments are coming from a different angle…
Also now people are saying PS games aren’t a necessity so the laws shouldn’t apply. But yet Microsoft acquiring companies shouldn’t happen because of monopolies (apparently) yet Xbox games aren’t a necessity either. Facepalm. The fanboys are real.
Also anyone mentioning physical games - this is about digital games.
@knowles2 Whilst the lack of infrastructure and manufacturing plays some part what we have with online stores is server space, perpetual rental, SDK funding and the like.
The chances of being able to walk into a store (if you can find one) and buying a new copy of Wild Arms from the PS1 are pretty slim yet I can log onto the store on my PSP/Vita/PS3/PS4/PS5 and buy it.
Good luck to these fine people trying to actually make a difference for consumers rather than being an impotently angry online corporation apologist. Fanboyism is a plague and it's even more pitiful when the fanboys idolise companies, accepting all the pouring sludge with open mouths just because the filth is branded a certain way.
Digital prices should be cheaper surely their aren't as many overheads as physical ,however gaming is a luxury and a very expensive one ,cant really complain about the cost of living crisis then start moaning about the price of a porsche,if she wins she will go after ms and Nintendo and then they all will want to claw their money back one way or another, and who will suffer ,us gamers.
@K1LLEGAL I know you can't buy codes for ps games ,but you can buy psn cards much cheaper.
@NinjaNicky "don't buy digital".
What about all the people who own the PS5 Digital Only console?
W to whoever filed the lawsuit 🙌 love that for them
Lots of lovely fluffy pro consumer words, but really the agenda behind all that is this lawyer wants to make millions for herself and has seen a loophole way to do it. This type if trial is only worth anything if the same ruling is then applied to every other store front taking a 30% cut, which as we know is pretty much every big name store. Not sure how much Valve takes though from Steam sales?
@Mephisto2869 Where can you find PSN cards cheap? Any particular place I should be looking at?
@Mephisto2869 yea you are right about that (thanks ShopTo!) so I guess that doesn’t count.
@S1ayeR74 I use shopto
To people crying about PSN prices, you either don't wait for sales or don't buy physical. I have never bought a digital game Day 1. There are new sales every week, the longer you wait, the more you save.
Well this is just ridiculous really. 1- you don’t have to buy digitally at all. Get a disc console and buy preowned on eBay or CEX( remember when Xbox tried to ban this practice). 2- Big triple A bangers are the same price now as they were 25 years ago. Go away silly person
to be honest, I don't buy anything digital unless its at least 50%, even if that means I have to wait a year to play a game. seems a bit odd to me that someone would willingly pay £60 for a game and then moan about the cost of it afterwards. patience seems to be a forgotten virtue these days.
@TrickyDicky99 There you go then, so boo the flippin hoo...
I know the function of any company is to grow and make as much money as possible.
But you know, they are a massively successful company, they are the market leader, they can afford doing the right thing even if it means lowering their revenue a bit.
In the end they probably get the money back anyway, with more affordable prices comes more sold games.
it's not like a small discount on digital games will break their business...
I mean if you compare multiplatform stuff to how it's priced on Steam, especially more than 6 months after release, PlayStation is generally more expensive, especially when stuff is on sale.
I don't know whether there's anything illegal about it though. There's also the fact that you can buy discounted PSN credit, which muddies the waters for me, because it suggests that they could sell credit with less of a retailer profit margin, and reduce prices, and things would work out about the same for Sony while being less complicated for the consumer.
I hate to be the person defending the mega corporation, but I frankly don't understand this lawsuit. What exactly is excessively priced? I agree that non-game content is often excessively priced - I'm looking at you TMNT avatar skins in SF6 - but like anything else, these are prices set by publishers, not the platform holder. If the argument is Sony taking their 30% cut is making content too expensive, then that is assuming that publishers and developers will move that savings on to consumers, which is both a huge assumption and likely flat out untrue - we can look at Epic Games Store, and for the most part the games are priced the same as Steam (Epic takes 12%, I think).
On top of all of this, and as mentioned by other commenters, games are expensive to make. I won't pretend to know how expensive they are to make and market, and despite that they are often cheaper than they were 20 years ago when you adjust for inflation. So add-on content is expensive, I think it's annoying, but I don't know if that's where the actual profits are.
I think it’s customary for effecrively all of us now to wait more like two years these days to play most titles. The occasional one being irresistable on release but it’s even harder for the youth who have even less money to not cave on day one
@Mephisto2869 I use shopto as well for PSN codes, they are pretty good especially when your a Gold tier member. I think I pay £43 for a £50 PSN top up.
I also have no idea what it's like in Europe, but at least in the US, the federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in decades. So wage growth has not kept up with inflation and cost of living.
@popey1980 Well, not everyone want a huge physical collection to take up space in their home, or moving parts that are the first things to break in the console.
For the more minimalist people like me I like having all my games stored inside the console and the added assurance that I won't have to depend on a laser head to last for the lifetime of the console..
However, I find it ridiculous that you pay the same price for digital as physical. Physical copies cost money to manufacture and they are sold for a price that allows the reseller to make a profit. With a digital purchase directly from Sony you should be able to bypass these things...
Why should I pay for nonexistent manufacturing and retail store profits? It doesn't make sense...
And if you argue that I am not paying for these things with a digital version of the game. Then that means that Sony priced the digital version of the game higher than the physical. And why would the digital version be more expensive? It's just a copy of some files...
@UltimateOtaku91 yeah im gold tier too,don't have to pay full price if you use your noggin 😁
WHAT? Are they for real? When nintendo is still charging full price for decades old games such as Mario bros U and mario 3d world onswitch eshop???
@Arisen yeah nintendo are the worse of the 3 to be fair ,they also release the same games year on year ,but they get a pass because of the attitude...aww its nintendo ,cuddly fluffy nintendo...leeches, I play there games on my ps vita,how you like that ninty 😂
Sure, why not also sue the EARTH for rotating too fast, so we can have more than 24h a day -.-'
Lawyers and Judges are very good in auto-feeding their jobs.
Digital games cost too much regardless of the cut that Sony take. I never buy a game at launch but if everyone did that then games would either flop or have to go into sale pretty much immediately after launch.
@Mephisto2869 if it's any comfort for you I will let you know that I am also against Nintendo's practices.
But to me it's not about "who is the worst".
It's about doing the right thing (which everyone apparently is struggling with)
@RadioHedgeFund Price of carts were expensive before you put game on it.
I googled it but PS1 disks were somewhere around $1 and N64 were about $30 just for the media.
@RudeAnimat0r Inflation is everywhere I think right now, we have it in Sweden as well. Even just seeing the price of a flipping tomato is enough to ruin your day sometimes..
I don't recall Sony forcing anyone to spend money on the Ps store, gaming has never been cheap. If 70-100$ is that detrimental to someone's finances then I'd suggest finding another hobby. I would be more concerned with the price gouging from Apple rather than Sony.
@DaniPooo Well I kind of meant wages, I know inflation is bad. I have no idea if wages in Europe have been climbing steadily over the years or not.
@NinjaNicky Oh so now you can't have an opinion if you bought the hardware? Thx..
I think I am especially permitted to have an opinion if I actually have some hands-on experience, heck I would even say that I feel obligated to speak my mind
And if someone who doesn't own the console speaks about this, what then? Then you hear people call them Nintendo fanboys or trolls or something.
It's almost as if people feel personally insulted hearing any criticism towards Sony..
Sony is going to struggle to argue a case on this to be honest, digital prices have been consisently higher that physical media despite not having the oveheads of manufacturing, artwork and distribution and cuts to the retailers.
The only thing they have to pay for is server space, and that will never compare costwise to physical.
It's always been a con, but it's a con we all live with because we can't be bothered getting up off our butts to change games.
(I have been guilty of this since the start of PS3, I rarely bought any physical titles, but thousands of digital).
@RudeAnimat0r Not in Sweden at least. Everything is getting more expensive but salaries widely stays the same.
More and more people struggle financially.
Can't afford games on PS Store, but can afford to take a corporation to court over it?!
Okay, then.
@SgtTruth Then simply don't buy the products. A majority of games are also on physical disks. If distributors of products are under sold by the producers then it makes no sense to carry their products. That's why some of the physical games have deals that Sony doesn't offer, same as how 90% of products are more expensive when buying directly from the company website rather than Amazon. Ad I said if someone considers the price expensive than I suggest simply not purchasing the game and reading a book or watching a film for entertainment instead. If you consider how expensive pc gaming is compared to plug and play consoles you actually would most likely be saving a significant amount of money paying a little extra for a playstation game rather then the constant purchasing of upgraded components for a pc just to run the latest games efficiently. To each their own but 70-100$ isn't going to make or break me, if it did I would reevaluate my financial decisions.
Way i see it is that this case falls down because:
1. Sony isnt forcing anyone to pay those prices. People can make their own purchasing decisions
2. For those unhappy with the digital price, there is more often than not a physical version available to buy at retail
3. Third parties set their own prices on the store. Sony has said this multiple times
4. Other platforms - as noted in the article - take a similar cut to Sony and charge the same prices on the store front
5. Sony regularly discount the prices of digital games on the store. Pretty much every title has had some form of discount over the past year
There are other factors at play too but will leave it there. I will say its an important case to bring when thinking about the bigger picture and as games increasingly go digital only. There will have to be some form of secondary market to keep publishers honest, but that is a conversation for another day
@TheCollector316 Yes, you can still buy physical games. But eventually you won't be. You probably lived in some cave and aren't aware that currently companies like Sony are doing their best to diminish physical media. So that leaves you with one place to buy Sony games. And yes, one can opt out, but that still doesn't mean that Sony can do what they want. As a consumer, you have the right to complain about the prices. A lawsuit like this will force to Sony to take the consumers seriously. Anyone defending Sony in this matter are part of the problem.
@Rob_230 It's like you want them to fail. Why? This will be beneficial for consumers. Perhaps this lawsuit will force Sony to contain their greed a little. That's a good thing. How anyone can be so pessimistic about this is beyond me.
@Wakozako I hate to break it to you, but here goes. You are exactly the reason why Sony can get away with raising prices like they do. And you also seem to be ignorant on the fact that companies like Sony are trying real hard to limit physical media. At one point, you won't be able to purchase discs. Then what? Yes, one can stop buying Sony games. But guess what? When people like me opt out and people like you keep paying, eventually all the costs will be tasked on people like you. I wonder how long you will last without the aid of consumers like me? I can assure you, not long.
@Rob_230
1. Sony isn't forcing anyone to buy their games at all, but that does not excuse unfair prices and unfair business practices.
yes I think it's unfair that a digital copy cost the same or more than a physical since a digital does not cost them as much to get into the hands of customers.
2. Tell that to the people with digital only consoles and/or people who lives in limited spaces and don't want a shelf full of games.
3. There is no way that they can't update the terms for selling games via the PS Store just as they can update user agreements.
4. It doesn't make theft ok just because your neighbour is a thief.
5. Discounts does not justify digital physical vs digital prices being the same for new games, although it's appreciated.
@GamingFan4Lyf @GamingFan4Lyf It's a class action. The costs will be shared. And if they win, the costs can be charged to Sony.
I thought digital pricing was the same across all the storefronts? Unless I'm not understanding this correctly. And if so why is Sony being singled out?
I'm not happy about the PS+ essential price hike that I've just paid for the year. I'm not happy that they've stopped allowing stores to sell codes. And the price disparity between physical and digital games is one thing that prevents me switching my habit. I get most games atleast £10 cheaper on physical than digital.
@NinjaNicky I think a lot of you fanboys can't seem to comprehend that as a consumer you have the right to complain about the prices. Whether you are justified or not can be argued or like this be fought out in court. This is a good thing for all the consumers. Why are you defending Sony? You do realize that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are charging you too much?
@GADG3Tx87 You mean that you think Alex Neill should have taken on Nintendo and Xbox at the same time as well?
Well that would have been appreciated, However one at the time is probably more realistic given how expensive something like this can be, and also how demanding I imagine an ordeal like this could be. She probably has a better chance winning if she limit her focus to one case at a time lol
I for one am happy that someone is doing something.
And if she win then I am sure we see Nintendo up next
@DaniPooo
I mean I'm just saying if the situation is the same across all the platforms then fair is fair. But I don't know if the prices on the Xbox store are the same. I assume so.
I wouldn't mind a few quid back for games I've already bought! Put that back into buying some nice, (cheaper) games on ps store! 😅
@RadioHedgeFund greater amount of gamers. Majora's mask sold 3.4 million, horizon forbidden west sold 10 million. Breath of the wild sold 30 million, and Nintendo's discounts are notoriously weak compared to Sony's
@GADG3Tx87 And you are probably absolutely right.
I have no experience with Xbox, but I know this to be the case with Nintendo.
And it's only fair that everyone should be held accountable.
But would you rather no-one did anything?
Depending on how this one turns out you can bet that Nintendo will be next. But I suspect that Nintendo have an even sharper legal team. And so starting with Sony will actually be helpful in building a strong case against Nintendo I think
@chrichtonsworld i dont want the case to fail. Lower prices is better for consumers and increasingly so as we approach an all digital future. Just anticipating the arguments Sony will make in their defence.
My hope is however that regardless of outcome, this is the start of greater conversations around long term consumer protection as the industry heads towards an all digital future. By which i mean:
1. Removal of monopoly on pricing on the PS Store as and when there is no alternative route to purchase
2. Consumer protection against paid for content being removed at the whim of the platform holder (i.e. through store front's being shut down - i have ALOT of digital vita content and if the store gets closed i would be furious)
3. Greater archiving of digital content
So in summary:
No i dont want the case to fail if it is found Sony adopted unethical practices.
No i dont see Sony losing the case, but if they do, hey i will get some money back.
Yes i want to see greater consumer protections in place for gamers
Call me old-fashioned but when I think I'm charged too much for something I'll stop buying it or go elsewhere. I don't need someone to do it for me. I don't need any more 'protection', thanks.
This is utter nonsense. Either pay the price being asked or don't. If enough people don't one of two things happen: the price goes down or the software stops getting made as it's more profitable to do something else.
I live in a world where people literally cannot afford their life saving medications, food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, so this seems a bit ridiculous. The courts have much more important things to do.
@RadioHedgeFund my thoughts exactly. I remember paying about £50 for Star Fox on the SNES back in 1993. Going by rate of inflation we should be paying £125 for games. Then people wonder why game developers are making staff redundancies or shutting down!
@zhoont From what I saw, a rep at Epic Games complained they could NOT choose to lower the price of their games simply because their contract with SONY said they could not.
So if an Epic game was $30 on PSN and Epic Game Store.... if Epic wanted to lower the price or put it on sale they would not be able to because SONY says, "No the price is $30 everywhere." Thus the argument is that SONY artificially keeps prices high.
@Th3solution You don't think that poor people wish they could afford video games? I've seen documentaries where in Africa someone in a slum village gets a used PS2 and the entire village comes to their home to play.
Just because you are poor doesn't mean that you can't have the desire to have entertainment in your life.
Sony reducing prices might not immediately mean that the poor people in Africa will be able to buy a PS5 and games for it.
But it certainly does not hurt the consumers, and sorting out unfair practices will not hurt the consumer, Sony might feel a bit butt-hurt but they can afford it.
Yeah the court's have many important missions and some might arguably be more important than this.
But the majority of their cases is not when you look at how many people it concerns.
There has been over 40 million PS5's sold that's probably close to 40 million households (give or take) with many of them housing multiple people.
So this concerns a lot of people.
And hey, I do not think we're talking about a huge pricecut, But I do think it's only fair that digital games are less expensive than physical.
But do you think it's fine to pay too much just because you can afford it?
Wouldn't you rather see fair prices and save some money on your purchases?
@NinjaNicky What a terrible take on this. Well done on being Sony's favourite customer.
Also, Imagine that you ordered a Big Mac menu to your home, there's the delivery fee there and you accept that because it makes sense and it's worth it for you.
Then the next time you actually visit Mac Donald's and it turns out that the price for a Big Mac menu there is the same as if it had the delivery fee included.
Do you think that would be ok practice and make sense?
That's kind of how I feel about paying the same for digital vs physical.
All I wan't is the pricing to be fair and make sense and not feel like I am being screwed over for buying a digital game.
@DaniPooo
Absolutely not, they should do something. I've said for years the gaming industry and platform holders need some real regulation. It's become a much bigger and serious money making business and let's face it we the customers have been gouged and taken advantage of in some ways. True, you don't have to buy it if you don't want to but that doesn't excuse the fact that real regulation is needed. It's about time authorities took notice. MTX prices used to be like 0.99 for some cosmetic or something small. Now you can see some reach 4 digits, that's not micro. I mean Konami charged £9.99 for the colour blue in MGS Survive? Really?
@DaniPooo I realize “two wrongs don’t make a right” and just because pharmaceutical companies, gas and electro companies, and grocery stores price-gouge doesn’t mean than unfair monopolistic practices elsewhere are okay. I don’t like the way Sony and Microsoft are pushing us all into a digital only future where they have complete control over game pricing. Sure I’d like better digital prices. But my point is that I’d rather be able to afford my insulin. And be able to heat my home in the winter.
Not even limited to “poor” people (that term could mean different things to different people), even the wealthy middle class can’t afford their taxes, their meds, and their utilities in the U.S. That’s all I’m saying. If I was in charge of the world, I’d fix that stuff first before the PSN. The courts can barely handle the cases they already have, so this lawsuit runs the risk of being a detractor from bigger issues, is what I meant. If it ends up helping me pay $10 less for God of War Ragnarok, then ‘yay!’ for that. I just wish the courts would advocate for us on healthcare, tax reform, and oil pricing. There’s plenty of more egregious consumer injustices going on.
@Mephisto2869 I have had a switch for more than a year now but there's no way I was gonna pay full price for old games such as mario odyssey (now 6 year old game) that's why most of my switch library is used games. Also, nintendo never discounts their own games on eshop unlike playstation!
@Joabra01Swe
But you understand that you cannot compare a Spider-man 2 with an N64 game in terms of development, right? This lawsuit goes nowhere. You choose to play games yourself. Sony isn't forcing anyone to do this. And you are not obliged to purchase digitally. You choose to buy a console without a disc drive. You also have a free choice in this regard. If you're too lazy to get your ass off the couch and go to the local game shop, you're in bad shape. And even THAT can be done online these days. But do Microsoft and Nintendo charge nothing for sales in their store? Or will they come next?
@DaniPooo Well, even running a digital storefront, hosting downloads etc. costs Sony some money. So, maybe they should be giving us, I don't know, a 3% discount? That would be nice, I guess, but people are still simply wrong to assume that digital automatically means much cheaper.
@ecurb7 I am willing to bet that just the Plus subscriptions alone generate way more money than the cost associated with keeping the store and their servers up and running
@Th3solution Well if they lower the prices then perhaps it will be easier for you to heat your home, buy insulin and also maybe afford a game.
I think this problem you are facing probably is something the government should take ownership of rather than a legal solution.
@bluesylvanite Yes, I think that's all true as well. But the lawsuit is aimed at Sony specifically, so it is presumably trying to hold them responsible for all pricing on the PS Store. Regardless, there's nothing illegal about how Sony, or other publishers, price their games - we (including me) may not like paying up to £70, but that's a different matter.
Imagine there was no physical media to compete with UK digital prices on PlayStation.
This is where Sony and Microsoft want to nudge the industry
@GADG3Tx87 Sounds like we are in agreement on some point then
@DaniPooo they won't just go out of business. They'll first promote MS and Nintendo consoles and games any chance they get. That could seriously hurt Sony. At least that's the argument. Not saying I agree.
@DaniPooo Probably, but that's true regardless of whether individual games are sold physically or digitally. My point stands, which is that digital gaming is not inherently significantly cheaper - most of the cost of games is from development, salaries etc. not the means of delivery.
the problem is making 30% off someone elses work just so they can sell on sonys store. and just because others charge the same doesnt make it right
I've seen several comments on here argue that this lawsuit revolves around Sony blocking the sale of digital codes via third party resellers, creating a digital monopoly. I have to admit that that is something I'm not very familiar with, but that sounds fair enough. However, in that case I'd like to see the wording of the case reflect that more clearly.
If the outcome of this is that Sony has to allow digital reselling again, then I'm all for it. Still, I can't say I agree with the claim of billions of dollars of damages, that's just absurd.
@Wakozako @TheCollector316 If this goes through, I'm going after Ferrari, Lamborghini, Cartier, Dolce Gabbana,... I mean if now you can just sue someone if they don't price the way you want ^^ And why stopping there, I will go after people who don't want to sell me stuff that is not for sale... I will go after companies who don't follow my opinions... I mean it's the 21st century, I'm entitled to whatever I want ^^
@chrichtonsworld I also have the right as a consumer to not complain about the prices.
@RadioHedgeFund sales of perfect dark 2.5 million, sales of horizon forbidden west 8.5 million. Thats £150million verses £510million. The increase in demand for games is what should keep the price down despite the increase in development costs. Basically publishers spend more on games for a bigger piece of the pie. They are generally not hurting for money.
@trev666 Your wording seems to imply that Sony shouldn't be entitled to a commission at all, or do you mean 30% is too high?
For reference, while there are fewer articles on it, conventional (physical) stores traditionally take a cut in the region of 30% as well. (not a great source, but it's something: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard)
Although I support more competition or a general overhaul in digital storefronts in the future (for all companies) because having one home store as the literal only way to download a third party product for a device is a little bit weird. It basically means no one is offering incentives to those third party publishers to get their share of the pie over another storefront. If there were a third party storefront available on all consoles, then the native/home store and the third party store would have to decide whether to take a small hit on the commision end to offer customers the better prices in order to get the most sales, and then you do get at least some form of competition and likely more varied deals than now.
But I don't feel especially damaged by Sony. If I'm not sure on a price, I won't pay it, because I have a brain and can determine value and worth to me myself for a digital experience that can't be sold on.
Hopefully this just brings a light on all digital storefronts and provides some incentive for change. And I imagine Sony has thought of some minor concessions it can make to settle the case with the courts and improve things for the consumer somewhat. And maybe this can pave the way for a third party storefront being available in the future.
@naruball So why should I care? I said that it's their problem to sort out how they make money and stay alive.
If I want to buy physical games, I can do so without dedicated game shops.
@bluesylvanite OK... you know it's not my lawsuit? Tell all that to the complainants!
@ecurb7 So explain to me in that case how GameStop make money and how they manage to produce physical games almost for free (at least that is what is sounds like you are saying)
@Ainu20 30% is too high and like i said just because others take the same percentage doesnt make it right
the should charge less like the 12% epic charge for their store commission
@DaniPooo And to clarify, when I say “I”, I’m speaking metaphorically representing the common man/woman. Although I do know people who can’t afford their medication and utilities, personally speaking, I’ll be fine this winter and have all my needs met. I also have a library chock-full of games, digital and physical (I think last I noticed, my digital library has 400+ titles in it, many from the PS+ services) which I probably would not even complete if I played all day, every day for the next 3 years. But I realize (as you said in your first reply) that just because I can afford all the necessities and amenities of life doesn’t mean others aren’t struggling. And my heart hurts more for those who are forced to go without those other things I mentioned. I can’t say I’ve ever shed a tear for someone who can’t afford a digital game, but I certainly have for someone who can’t afford their rent.
And yes… the justice / court system is a branch of government. 😅. I think you meant that those things I mention need to be handled by the legislature? I mean, yeah, but they are also the ones who should be handling the anti-trust laws and oversight of the gaming digital storefronts. Since they haven’t, that’s why people have turned to the courts.
@Th3solution So your angle is that you value physical games because you are a collector and you are afraid that lowering the price of digital titles will create less demand for physical games which could lead to Sony deciding to focus mainly on digital.
Or at least that's what it sounds like to me.
And yes that is certainly a valid worry that you have.
But just because you value physical titles does not mean that overpriced digital titles are justified.
"the justice / court system is a branch of government"
Sure, but the problem you are painting doesn't sound like a legal issue or something to resolve in a court room.
More like a redistribution of tax money and stuff. But I keep forgetting that you're not much of a welfare country over there.
@Rob_230 Fair enough. But never say never. It's very rare for cases like these to happen. So we should all keep hope that it will have some positive effects for the consumers.
@Bentleyma Right? This is exactly what I was thinking lol
@bluesylvanite if it started to properly effect steam sales and profits you'd think then they would have to alter pricing to make those sales back, so that is weird if Steam has not at least offered lower prices or to take smaller cuts from some publishers. I'm not super familiar with PC storefronts and their launchers though and how Epic came on to the scene. On PC there is choice at the very least, I guess 😅
@mrraditch Sure, but the point was made that people have options like not buying or opting for discs. And my point is, that that doesn't play any part in arguments against complaining. Consumers should complain. Most of the time that helps with getting offers from companies. I have witnessed that myself.
@ecurb7 Digital is of course cheaper. When you buy digitally, you receive a copy. No files are truly transferred. And this copy immediately gets downloaded to your playstation. Sure, there are costs to store the games. But I am sure it's very cost-efficient. And not nearly as expensive as having to make discs and distribute those discs. So please, you sound like you are in denial.
@DaniPooo Now you've completely lost me. I never said anyone produces physical games for free - physical discs and packaging cost very little, but the bulk of the cost of a game is from its development (and marketing etc.). But I have no idea what any of this has to do with GameStop, they don't make games, they sell them
@chrichtonsworld Denial about what? 95% of an average game's costs come from development, overheads, marketing etc. Digital is a little cheaper, sure, I never denied this - but the mode of delivery (physical or digital) really has very little to do with why you pay the price you do for a game.
@Th3solution You probably don't play that much. Because some PS Plus titles are only available for a while. I have tried to play some games that were a PS PLUS title until Sony decided it wasn't. And that is exactly one of the many issues with digital content. Sony will decide whether you will have access or not. Even if you pay, the content never belongs to you. But Sony and the publishers make a lot of profit from them. Just for the sake of fairness, it would be justified for Sony to lower the prices.
@ecurb7 Digital is not a little cheaper. It's vastly cheaper. And of course the mode of delivery matters. What are you on about?
@trev666 I hear you, but where do we draw the line? Epic charge 12% but let's not forget that they only offer the most barebones storefront and game launcher, and they're taking an enormous loss it (though all those free games surely play their part as well). In any case, there are serious questions about the sustainability of that model.
Sony's case is even more complex, because they don't just run a storefront, they have to develop the entire system. A lot has been said about consoles initially selling at a loss and only making up the difference later on, but what is rarely mentioned is the r&d cost of developing consoles like the PS5. We can only speculate, but I think it's safe to assume those costs are astronomical, and they aren't getting covered by hardware sales.
So yeah, all this to say it's not as clear cut as you're making it seem. Is 30% too high in this case? I'm hesitant to argue pro or contra with any certainty.
@S1ayeR74 Yes, lawyers do indeed make money when they take cases, that's the purpose of their career. What's your point?
The second half of your comment is just as laughable. "This only matters if it also only applies to every other storefront on the planet!" No such thing as small victories. The Sony apologists aren't sending their best.
@ecurb7 Yes but they need to profit from selling games they don't stand there selling the games for the same amount that they bought the games.
So that is what I am talking about, Why do you need to pay for both reseller profit and manufacturing when there's no reseller involved and no manufacturing involved for digital copies.
@NinjaNicky Yeah I can definitely star complaining about gas prices if I learn that I am being overcharged.
@chrichtonsworld All I can suggest is that you Google the cost of physical games media - you'll soon see that discs, packaging etc. represent only a small % of a game's sticker price. In the days of CDs and DVDs, this was obviously more significant for music and movies, since they were relatively cheaper items. But for a game that is £60-£70 (in the UK, or whatever your equivalent is), it is only going to be 5, at most 10, percent.
@DaniPooo And ...? You know how capitalism works, right? A retailer stocks items from a manufacturer, adds their own markup (let's say ... 25%) and that's where they get their profits, minus costs. I just don't know how more simply I could explain this.
@ecurb7 but then you have the reseller who needs to earn a profit on selling the game as well..
@ecurb7 so those 25%, who is paying that?
So if the next Final Fantasy is 75.99 USD both Digital and Physical please explain to me why that is.
Because included in those 75.99USD for the physical is 25% markup and 5% manufacturing (If we go by your numbers)
That's 30% in total that you completely bypass when buying the game digitally.
Those 30% are completely justified for physical, but how are those 30% justified for digital?
@Ainu20 lets not try to make out sony are poor and trying to make ends meet they make billions in profit every year
@DaniPooo With physical, it is GameStop (or whoever) taking their percentage ... with digital it is Sony (or whoever) taking their percentage. In both cases, the rest is taken by the game's publisher (who will get most of the price). Not sure who you mean is the 'reseller' - either Sony or GameStop is the seller.
As I indicated, both Sony and GameStop add a percentage, that's where their profits come from. Physical or digital doesn't fundamentally alter how capitalism works.
@ecurb7 So if it's physical Sony takes 5% and if it's digital Sony takes 30%, yeah that seems fair for receiving less.
And this is exactly my point, you just helped strenghten it.
Thank you
@DaniPooo OK, now I see your misunderstanding. Buying digital may bypass the 5% or so of the physical costs, but it doesn't bypass the seller's markup! It's either Gamestop or Sony who add that extra 25% (in truth, Sony adds 30%, I don't know the exact figure for GameStop, I simply used this for illustration).
@bluesylvanite that's what I was saying in this case though. I didn't know that's what Epic were doing lol. I.e a company could take less to pass the savings on to the customer, which seems to me the logical thing to do. I didn't know Epic were going about it in such an aggressive way just to get market share, as I'm talking about a potential new store for consoles.
Obviously it only works or is relevant to the consumer if the savings pass on to the customer 😁
Although this will take years to go to verdict and settlement, and Sony won't barely feel it (plus the quoted figure is a maximum and I'm sure they will appeal it downwards, as defendants do), it's about time something like this happened.
Years ago, believe it or not, digital storefronts were promised as ways for the customer, us gamers basically, to have saved costs from not having to make, ship, distribute etc physical media passed onto us. That was a big selling point only 15-20 years ago. It's amazing how quickly that all went away when big businesses realised people would pay full price for a non-physical copy anyway.
Not only that, but the base price of PlayStation games has gone up, too. PS Plus has more tiers now and so has also increased in price. It's getting a bit weird and kinda disgusting to see "Deluxe" packages of popular games with season passes going for £109.99 and upwards, when all that amounts to are a couple of new maps and outfits every few months. Wow. Maximum effort from the developers there for the extra investment.
Yes, Sony are very much excessively and greedily cashcowing their customers, so anything that brings them closer to back in line or fairness - well, as close as the US legal system can manage, anyway - is fantastic. I only ever buy games on big sales and I don't game online or care to, so it doesn't affect me as much, but for those who live and die PlayStation, and get ripped off for it in the same way football supports buy horribly overpriced and usually pretty poor quality strips (I've had a few) of their club I suppose, it's a pretty big potential saving in years to come.
@DaniPooo OK, I'm slightly bored now, so final comment ... I just think you don't understand how this all works, but have a nice rest of your day!
@ecurb7 Even if that's the case there has to be other fees that you will bypass with a digital version, shipping for example. and even if I end up seeing only a 5-10% price cut on digital games compared to physical that will make me happy.
@trev666 Yeah that was not what I was trying to say at all.
@bluesylvanite Yes I know all this, but I think all digital storefronts are too expensive regardless. I'd like 20%-30% lower gross price for digital games, to account for the lack of physical media (no cost involved to ship etc as I mentioned) and the fact it's not transferable unless you sell your PSN or other account.
For anyone who wants to actually get all the facts on the lawsuit
https://playstationyouoweus.co.uk/
I know this link is in the article but by the sound of most of your posts, it was largely ignored.
@bluesylvanite who cares who is sued first...
All of them have been overcharging for digital purchases for years and not only that, they have kept increasing the prices and introduced new ways for you to give them money with micro transactions, DLC's, subscriptions, season passes, loot boxes.
The gaming market is doing their very best to squeeze as much money as they can out of you.
And we should celebrate that someone is on the side of the consumer and tries to make a difference with things that are simply not fair.
@DaniPooo I’m not a collector, per se, but I do value physical games. Mostly because I can resell them and transfer the rights to play that game to another person, which I can’t do with digital. And it does take away some of the free market competition options if the only option place I can buy a game is from the PS store. Of course I can always go over to Xbox or Steam, I guess, but definitely fewer options than with physical where I can go to Best Buy, Target, GameStop, and a thousand other options including a second hand marketplace. So my issue is mostly with the loss of competitive pricing that the digital store causes. I would like an option to be able to either buy digital PS5 games from other marketplaces, or be able to resell my digital game to someone else. Not likely to happen though.
As far as the other point — yes, I think part of the issue here (and with other economically based matters in gaming) where many of us are talking past each other is that we’re all coming from a different cultural setting, with unique governmental and regulatory backdrops. The U.S. is heavily free-market and big business driven, and less welfare-state, as you say. I think a lawsuit like this probably wouldn’t gain much traction here. So I’m glad the UK tax payers are funding it. Because yes, these legal battles which go on for years cost the tax payers a whole lot of money. Which is why I made my first comments that I thought the hardworking people in the UK might benefit from the courts spending their time on other injustices, but I don’t know. I don’t live there, or in Europe, so maybe all is hunky-dory and hobby related cost structures are high priority.
🤷🏻♂️
@Mephisto2869 Thanks I'll take a look at them.
@guntam What is laughable is you defending a lawyer out for a big pay day, which will mean if they are successful you as a consumer will be waiting years for a payout of pennies, ignore the monetary value stated here as it'll never be that much. And it won't force Sony to change anything apart from be at a disadvantage to MS.
@chrichtonsworld You’re correct in that I don’t play much nowadays, compared to a couple years ago, but I play about 10-12 games a year, depending. Some are large games like recently poured 80+ hrs into Jedi Survivor and Hogwarts, and some are small like Stray or Life is Strange 2 which I played this year also.
Most of my digital library through PS+ is from the monthly games I’ve claimed over the years, so I have access to all of them as long as I keep the subscription active. But yes, the PS+ Extra games can be taken away. But that’s less of a “digital game” problem as much as it’s a “subscription model” problem. Yes, it’s possible that Sony (or Microsoft or Nintendo) will take away access to a digital game you own, but so far that hasn’t happened very often. It’s a legitimate concern though.
What games have you lost access to? Besides PS+ Extra I haven’t run across any issues with the PS+ Essential monthly games, nor games they gave us in the PS+ collection at the start of this gen.
There is an argument here.. sony has complete control and monopolization of its digital games prices. there is no competition and so prices can get out of hand. Its lawsuits like these that put a spot light on the company and its prices and it is necessary.
For some numb skull to say why are there no lawsuits against rising prices of goods.. thats ridiculous. Those companies have competition and those prices rise because of inflation. Not related to a no competition law suit like this at all.
The dystopia future where gamers ridicule attempts to thwart the monopolization of game pricing and cheer on corporate profits like it's breakthrough in cancer research to benefit the world... Is NOW. Unless of course it's the other platform that competes with the corporation they give BLIND fanatical cult like support to, no matter their predatory decisions. Then they attack attack attack with crys of evil monopolization and rampant corporate greed.
To see such blind uninformed discourse directly explains why games like this year's cod or the same soccer game still sells like hotcakes. Or why Sony goes all in on live service and why now nearly every major dev releases unfinished garbage because we call CDPRs latest a great game and worthy of a nomination for best ongoing game...
Newsflash, despite the tailor picked takes here and highly questionable way in which this article has been framed. The actual lawsuit is focused on Sony deliberately forcing contracts that keep online game transactions high, as well as pulling the ability of any other third party seller to sell game codes in order to ensure they have sole monopoly and pricing control of digital platform content.
Definitely interesting to see gamers applaud and cheerleader themselves being taken advantage of. Gaming is a luxury for sure. So is most of the needless garbage we buy. So surely luxuries should just be an unregulated predatory greed driven free for all right? That trajectory in many other markets has served the majority of humanity well up until this point right?....
The free market you think exists is just an idea taught in classrooms. To applaud the current corporate endless growth model in any form is to applaud the practice of you being used and taxed for any aspect of life imaginable at an ever increasing rate. GL with that.
@Terra_Custodes Perhaps for modern titles. But Can I wander into a store and buy a new, sealed copy of Parasite Eve 2 for £9?
@Robinsad Due to inflation that £500m for Forbidden West in todays money is only worth. Based on £1 in 2000 equating to £1.80 today like for like its £300m vs £150m. It also cost £100m to develop Forbidden West whereas Perfect Dark was probably a lot cheaper.
The point is that videogames have not risen in cost due to inflation. A £60 videogame today is tremendous value for money.
@NinjaNicky
So when your kid has been asking for a specific game for Christmas for months, you will just tell him: Sorry kid, I could afford but I didn't like their scummy pricing practices, but hey I got you this game that was on sale..
I bet he remembers that Christmas for years to come...
Also what if it's a game from a franchise that I have been following since I was a toddler in the early 90s, it's these situations where I know that I am being overcharged, I don't like it, but gosh dang it I am going to get that game anyway.
Although I probably skip the Deluxe edition with the digital OST and digital Artwork and some in game weapon skins (that I probably only check out once and then delete to free up space on the hard drive)
That is totally not worth the price in the slightest.
Removed - inappropriate
I find it hilarious that anyone who thinks this is ridiculous is seen as somehow being on Sony's 'side'.
This is about a huge number of people simply wanting to pay less for a luxury item that is, in real terms, no more expensive than it's ever been.
You don't like that 30%? How much should Sony, or anyone else in fact, take then? How many of us actually know how much it costs to run a digital delivery service? I don't.
Sony et all are not charities, they exist to make money. Like the vast majority they'll screw us for whatever they can. Do I like that? No. Is it the way of the world? Yes. So I vote with my wallet like any sane person should.
As for physical vs digital, well, so far I've lost far less accessibility to my digital games than those on broken or scratched physical disks and carts over the last 40 years. Buying digital puts more money into the devs pockets and I'm all for that.
The only people who stand to make anything out of this debacle are the lawyers. Anyone think they give a stuff about us? Of course not, they smell an opportunity to make a lot of money and are taking punt on it. Capitalism at its finest!
I think people forget that gaming is a luxury hobby and always has been. Ridiculous.
If Sony's getting sued, I can just imagine what would happen to Nintendo. Their prices are insane.
@SJBUK "You don't like that 30%? How much should Sony, or anyone else in fact, take then?"
25% or 20% would be better. PC games are cheaper for a reason.
@TrickyDicky99 well maybe if they also raised the salaries to reflect the inflation. Everything cost more but we barely see any raises.
@bluesylvanite
1.) I'm not saying keeping sueing so they make no operating profit. But 20-25% is a reasonable % target for all consoles.
2.) Many 3P AAA games are cheaper on Steam than on the PS store:
Examples at full prices:
BG3: Steam £49.99 - PS store £57.99
FC 24 - Steam £59.99 PS store £69.99
Hogwarts Legacy - Steam - £49.99 - Ps store £64.99
Star Wars Jedi Survivor - Steam £ 59.99 - Ps store £69.99
And I could add plenty more 2023 launches with a price diffrence.
You can buy the discs in store for the steam prices.
MS and Nintendo do the same thing and they should all reduce thier % to be more in line with PC and PYS games.
Not touching this comment section with a ten foot pole cat.
@DaniPooo you keep saying "why should I care?". The real question is, who asked you? Seriously.
Always figured digital sales should be cheaper and it never really amounted to that.
That being said
Spending $10-20 at an arcade in the 80’s wasn’t a big deal and nowadays you get days upon days of entertainment from a $60 purchase. Plus devs/employees deserve the money.
Siding with Sony on this one.
@NinjaNicky that and who doesn’t have some giant backlog nowadays? Can just wait for whatever you want to be cheaper
I wouldn't get much then as I don't buy games digitally if I can help it, only games that don't get released physically and that really has to be a game that I consider essential as I like to own the game not just have the rights to play it like digital games are
If you don't want to pay full price then wait a few weeks when its £20 cheaper in one of the many many sales Sony constantly do. No one is forcing you to pay these prices and games are luxuries not meds or food.
If this goes the way towards knocking game prices down then let’s gooo. I’ve yet to see a game that retails for £70 be worth even £20
While digital/physical differences of box/art/disk/code/controls pamphlet or map or artbook or whatever can be said.
Black Friday prices are 'ok' not great. I don't expect all to be great but I mean some 30% for some still high isn't much is it. Others are more fair/great deals. No matter how old, which budget the game was, which price it is the original launch price stays unlike physical stores where it drops and the discount happens and back up to the changed price not the launch price years later like on digital.
It's also I just find even besides the many options on PC of cheap, high or whatever offerings others launchers or Steam prices versus Epic, GOG, the major publishers launchers if they offer anything.
I find even physical console games to be cheaper. I can wait a few months $20, $28, $30-50 or so. $30 Grid Legends or Gamepass same time/PS+ later. I got it by then. Others similar of 6 months, $20, $28. Others that are flops lower. Others vary in other ways.
I can get physical retro games for $2-5, limited editions or 'particular' games sure. Bit higher than in the US but I'm used to it.
Whether banned but still made there way in somehow (Manhunt on PS2 for $70 or so, need to look through my photos) or IPs of notable worth are high priced of $60 to $100 (Skyward Sword Wii, Twilight Princess $60 or $70 or so, maybe $80), or GameCube games but if I can get 5th-8th gen games varying of $2-10-20, $25-30, or so in retro stores.
An EB of the so cheap Destiny/Agents of Mayhem/Mass Effect Andromeda and more to others at the common $20-50 or so I do question digital ones and 'single storefront' which eh I hate the multiple but they have 'benefits' sometimes yes.
The 'new' or 'higher pre-owned' or retro game store prices that vary high and low to still be better. Once it's high/original on digital it's whatever discount or full price again.
Why is physical the option with better rates of the new/used high price still cheaper riddle me that.
Wow, I'm gonna get so much money back, I spend loads in the store, lol!
Digital games are way too expensive in the store. Disc is always cheaper if you shop around, and this is the point.. you can't shop around in the digital store. You can wait for sales.. you can search for games under £5 etc.. but the lack of competition has lead to really expensive games, and then loads of absolute trash free on mobile but pay on PlayStation games.
The series of jump games, jumping games, and flappy bird type games are the scourge of the playstation store. I'm sure these are there to make average prices look better.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/22/the-79-billion-lawsuit-against-sony-for-playstation-store-prices-doesnt-make-sense/amp/
Says it all really.
@S1ayeR74 What are next week's lottery numbers? I'm asking because you can clearly see the future, since you know exactly what effect this will have years down the line. If it's pointless and will have no effect, why are you bellyaching about it? Sony clearly has nothing to worry about!
I imagine this is only for the UK.
But, it is true, console stores are taking a huge retailer cut without actually having the costs of shipping physical goods.
But, if they were to start practicing lower prices it could affect the physical retail market negatively.
For all the comments asking what of MS and Nintendo.
Part of the claimants case is based on:
"Sony has a near monopoly on the sale of digital games and add-on content through its control of the PlayStation Store."
MS and Nintendo allow digital games and DLC to be purchased from multiple resellers who do sell games cheaper, sometimes much cheaper.
For example I can pick up Alan Wake 2 for £25.
@RadioHedgeFund I'm pretty sure they were £40, £60 if you required the expansion pack.
This is so idiotic, and people defending this must have some screws loose
1. You don't have to buy anything from an online service, its recreational. Whats next? People buying a subscription to a streaming service only to turn around and sue claiming netflix, amazon, disney plus etc somehow preyed on them?
2. Literally everyone has a online store with items priced at market value depending on the region and the devs. Sometimes there can be deals behind the scenes but last I checked Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and others all sell games at market price. Stuff in stores cost the same as they do online, and are also taxed the same.
3. If they were really worried about consumers and monopolies why is Microsoft buying everything and everyone ok? Competition is healthy. Not only that, but food, rent, medicine stuff that is ya know actually required to live is getting out of hand...but nah let's sue a company selling games because.....somehow people not being able to control their wallets in a digital store instead of going into a physical one for the exact same thing is...predatory? OK then 👌 Why not actually do something worthwhile?
@dnb Haha They create these "issues"to distract you from the real issues. Gamers probably spend more time online than most. If they rallied and confronted any of the major companies that caused and continue to cause the cost of living crisis they'd probably make a dent but instead we are here.
@naruball You replied to me and I answered.
You are talking about issues that do not concern me, issues that pretty much only concern the game-shops and the people who work there.
We used to have multiple different game-shops in Sweden and I am not going to lie, I enjoyed them, however we don't have them anymore, but that did not stop anyone from buying physical games.
So from a consumer perspective it's pretty much a non issue.
Am I supposed to feel sorry about the game shops if they can't sell as many games as they want? Is that it?
I do not feel sorry for businesses, if their strategy is not working anymore then they need to change it or pull out.
And that not my problem to sort out..
This is a problem for the people running and working at a game shop to figure out. I can get physical games regardless what they do..
@z0d15g0d Nope, £60 each. I paid £85 for Majora's Mask because I had to buy the expansion pack with it!
@NinjaNicky Who are allowed to complain about the prices then I wonder? No-one?
I am going to complain as much as I want, as is my right as a paying customer.
My point is not that that it's all too expensive and that I can't afford games,
My point is that it makes no sense whatsoever that the digital version is priced the same or higher than the physical version.
And so far in this whole long list of comments I have not seen anyone being able to give a decent explanation to why that is.
What is the justification? what extra do we get with the digital version?
There's nothing..
You can't sell it on the aftermarket, you can't lend it to a friend, it has no physical case, it doesn't come with a physical manual, it wasn't shipped halfway across the globe, it wasn't manufactured, it's gone when Sony decide to close their servers. It's simply a downloaded copy of some data files on a server..
So please give me a decent justification for why digital cost the same or more than physical. If you manage to do that then I will shut up afterwards and not complain more about it.
But I am not ok with the answer "Because people keep buying digital at that price", this is exactly the thing I have a problem with.
And I am not ok with: "well don't buy the games then, simple" I am sick tired of that underhanded argument.
I have always had a Playstation at home ever since the first one, I even upgraded to the PS4 Pro and then PS5, I am locked into certain playstation franchises. I have been giving Sony Playstation my money since 1996 or 1997, I feel like I should have the right to speak my mind on this.
Agreed. Games cost a hell of a lot more to make now as well. I'm sure my parents paid £60 for Street Figher 2 for the Mega Drive
@Terra_Custodes My point is that whilst the prices for some digital titles might seem high given the lack of physical infrastructure to manage, they stay in place for decades. I can still download a new copy of Wild Arms on any PlayStation platform made in the last 20 years but I cannot walk into a store and buy a new sealed one. And where a sealed copy might exist it is a lot more expensive than the digital one because it is a collectors item.
Somebody further up the chain was saying how digital prices should be lower than physical because there are no store shelves to think about but the presence on those shelves is a fraction of the time it exists in a digital store.
@RadioHedgeFund Sure, but every second generation or so you have to buy it all over again.. The PS1 library for PSP and PS3 is not compatible with PS4 and PS5. And the PS5 is only properly backwards compatible with the PS4 the rest of the games runs on an individual basis using different emulators or streaming. And if you have to keep rebuying a game over and over to keep playing it an the latest system then that totally breaks your argument..
I bought FFX for PS2, PSVita, PS3 and even PS4 AAAND Nintendo Switch lol 5 times just on the playstation side. And I don't even get to transfer my save data, (Well I guess I could between PS3 and PSVita) but still!
@DaniPooo Actually any PS1 games you hold a digital licence for that get released onto PS+ you can redownload at no additional cost or indeed buy new for the first time. So my 2006 Wild Arms purchase would still work and carry over
@MasterEMFG
Adjusted for inflation video games are literally the cheapest they have ever been, and you get a hell of a lot more content on average for that purchase too than you would have even just 20 years ago. But you never hear that part nope
@RadioHedgeFund This might be the case for some games, but certainly not all.
@Terra_Custodes The point is that those classic games are all under a tenner and still available nearly 20 years later. Horizon Zero Dawn is nearly 7 years old and also under a tenner. I am sure when 2028 rolls around Forbidden West will also be available on the PlayStation 6 for under a tenner.
But to circle back to the original point: videogame prices haven't risen with inflation and digital preservation is easier than physical.
@RadioHedgeFund Well that still a quite limited selection of games, and most of the retro classics that many people care about is instead being remastered or remade so that you will have to buy the game all over again.
If they made sure that all PS1 games that you bought from the PS Store back in the PSP era was still available for download on the PS5 then I could maybe begin to see you point, but this is really not the case.
If I bought Final Fantasy VIII on the PS3 or the PSP then I can't just download it on the PS5, I have to buy the remastered version for 20USD or something. Or I have to subscribe to PlayStation Plus Extra and pay monthly.
This is my point: Sony need to get off their ass and get more classic PS1 games out so people who prevously bought them can regain access to their purchases. You also have the option of buying them new instead of just getting them via a sub.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...