PlayStation lawsuit

Not really - not a single legal person interviewed about it believes it has any base or legitimacy.
Nobody had a gun held to their head when making purchases - every single transaction was a willing one.

I genuinely think this will be over more or less as soon as it had begun
 
We all know that digital game prices are a complete ripoff. But the PS Store clearly states the price before you buy. It's not like they add 30% on afterwards. So this will go nowhere.
 
stoofa said:
Not really - not a single legal person interviewed about it believes it has any base or legitimacy.
Nobody had a gun held to their head when making purchases - every single transaction was a willing one.

I genuinely think this will be over more or less as soon as it had begun
Click to expand...

Agreed, It appears, from all legal accounts i have read referring to this, completely frivolous. Yes the prices are silly as digital but the price is stated and offerers things that are not available with physical such as preloading and activated as soon as its released rather than having to go out to buy or queue or use fuel etc. Digital also offers no hassle gaming for the price, pay, download and play no looking bout for the game box, no getting up to put in console etc. Sony even made a Digital Only version of the PS5 that was cheaper because people knew games were more expensive from the store but were ok with that for the convenience.

Not only that Sony has to house the data and infrastructure to distribute this content, which on release day if its a popular title, will command a huge amount of bandwidth.

And finally iirc i believe that most/all versions of Sony consoles are sold either at cost or a loss and are subsidised by games/content purchased from the store.
 
ZXSpectrum said:
Agreed, It appears, from all legal accounts i have read referring to this, completely frivolous. Yes the prices are silly as digital but the price is stated and offerers things that are not available with physical such as preloading and activated as soon as its released rather than having to go out to buy or queue or use fuel etc. Digital also offers no hassle gaming for the price, pay, download and play no looking bout for the game box, no getting up to put in console etc. Sony even made a Digital Only version of the PS5 that was cheaper because people knew games were more expensive from the store but were ok with that for the convenience.

Not only that Sony has to house the data and infrastructure to distribute this content, which on release day if its a popular title, will command a huge amount of bandwidth.

And finally iirc i believe that most/all versions of Sony consoles are sold either at cost or a loss and are subsidised by games/content purchased from the store.
Click to expand...
So it's just article to give people a hope.
 
This is basically lawyer(s) hopping on the 'sue apple over 30%' bandwagon and trying to use 'cost of living' as a buzz word.... seriously while I can understand the social aspect of it, not having game consoles are not the end of the world...

While I don't agree with the 30% on apple, I have no real issue with it on games consoles (although I do feel it could reduce with age of console). Basically Apple doesn't subsidise the prices of their hardware, games consoles are subsidised and the 30% 'repays' the investment by sony/ms etc.

I very much doubt it will go anywhere and realistically the 30% is more between the game publisher and console manufacturer rather than the consumer. No 30% on games would mean higher base cost of console etc which in turn means less consoles sold and as such less games sold.... the 30% just seems 'worse' when you consider the base cost of the game these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom