-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
They rent the servers off Microsoft so there is no cost to that? And bandwidth usage that they use is free to? It all adds to costs.
remember when Sony used cheap security back in the day and the PSN got hacked and millions of bank details got hacked. You dont think security to stop that happening again costs money also?
this is the problem with people complaining they dont realise the costs behind the store fronts, am i saying its 30%? Coarse not but things start to add up once you look at it
Last edited:
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Bold strategy Cotton
El Pistolero
Banned
MikeM
Member
We have seen this before. It wouldn’t- it just means someone else would have a larger margin. Prices are not changing.
Facism
Member
Actually more expensive in most cases.
DaGwaphics
Member
There would be some cost, but in a literal sense you have to figure that a 100GB download costs them what, half a penny? But, it's also true that there are paid workers keeping these stores online along with the costs of the utilities/hardware required to keep it all running smoothly.
Topher
Gold Member
As Microsoft has said, 30% is required for them to even have a console at all. People can talk about EGS and the Windows Store being 12%, but those stores lack the massive investment required to create a console and then sell at near cost.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
No idea but people don’t download the game once, they delete and then reinstall at a later date, then there’s updates to the games then . You have to think in terms of bandwidth of millions of people ac easing the servers. These things ain’t cheap to run and keep secure. If it was then Sony would use there own and not rent out azure
Signal Rockets
Banned
Likely Covid tax.
Jadsey
Member
You don’t have to buy a PS5 in the first place. Buy an Xbox Series X or S or a PC
You have options, so I would argue it’s not a monopoly.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I know, I was backing you up
.
iHaunter
Member
Nintendo is even worse with this. They both deserve to be sued tbh.nintendo right now with the switch tax
Relax guys I’m a switch owner so.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It is completely possible to sell digital software on a platform AND sell software at retailers too. You cannot buy PlayStation software on Xbox or PC. You shouldn't have to completely avoid a platform if you want to buy digital software from multiple locations. It is a monopoly if you only have a sole source for digital software.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
I'll never understand these lawsuits - physical discs mean the publisher gets like 20$ per sale, digital means they get like 40$ per sale.
If doubling your revenue ain't enough, you have a problem. And using Epic as an example is questionable since they're losing money to claw at market share, likely they'd like to be at a higher %...
If doubling your revenue ain't enough, you have a problem. And using Epic as an example is questionable since they're losing money to claw at market share, likely they'd like to be at a higher %...
Tams
Member
The main issue there was Apple removing apps that you could pay for outside of their store.
On PC (and Mac - not iOS) that's a non-issue as you can distribute your software yourself. Android too.
The main problem is that iOS is so widespread and as a smart device has some 'essential' services, pressuring (and ultimately forcing) developers to use the iOS store.
Yes, consoles are also walled gardens. But:
- There's no good argument that computer games and consoles are essential.
- Subscription services are allowed to have their subscriptions on sale outside all three console stores.
- There's nowhere near a monopoly on gaming devices.
- Game exclusives aren't a monopoly.
- Game developers are more likely to want to work with console makers. Inclusion in marketing, etc. They are also more likely to need more technical help.
- Consoles sell at a loss or for a small profit. You could say that's bad business and therefore they should go under as a result; but then you'd not have cheap consoles. Apple are not doing that.
Last edited:
Tams
Member
There's nothing stopping you.
Tams
Member
The local monopoly argument is stupid.
Your local supermarket has a local monopoly on anything in their store. You can't go, 'you must sell me this at the price it is at store X'. Well, you can, but you almost certainly will be told to not buy it then.*
*Yes, there are price matching schemes. They are only really done by large companies, and rely on most people not bothering to use them. If everyone used them, they'd quickly end them.
Topher
Gold Member
That's not a monopoly. If you have multiple options to buy a game on other platforms or by physical disc or whatever.....not a monopoly in any way.
Saying "you shouldn't have to" doesn't make something a monopoly. You have a choice.
Last edited:
Justin9mm
Member
That's ridiculous!
Maybe they like Sony's 1st party games, maybe that's the type of games they like. So shame on them for choosing the PlayStation if they don't want to be ripped off? And I also said they might only be able to afford a digital edition, how they going to afford a PC? Console and PC gaming are two very different price of entries.
Stop victim blaming. You are what's wrong with why it's like this.
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
You say that like suing is free?
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Games being specific to one platform isn't a monopoly. Developers get to chose what platform to develop a game on. They can chose for the game to be developed on only one platform or on multiple platforms. Sony isn't preventing developers from putting games on other platforms. The developer has the choice. Even if Sony offered money for exclusives that's still something the developer can reject and put it on other platforms, as well as on Sony's platforms.
itsjustJEFF
Member
That's the thing, 30% is pretty standard. But also, what has reducing that % gotten us? The Epic game store takes a lot less than Steam, yet game prices are largely unaffected. When it comes down to it, that savings won't be passed down to the consumer. I think this suit is trying to insinuate that if it wasn't 30% that games would be cheaper... but clearly it doesn't.
But, I'm also in favor of dev making more money. I would like to believe that the developers are getting a good chunk of that, but who knows but I guess it's up to the publisher. If it does mostly go to the devs that's great. They won't have to sell as much to break even and will potentially make more money.
Tams
Member
Topher
Gold Member
If you have to apply all these filters to get to a specific scenario in order to apply the words "monopoly" and "victim" then your entire narrative is a bit contrived.
Last edited:
Jadsey
Member
Last edited:
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
I can assure you, as a customer of Microsoft's with a segment of our environment in Azure that is probably a fraction of the size of PSN in the US, Azure is not cheap. Even if Sony went with the absolute best cost-saving design for their cloud environment they'd still be looking at hefty operating expenses.
I couldn't even begin to tell you how much without seeing more info about PSN's overall design and how they leverage Azure, but just going by my org and seeing how much we are billed monthly, and considering how tiny we are compared to PSN in terms of how many customers we serve and data we move, it must be a major expense for Sony.
Tams
Member
Yes, this idea that servers are cheap (for the people running them or paying others to run them) is silly. It's because people just aren't familiar with it.
One server rack alone can be worth an enormous amount. Then there's all the other server racks. Then the climate control. Then building itself. Then the techs who maintain the servers' salaries. Then the electricity (for the servers and the climate control, plus odds and ends). Then the Internet connection costs. Then the security. Then the people who maintain the building. And then all that needs to be backed up offsite in at least one other location with similar costs. Many of these are ongoing costs as well.
But these people rent a VPS and think it's all cheap, completely ignoring that their VPS is sharing 1U of one of one rack with several other customers.
And people rag on the likes of Linus Tech Tips/Media Group not having a proper server room. The cost is just insane though, and I don't think even some server admins fully appreciate what they work with costs.
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
It probably won’t go anywhere, but fuck em. They promote themselves as being for the players but bleed them dry for cash at every opportunity.
DaGwaphics
Member
No doubt. But, at the same time, you could probably divide total costs to run the store by total number of sales and come up with a relatively low cost per sale.
Mind you, I'm not advocating for lowering or removing the fees.
Last edited:
Justin9mm
Member
Yes, a specific scenario that applies to a vast amount of people in the world. A majority of people as a console gamer usually only choose one console and a lot of people buy what they can afford, purchasing a digital edition PS5 is locking you into a monopoly price whether you like it or not. Sony could increase the price by another 50% tomorrow, and you are still ok to say well you have a choice? It's the principal that Sony don't need to be charging way above RRP (in this case an additional 30% commission) compared to physical games. Here in Australia, the average newly released third party digital game is between $109.95 & $124.95 AUD, but you can buy the physical version in many different stores for $79 - $89, sometimes $69. You don't see a problem with this?
Sony have some of the most anti-consumer practices when it comes to sales/purchases compared to most companies but judging from your avatar you are probably blind to it.
Last edited:
Tams
Member
You can buy the non-digital version though, so that's all moot.
If a consumer chooses to lock themselves into a walled garden, well that's on them.
Fredrik
Member
Yeah. Generally speaking I don’t buy games at full price anymore. Sales or Gamepass Ultimate and PS+ Premium releases is how I handle it. It’ll truly suck to wait for the PS+ release of Ragnarök but I try to remind myself that it’ll probably be patched for half a year anyway like everything else.
Topher
Gold Member
You are ignoring all the other options that exist and falsely claiming a monopoly. If you bought an XSS instead of PS5 DE, guess what? You'll still be paying that 30% commission on digital games. You absolutely have a choice of what platform you want to buy and whether or not you want to be able to buy physical copies of games. You also have a choice whether to buy a game at release or wait for a sale. Physical copies of games go on sale quicker than digital. That happens everywhere as companies have to clear out their inventory. That's a fact regardless of platform. So no, I don't see your problem at all.
And why are you singling out PlayStation when you have the exact same pricing for third party games on Xbox?
Buy Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare® II - Cross-Gen Bundle | Xbox
Includes: - Cross Gen Bundle of Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare® II -- Includes Xbox One and Xbox Series X|S versions of the game
www.xbox.com
If you were complaining about 30% commission across the board then that would be one thing, but it is hilarious you call me "blind" because of my avatar (I lost the GoW delay bet) when you are being willfully ignorant about everything outside of PlayStation.
Last edited: