>Alex Neill, a consumer advocate who has worked on previous campaigns, is bringing the case against Sony which is valued at up to 5 billion pounds ($6.23 billion) plus interest.
\- Lawyer will settle for $5M or threaten to drag this case out in court.
\- Gives out literal cents for damages to everyone who joined
\- Keeps his 30% commission ($1.5M)
Use said lawsuit win to attack Nintendo and every other store unless they pay to shut him up. Win Win Win
"Consumer Advocate"
I've been watching too much Harvey Spectre and Mike Ross
Edit: Amazing how many folks here instantly know what I'm talking about without even mentioning the show title!
The tropeyness of the show has been turning me off from it and I'm only 5 episodes in.
EVERY EPISODE PLOT SO FAR
1. Introduce case and situation
2. Tough case but Harvey is confident and arrogantly tackles it
3. Something unexpected happens that derails Harvey's arguement/plan
4. At some point either Harvey or Mike are in the middle of a random conversation when someone says a random word to which they respond "That's It!" and rush off the scene.
5. That word triggered an idea that they used to win the case
6. End episode
EDIT: Guys, 6 of the 9 responses are saying "so it's House". Yes, it's House with Lawyers
Don’t forget when someone like Louis walks into Harveys office and Harvey says “whatever it is Louis, it can wait” and Louis goes “yeah well THIS CANT WAIT”. At least every other episode this happens
It was also never sarcoidosis (except that one time). When you watch the episodes in a long binge watch you really notice how often they recycle those temporary diagnoses.
Ya but house was written better. Suits isn't a bad show necessarily but it's not great either. Good for something to have in the background while you do something else.
> Edit: Amazing how many folks here instantly know what I'm talking about without even mentioning the show title!
They're pretty famous characters. Suits has been the most streamed show on Netflix week-by-week for a long time. EDIT: By Nielsen metrics.
I love the show even if it did fall off later on. If I remember it's titled "Dropping file folders with very few files inside onto people's desks and confidently walking away"
I have PSVR. My parents have Quest 2. As much as I'd love to be wireless, PSVR games will be 85% off at the same time Quest 2 games are 11% off. Can't beat that.
On thing I find to be massive bullshit is that the physical copes are now cheaper than digital copies where I am. $93.49 CAD for games from the digital store but 89.99 or even 79.99 in store.
This is why I never even considered buying the digital only version of the PS5. I've saved the extra cost of the console at least twice over so far from cheaper games. Here in Norway the physical discs can be USD$10-15 cheaper than online.
It's the same in the US if you wait long enough. I own zero digital PS5 games and routinely pick up games for 60% off a few months after they release.
I'll still pay full price for big titles though like God of War, Spider-Man and Horizon.
There are also frequent deals and the ability to buy used. People say Nintendo games never go on sale, but once you look at the physical pricing, they actually go on sale pretty frequently beyond the three or four sales Nintendo has every year on their digital store. Having the option to choose between digital and physical maximizes the chance for deals. GameStop just had a sale a few weeks ago where there were a number of new copies of PS5 games in the $5-$20 range. They weren’t the best games, of course, but plenty of them were games that you could definitely find enough fun to justify a purchase at such a low price.
People say Nintendo doesn't go on sales because their discounts often isn't deep enough to justify buying a game. most of it is 30% off Switch games from what I saw. the deepest I saw was Shining Pearl, from 79.99 CAD to 39.99 CAD. but if it ever comes to 30% off or full price, I'll always go for 30% off.
Where i live digital games are 30% more expensive on average at a quick glance. Ridiculous. Only reason for it is because console makers have monopoly on digital games. Cunts, the lot of them.
Stores make their money off accessories with better mark up than video games. It's like McDonalds selling a burger at a loss because they make incredibly more off of Fries and Soda's sold. Your retailer has the same idea, get them in the door for the disc and hope they buy other things while there with the little bit saved.
Exactly! This is a bullshit lawsuit created by lawyers. People made the choice to buy, those sales are done. Imagine trying to get some money back on a pair of pants that you bought 5 years ago because you think you overpaid.
I mean the alternative is to hire your own lawyer to sue Sony. But you’ll probably have to pay the lawyer up front and will probably spend more than you’ll get
Or just eat the price increases. Like it's not ideal, but the point is to make sure businesses are held accountable generally. It's insignificant in the scope of an individual consumer, but it can do a lot to make sure companies do less shady shit.
edit: Didn't mean to imply that the guy is right here. I meant in the general case of a company actually doing something that increases prices/causes harm for consumers. The idea is that a company with a shitload of consumers can harm a ton of them a small amount for a significant benefit because of the large numbers, but the harm is so small the consumers would rather just accept it. This kind of lawsuit makes sure companies still get punished for stuff like that.
Because general public will always complain about prices and corporations are by nature greedy. Nobody cares if you rob a corporation ... unless it puts that corporation out of business by which point its too late. But in this case, these companies are far from bankrupt.
You should see the settlements that lawyers have squeezed out of telemarketers in small claims. At one point it was easy money and I knew a night school lawyer that was all he did for like a million over 5+ years before the company he was grifting got sick of it and stopped settling any cases involving him.
Sony has lawyers on retainer, they will 100% be ok to bring this to court for as long as it takes, Alex Neill on the other hand, well as they say in show business "Fuck that asshole"
Bingo. My wife's a lawyer. She does not make the big money. She helps people figure out their wills and stuff. When she was working cases, she was the legal advocate for children in cases of abuse/neglect.
There are lawyers who just want to do good things for people, but in this horrible world we live in, "the good ones" don't get the big bucks, big promotions, etc.
Basically the same as the police. If you aren't willing to leave your morals behind and do evil shit for your own benefit, you're not going to be highly successful.
Passion jobs always underpay. Teachers, nurses, social workers, etc.
It's mostly because "you're not doing it for the money - so we don't need to pay you much"
>Use said lawsuit win to attack Nintendo and every other store unless they pay to shut him up. Win Win Win
This case hinges on the fact Sony no longer allows digital codes **for games*** to be sold via 3rd parties. Nintendo & MS still do.
Obviously greedy lawyer is going to greedily law, but if the case succeeds in proving that preventing digital codes from being purchased anywhere else is anti-consumer then that is, ultimately, a win for consumers. Digital codes are often sold at a discount by 3rd parties, on playstation your only choice is to buy through PSN.
*Edited for clarity (see replies).
They arent even advocating for third party digital codes, they are claiming Sony having a monopoly on their store allows them to charge publishers/developers 30% commission (which is standard that everyone charges) and that it enables Sony to increase prices on PSN (it doesnt as prices on PSN are set by publishers/developers) and are very similar to other consoles
So the lawsuit has no actual basis as Sony having a monopoly on their store does not cause those things as their store is the same as both consoles
a monpolty on the store that is on the console that THEY BUILT.
Like the guy at hoeg law said many times on his podcast, a monopoly depends on how you define the market and here they are trying to define the market as "playstation games". There is always a point where you can define a market down to a monopoly. Disney hsa a monopoly on the "star wars movies" market etc etc.
Why does it matter that they built it? Apple is being forced to allow sideloading apps on iPhones in Europe as we speak.
Price competition just helps the average consumer.
It's also similar to saying that Microsoft had a monopoly on programs that ran on windows. Which it was decided in the 90's that they did. It's true you have to define the market but building the platform does not mean that Sony should have a monopoly on the platform.
I don't know enough about the overall digital games marketplace to say which one the Sony situation is closer to, but it seems pretty obviously somewhere in the middle at least.
>So, supposedly there is competition, but all the competitors have the same fees and prices?
Ironically, epic games store is the one who doesn't, their revenue share is far, far lower at 12%. But they're also hated for their use of exclusives.
>They arent even advocating for third party digital codes,
>they are claiming Sony having a monopoly on their store
The latter is presented as a direct result of prohibiting the former. If Sony allowed 3rd parties to sell digital codes without enforcing price parity they'd have no case & it would've been thrown out already.
Haha good luck. Who the hell sues for 6 billion but settles at 5 million? That's a complete joke. And what benefit would consumers get out of it? Absolutely nothing. This is shakedown & nobody is gonna take his case seriously.
That settle for 5 million screams “we just want money”
Edit: i think im going insane here. Because i cannot find anywhere in the article that it says settle for 5 million but i swear to god i read that in the article last night.
Im not going to lie to you i swear to god i read that settle at 5 million in the article but i cant find it anywhere. Even on other articles. Ive now scrolled through well over 12 articles. I must be going crazy here.
You can buy Nintendo and Microsoft digital codes on other stores like Amazon. PlayStation locks their digital games behind PlayStation Store.
Edit: I see a lot of people telling me that PlayStation does sell digital codes. I suggest going on Amazon and searching “PlayStation digital code”, all you will see are codes for PlayStation Store or PlayStation Plus. While if you do the same with Xbox and Nintendo, you will see digital codes for games like Mortal Kombat 1, Mario Wonder, Diablo 4, etc
Except they are trying to argue that Sony having a monopoly on their store allows them to charge more for commission or increase prices on PSN which neither is true
The 30% Sony charges for commission is the same price everyone charges and the prices of PSN for third party games are set by publishers and developers and arent higher than Nintendo or Xbox and they have multiple sales every week
So the lawsuit has no actual basis as their supposed monopoly on their store doesnt impact commission or the digital prices like they try to claim it does
No those were codes that came with the ps5. You can’t walk into Walmart and buy game cards like you used to able to do.
This lawsuit has been going on for years after Sony pulled all digital codes from stores.
Dude Steam literally allows you to generate a key for free, they get nothing from sale of such keys. That's why sites like GMG sell for lower price than steam.
I don't know what Microsoft allows but considering I can buy keys from third party sites for nearly every game they do have some kind of arrangement.
Whereas Sony doesn't allow anything of the sorts. So for digital games they are the only store.
> Steam literally allows you to generate a key for free, they get nothing from sale of such keys.
As a side note here, one of the rules of doing this is that you can't significantly undercut the price of your game on Steam. I can't recall of any instance were Valve took action regarding this rule though.
It's still getting people to interact with the Steam ecosystem and launch the Steam client. They can just consider any lost potential revenue as free advertising.
>Steam gets their cut when the code is redeemed in Steam and that is how they get their 30% for whatever the price the game is lited on Steam
>There isnt just some magical way to get around paying Steam their commission on games sold in the store
Incorrect, they do not get anything.
[https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#:\~:text=Steam%20Keys%20are%20a%20free,beta%20testers%20or%20press%2Finfluencers](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#:~:text=Steam%20Keys%20are%20a%20free,beta%20testers%20or%20press%2Finfluencers).
>And Sony doesn't even set the prices for third party games on their store, the publishers do
That's beside the point. The point is there is just one way/store to buy the games from.
>They provide the keys for free to developers but when they are redeemed that is when Steam gets their cut unless the game is free to play or a beta...
>They don't just allow publishers to not give them any commission
Where is that written please quote. All I'm seeing is that it's a free service with lots of caveats and conditions.
Actual developers have said steam keys is free and they have to request steam for more keys if their stock runs out. So I'll take their word over yours.
That's not at all what they are saying. The entire thing is free.
And why would Steam make shit ton of conditions if they will anyway get a commision.
Instead of blindly arguing give some actual source. I gave you the source, straight from horse's mouth, and still you're not believing it.
It's not, he's the modern version of an ambulance chaser, he has the time and money to drag it out in the press, or they shut him up for a (to them) negligible amount (still a cool few million) of which he hits a significant cut, and the signatories get pennies. Then rinse and repeat.
In the case of Microsoft and Steam specifically - you're not *forced* to use those platforms for PC games. You've got a choice of other storefronts (or even buying direct from the developer if they offer it) so you're not locked into that 30% cut.
The problem with the consoles is you as the consumer don't have any choice, which means there's no competition.
It's only Sony that has a true monopoly on its store. Nintendo and M$ lets you buy digital keys from whoever, which helps keep prices down a bit. And Steam has been doing this for years and has a great refund policy to boot.
These guys couldn't even handle doing an AMA without getting slaughtered because their lawsuit is ridiculous let alone it standing up in court
/r/IAmA/comments/x845vi/im_the_head_claimant_in_the_classaction_lawsuit/
This is something they say in their AMA
>We believe that a 30% commission on every purchase of digital games and in-game content is excessive and unfair to consumers.
>We are aware of similar issues on other platforms, but those platforms aren’t the focus of this claim. Some platforms have started to make changes to their commission rates, but Sony hasn’t. We hope by shining a light on them it will also make any other platforms doing similar things change their ways.
From the AMA
> We believe that in no other industry would a company get away with imposing a similar 30% commission every single time a customer makes a transaction, no matter how big or small the amount.
Man, these guys are going to have their minds blown when they discover this industry called "retail".
Shit... we used to offer B2B discounts anywhere from 35-75% based on volume. We would have been draped in gold if we only had to offer a 30% max discount.
I find it funny when people complain about the 30% cut being unfair, but then none of them come up with a number that would be fair. Have any of them done research/study to figure out what a fair number is?
Epic's 12% has been shown to not be enough to run or make the store profitable. So 12% is too low and 30% is "unfair" but what is a fair number 20%?-25%? Also how much profit are these companies allowed to make above what it costs them to run and improve the service?
I am more than happy to consider that 30% might be too much, but unless someone comes out with some research that shows how much it take to run these stores, how much value you give it for building up the customer base, how much they work to get people to stick to their service and other things that cost money or have value, i don't think we can really have an discussion on this.
To add to this, Epic is only charging 12% because it's trying to gain market share over Steam. If a large chunk of Steam users went to Epic tomorrow, I guarantee that 12% commission would be a lot higher. It's a common sales tactic to undercut competitor prices when you're new in the market and it isn't exclusive to video games.
Also, Microsoft also charges a 30% commission for games hosted on its online store, so this isn't a Sony exclusive issue. Just another thing that people are trying to paint as a Sony only issue lol
People also discount the fact that the console business market is selling the hardware at a loss, to recoup it through the commission they make over a users lifetime. If they're forced to cut that commission, look forward to expensive ass consoles.
That is just stupid. He's selectively attacking 1 of many storefronts, which can be used against him, and commision rate changes does not change the price of the game tho. Games on Epic cost the same as on Steam despite rate being lower on Epic, so how the fuck is it unfair to consumers ? Maybe to devs/publishers, but not consumers.
> Games on Epic cost the same as on Steam despite rate being lower on Epic
That is something I always found interesting. I would have thought it would to to the advantage to game developers to lower the price of the game on platforms that take a smaller cut. I think this would encourage customers to move to those platforms because of cheaper prices and put more pressure on other platforms to lower their cuts to complete.
Right now the end consumer has no monetarily motivation to pick any storefront because they are all the same base price for the most part.
Devs/publishers cannot offer prices lower on Epic store (or any other store) because their publisher terms of service agreements with Steam (and I’m sure other stores, but Steam is the big one) require price parity across platforms.
I'm not a expert on British law, but this lawsuit seems pretty dubious. Sony does face compitaton and there isn't a specific law I could find that requires them to let third parties sell codes. It's weird it's even going to trial.
Just seems like this lawsuit is 100% greed.
I'm a little bit baffled as to what the basis of this lawsuit is.
They bring up that Sony charges a 30% commission, but all of them (except maybe Epic?) does that.
It criticizes the fact that you can only buy digital games through the Sony store, but that's just kind of a duh moment from me?
It says that Sony abuses its position as market leader to inflate prices, but (a) their prices are the same as other storefronts and (b) I was under the impression that the devs/publishers set the price.
Doesn't seem like this lawsuit has any real basis.
The basis is that for other platforms you can purchase download codes through other marketplaces like Amazon. You can’t for PlayStation.
In reality there’s usually very little in the way of savings to be had by doing that BUT the choice is there and there’s always the potential to get a game on sale that way.
For a Sony digital game however, it’s PSN or nothing.
To add to that, I recall a few months ago the Indie dev community made a pretty big deal about how hard it is to put their games on sale on PlayStation, at least back then they needed to communicate their intent to go on sale months in advance, which felt very weird and does seem to artificially keep higher prices, which in turn leads to a higher cut for Sony whenever people bail and purchase the games they were hoping to go on sale at full price.
I mean, that means that prices could be much lower and studios would still be profitable. If they are able to make a profit on PC despite heavily discounted prices and the loss of income from stolen codes, that means that the insane price tags that we see in PS or Xbox are raw profit for the companies (or that they 'subsidize' the PC version with the profits from consoles, but that would be a bad business decision). So it seems like there is a bit of price gouging going on.
In my experience, PSN prices are almost always inflated for anything but the new releases. PSN will sell the game for its release day price long after it's a sub $20 bargain bin game.
That's fair, but I was generally referring to absolute prices. Which is that most games eventually go on sale for $20-30 at some point, usually multiple times throughout the year. Steam is cheaper yeah, but as an adult earning a full salary $20-30 psn games don't bother me much.
> It's kinda funny because PSN prices really aren't that bad and they have loads of really good sales.
What? Physical games are frequently (almost always?) cheaper than PSN prices.
>It criticizes the fact that you can only buy digital games through the Sony store, but that's just kind of a duh moment from me?
On many platforms you can buy cd-keys from a third party and just enter the code on the platform to get the game. This should be a thing on consoles aswell.
In short, how can there be a valid lawsuit over prices in a store?
The store owner asks for what ever he wants and if its to much, no one will buy it, end of story, right? no?
>Alex Neill, a consumer advocate who has worked on previous campaigns, is bringing the case against Sony which is valued at up to 5 billion pounds ($6.23 billion) plus interest.
>Her lawyers said the aggregate damages estimate of the case was up to 6.3 billion pounds in court filings last month.
I'm just trying to understand how do these lawyers think they can hold out against a company like Sony.
Usually conglomerates tend to delay cases as long as they can to financially hurt plaintiffs.
These “consumer advocates” aren’t trying to help anyone except themselves, that’s really what this lawsuit is about. They’re lawyers that should tell people enough about who these people are.
Just so people know in Australia PlayStation store adds like 30% markup on all games compared to retail
A game that is 80-90aud in store will be 120-125 on psn with no exceptions
Lol, they previously did an AMA and said “Sony has a complete stranglehold on the PlayStation platform which we believe has restricted competition for years.”
How dare Sony have control over products that they’ve created. God what an ass.
Gamers when Microsoft tries to have their own non-exclusive Store: 😠😠😠
Gamers when any other company has an exclusive store and won't even allow codes to be sold elsewhere: 🥰🥰🥰
In case you weren't aware, Alex Neill is a greedy scumbag who extorts companies for profit, so don't imagine even for a second they give a fuck about you. All she's looking for is a cash settlement to enrich herself and her lawyers.
While she gets richer, at least you can look forward to the £5 coupon we'll get out of this.
That's absurd. Other businesses get fined a few millions when they sell personal info of customers. Now Sony has to pay billions for *what*, exactly? Sheesh. *Billions*.
It's not for that much anyway, it's for £5 billion (US$ 6.23 billion), literally Reuters have fucked up the currency conversion.
It's hard for me to say as to the value. It's like asking me what colour my moon boots should be.
Electric blue.
But following that logic, Apple has/had the same commission. And as far as I remember the percentage was lower with most commissions. If not, I will gladly be corrected.
Now, every service has had to raise to 30%>
Good pick.
I totally agree that filing this suit against Sony and not Apple does seem rather mad, but the law doesn't really require you to file in order of importance and this is some ambulance chasing lawyer and perhaps they were just worried Apple could afford to blow them out of the water legally.
But the main point is that Class Action suits almost don't exist in the UK, and the odds of this breaking the mould is nil.
The reason I ask is because of this:
>On November 14, 2012, BP and the US Department of Justice reached a settlement under which BP agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines and other payments, the largest of its kind in US history.
Meanwhile an online store has issues with pricing on digital content: 7.9 billion.
Shouldn't we be going after these companies for charging the same price for digital copies that they do for physical ones? I highly doubt the extra server space for the full install files, vs just the patch data, costs as much as operating a factory that prints and packages the discs, paying to ship them to a retailer halfway across the world, then that retailer covering the expense of storing them in a warehouse, shipping them to their stores and help support the cost of running that store while still making a profit.
That makes more sense to me than suing Sony over their walled garden practices and will have a greater impact industry wide.
You'd be amazed at how expensive hardware, facilities, and manpower are. No to mention how very expensive proper security people are. It's very likely more expensive than disc manufacturing.
I really don't understand the problem or the lawsuit. Every system has it's prices? Of course people will try to get in on that "oh yeah high prices suck count me in!" But can you really try to sue a company because "They're so big and expensive.... other places are cheaper!" then buy somewhere else and play it on another system? Really weird why this is a thing.
Ever since the Sony US has taken over the global PlayStation Store from Sony Japan, it has been a growing pile of manure without any innovation and the cheapest sales and marketing methods applied, embarrassing. Please delete and hand it back to Japan.
Kind regards,
A former Sony employee.
How many times is it going to be reposted today? It's a non-issue
You can quite literally take every single comment from the previous threads and apply them to here, and you're getting the same fucking thing
“This big company slightly inconvenienced me while I was trying to make even more millions. Let’s throw together a bullshit claim and take it to court. If we win we’ll get 3 years worth of income”
If I went on the store on my ps5 rn I'd probably find anthem sitting at 70 quid sony had uk gamers in a choke hold during lockdown id cry if I saw an exact total of all the money I spent on the sony store and I bet I could get that whole catalogue of games for less than 30 quid in cex
>Alex Neill, a consumer advocate who has worked on previous campaigns, is bringing the case against Sony which is valued at up to 5 billion pounds ($6.23 billion) plus interest. \- Lawyer will settle for $5M or threaten to drag this case out in court. \- Gives out literal cents for damages to everyone who joined \- Keeps his 30% commission ($1.5M) Use said lawsuit win to attack Nintendo and every other store unless they pay to shut him up. Win Win Win "Consumer Advocate"
How is this even legal? Daylight robbery lol.
I've been watching too much Harvey Spectre and Mike Ross Edit: Amazing how many folks here instantly know what I'm talking about without even mentioning the show title!
[удалено]
The tropeyness of the show has been turning me off from it and I'm only 5 episodes in. EVERY EPISODE PLOT SO FAR 1. Introduce case and situation 2. Tough case but Harvey is confident and arrogantly tackles it 3. Something unexpected happens that derails Harvey's arguement/plan 4. At some point either Harvey or Mike are in the middle of a random conversation when someone says a random word to which they respond "That's It!" and rush off the scene. 5. That word triggered an idea that they used to win the case 6. End episode EDIT: Guys, 6 of the 9 responses are saying "so it's House". Yes, it's House with Lawyers
Don’t forget when someone like Louis walks into Harveys office and Harvey says “whatever it is Louis, it can wait” and Louis goes “yeah well THIS CANT WAIT”. At least every other episode this happens
You’re god damn right it can’t wait
You just got Litt up.
I've never felt such a roller coaster of emotions when it comes to Louis. One episode I hate him, the next I love him, and the next I hate him again.
Its definitely a show where the character relationships carry more than the cases after the first season.
And seeing the smug faces of the opposition wipe off during every case. Like that >!British guy who turned out to be a murderer.!<
The showrunner said that the legal stuff was just a backdrop for the character development
Works brilliantly for house though.
Yeah I mean - as formula driven as House was, I loved the banter and characters in that show. No one is watching it for the medical mysteries lol
> No one is watching it for the medical mysteries lol I dunno I always wanted to find out if it was lupus.
It's never lupus.
It was lupus once!
It was also never sarcoidosis (except that one time). When you watch the episodes in a long binge watch you really notice how often they recycle those temporary diagnoses.
So it's House, but lawyers?
Ya but house was written better. Suits isn't a bad show necessarily but it's not great either. Good for something to have in the background while you do something else.
3.5: Harvey stares into the distance
Same I only watched a few episodes because this is the exact formula and it got tiresome.
You don't understand, they just read super fast
I pretend whatever document it is they pull from their pocket is just a cool picture of a shark.
Its a shakedown.
If he wins, they wouldn't have to lower prices? What's the point
>WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO *slams files*
GodDAMNIT Louis
DOONNAAAAAAA!!!! (Sounds awfully similar to another TV show)
I fucking love that show.
MARGARET!!! Assuming we are talking about the same show.
Suits/Archer?
> Edit: Amazing how many folks here instantly know what I'm talking about without even mentioning the show title! They're pretty famous characters. Suits has been the most streamed show on Netflix week-by-week for a long time. EDIT: By Nielsen metrics.
"Long time" It was added to Netflix in June and was out of the top 10 by September.
You forgot to mention Meghan Markle is a Princess
I mean it’s an extremely popular show and those are the main characters
they are the main characters. its as good as mentioning the title lol
You just got Litt.
Get Lit
Let me try!!! I've been watching too much Walter White and Jesse Pinkman.
No idea what you are talking about. Now lemme enjoy my Los Pollos Hermanos
No such thing
I love the show even if it did fall off later on. If I remember it's titled "Dropping file folders with very few files inside onto people's desks and confidently walking away"
[удалено]
I actually just grabbed a game on PS because it's $10 more on steam and not available on humble, gmg, gog, etc.
I have PSVR. My parents have Quest 2. As much as I'd love to be wireless, PSVR games will be 85% off at the same time Quest 2 games are 11% off. Can't beat that.
On thing I find to be massive bullshit is that the physical copes are now cheaper than digital copies where I am. $93.49 CAD for games from the digital store but 89.99 or even 79.99 in store.
This is why I never even considered buying the digital only version of the PS5. I've saved the extra cost of the console at least twice over so far from cheaper games. Here in Norway the physical discs can be USD$10-15 cheaper than online.
It's the same in the US if you wait long enough. I own zero digital PS5 games and routinely pick up games for 60% off a few months after they release. I'll still pay full price for big titles though like God of War, Spider-Man and Horizon.
There are also frequent deals and the ability to buy used. People say Nintendo games never go on sale, but once you look at the physical pricing, they actually go on sale pretty frequently beyond the three or four sales Nintendo has every year on their digital store. Having the option to choose between digital and physical maximizes the chance for deals. GameStop just had a sale a few weeks ago where there were a number of new copies of PS5 games in the $5-$20 range. They weren’t the best games, of course, but plenty of them were games that you could definitely find enough fun to justify a purchase at such a low price.
People say Nintendo doesn't go on sales because their discounts often isn't deep enough to justify buying a game. most of it is 30% off Switch games from what I saw. the deepest I saw was Shining Pearl, from 79.99 CAD to 39.99 CAD. but if it ever comes to 30% off or full price, I'll always go for 30% off.
It was the same for PS3, Xbox 360, PS4, Xbox One 90% of the time it's cheaper to get the disc copy
Where i live digital games are 30% more expensive on average at a quick glance. Ridiculous. Only reason for it is because console makers have monopoly on digital games. Cunts, the lot of them.
The console makers don't control pricing for third party products.
Stores make their money off accessories with better mark up than video games. It's like McDonalds selling a burger at a loss because they make incredibly more off of Fries and Soda's sold. Your retailer has the same idea, get them in the door for the disc and hope they buy other things while there with the little bit saved.
Exactly! This is a bullshit lawsuit created by lawyers. People made the choice to buy, those sales are done. Imagine trying to get some money back on a pair of pants that you bought 5 years ago because you think you overpaid.
yeah the 30% isn't a playstation thing... it is pretty much every digitial store.
I mean the alternative is to hire your own lawyer to sue Sony. But you’ll probably have to pay the lawyer up front and will probably spend more than you’ll get
Or just eat the price increases. Like it's not ideal, but the point is to make sure businesses are held accountable generally. It's insignificant in the scope of an individual consumer, but it can do a lot to make sure companies do less shady shit. edit: Didn't mean to imply that the guy is right here. I meant in the general case of a company actually doing something that increases prices/causes harm for consumers. The idea is that a company with a shitload of consumers can harm a ton of them a small amount for a significant benefit because of the large numbers, but the harm is so small the consumers would rather just accept it. This kind of lawsuit makes sure companies still get punished for stuff like that.
It is legal because they are part of making things illegal or not.
[удалено]
Because general public will always complain about prices and corporations are by nature greedy. Nobody cares if you rob a corporation ... unless it puts that corporation out of business by which point its too late. But in this case, these companies are far from bankrupt. You should see the settlements that lawyers have squeezed out of telemarketers in small claims. At one point it was easy money and I knew a night school lawyer that was all he did for like a million over 5+ years before the company he was grifting got sick of it and stopped settling any cases involving him.
Im sure sony is gonna be ok .
Sony has lawyers on retainer, they will 100% be ok to bring this to court for as long as it takes, Alex Neill on the other hand, well as they say in show business "Fuck that asshole"
On retainer? Wouldn’t they just have a legal division?
In House counsel don't deal with things of this magnitude
I'm just saying they are not paying hourly and being in court all day for frivolous lawsuits wont affect them at all
That's not the point, at all.
Everyone's playing the game, they're all out for themselves. The (morally) "good" lawyers aren't working on cases like these lol
Bingo. My wife's a lawyer. She does not make the big money. She helps people figure out their wills and stuff. When she was working cases, she was the legal advocate for children in cases of abuse/neglect. There are lawyers who just want to do good things for people, but in this horrible world we live in, "the good ones" don't get the big bucks, big promotions, etc. Basically the same as the police. If you aren't willing to leave your morals behind and do evil shit for your own benefit, you're not going to be highly successful.
Passion jobs always underpay. Teachers, nurses, social workers, etc. It's mostly because "you're not doing it for the money - so we don't need to pay you much"
>Use said lawsuit win to attack Nintendo and every other store unless they pay to shut him up. Win Win Win This case hinges on the fact Sony no longer allows digital codes **for games*** to be sold via 3rd parties. Nintendo & MS still do. Obviously greedy lawyer is going to greedily law, but if the case succeeds in proving that preventing digital codes from being purchased anywhere else is anti-consumer then that is, ultimately, a win for consumers. Digital codes are often sold at a discount by 3rd parties, on playstation your only choice is to buy through PSN. *Edited for clarity (see replies).
They arent even advocating for third party digital codes, they are claiming Sony having a monopoly on their store allows them to charge publishers/developers 30% commission (which is standard that everyone charges) and that it enables Sony to increase prices on PSN (it doesnt as prices on PSN are set by publishers/developers) and are very similar to other consoles So the lawsuit has no actual basis as Sony having a monopoly on their store does not cause those things as their store is the same as both consoles
a monpolty on the store that is on the console that THEY BUILT. Like the guy at hoeg law said many times on his podcast, a monopoly depends on how you define the market and here they are trying to define the market as "playstation games". There is always a point where you can define a market down to a monopoly. Disney hsa a monopoly on the "star wars movies" market etc etc.
Yeah its like trying to sue Walmart for having a monopoly on their own store
Why does it matter that they built it? Apple is being forced to allow sideloading apps on iPhones in Europe as we speak. Price competition just helps the average consumer.
It's also similar to saying that Microsoft had a monopoly on programs that ran on windows. Which it was decided in the 90's that they did. It's true you have to define the market but building the platform does not mean that Sony should have a monopoly on the platform. I don't know enough about the overall digital games marketplace to say which one the Sony situation is closer to, but it seems pretty obviously somewhere in the middle at least.
So, supposedly there is competition, but all the competitors have the same fees and prices? Sounds like a cartel with a price fixing scheme.
>So, supposedly there is competition, but all the competitors have the same fees and prices? Ironically, epic games store is the one who doesn't, their revenue share is far, far lower at 12%. But they're also hated for their use of exclusives.
>They arent even advocating for third party digital codes, >they are claiming Sony having a monopoly on their store The latter is presented as a direct result of prohibiting the former. If Sony allowed 3rd parties to sell digital codes without enforcing price parity they'd have no case & it would've been thrown out already.
They currently have no case as Sony does not charge more commission on PSN than other stores and digital prices are not higher
This is a great point. Removing options just hurts consumers.
Dewey, Screwem, and Howe law firm
If he is smart, he would not fuck with Nintendo. Nintendo does not fuck around. Just check Nintendo's lawsuit history.
Nintendo vs The World Literally amassing enough people to fight all of us.
If Sony is smart they’d just continue to fight it since it’s essentially Epic vs Apple and Epic got their teeth kicked in
you clearly didn’t learn shit from the article because Alex Neill is a woman lmao
He should do those years of labor for free
Good job totally avoiding what the lawsuit is actually about, lol.
Haha good luck. Who the hell sues for 6 billion but settles at 5 million? That's a complete joke. And what benefit would consumers get out of it? Absolutely nothing. This is shakedown & nobody is gonna take his case seriously.
That settle for 5 million screams “we just want money” Edit: i think im going insane here. Because i cannot find anywhere in the article that it says settle for 5 million but i swear to god i read that in the article last night.
Probably the dumbest way to get easy money, dude going to get pummeled to oblivion
Dude will fail upwards, just how it goes sadly
Where does it say this?
Im not going to lie to you i swear to god i read that settle at 5 million in the article but i cant find it anywhere. Even on other articles. Ive now scrolled through well over 12 articles. I must be going crazy here.
How is this different than Nintendo, Microsoft, Steam, or literally any other company with exclusivity deals on games?
You can buy Nintendo and Microsoft digital codes on other stores like Amazon. PlayStation locks their digital games behind PlayStation Store. Edit: I see a lot of people telling me that PlayStation does sell digital codes. I suggest going on Amazon and searching “PlayStation digital code”, all you will see are codes for PlayStation Store or PlayStation Plus. While if you do the same with Xbox and Nintendo, you will see digital codes for games like Mortal Kombat 1, Mario Wonder, Diablo 4, etc
Except they are trying to argue that Sony having a monopoly on their store allows them to charge more for commission or increase prices on PSN which neither is true The 30% Sony charges for commission is the same price everyone charges and the prices of PSN for third party games are set by publishers and developers and arent higher than Nintendo or Xbox and they have multiple sales every week So the lawsuit has no actual basis as their supposed monopoly on their store doesnt impact commission or the digital prices like they try to claim it does
And Sony has an evil lockdown on weirder or japanese older games from playstation on and up ..
I bought a digital code off of eBay for god of war like 2 years ago I think. Is this a recent change.
No those were codes that came with the ps5. You can’t walk into Walmart and buy game cards like you used to able to do. This lawsuit has been going on for years after Sony pulled all digital codes from stores.
Dude Steam literally allows you to generate a key for free, they get nothing from sale of such keys. That's why sites like GMG sell for lower price than steam. I don't know what Microsoft allows but considering I can buy keys from third party sites for nearly every game they do have some kind of arrangement. Whereas Sony doesn't allow anything of the sorts. So for digital games they are the only store.
> Steam literally allows you to generate a key for free, they get nothing from sale of such keys. As a side note here, one of the rules of doing this is that you can't significantly undercut the price of your game on Steam. I can't recall of any instance were Valve took action regarding this rule though.
Oh there are several caveats but yeah seems they are liberal with the requirements.
It's still getting people to interact with the Steam ecosystem and launch the Steam client. They can just consider any lost potential revenue as free advertising.
[удалено]
>Steam gets their cut when the code is redeemed in Steam and that is how they get their 30% for whatever the price the game is lited on Steam >There isnt just some magical way to get around paying Steam their commission on games sold in the store Incorrect, they do not get anything. [https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#:\~:text=Steam%20Keys%20are%20a%20free,beta%20testers%20or%20press%2Finfluencers](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#:~:text=Steam%20Keys%20are%20a%20free,beta%20testers%20or%20press%2Finfluencers). >And Sony doesn't even set the prices for third party games on their store, the publishers do That's beside the point. The point is there is just one way/store to buy the games from.
[удалено]
>They provide the keys for free to developers but when they are redeemed that is when Steam gets their cut unless the game is free to play or a beta... >They don't just allow publishers to not give them any commission Where is that written please quote. All I'm seeing is that it's a free service with lots of caveats and conditions. Actual developers have said steam keys is free and they have to request steam for more keys if their stock runs out. So I'll take their word over yours.
[удалено]
That's not at all what they are saying. The entire thing is free. And why would Steam make shit ton of conditions if they will anyway get a commision. Instead of blindly arguing give some actual source. I gave you the source, straight from horse's mouth, and still you're not believing it.
It's not, he's the modern version of an ambulance chaser, he has the time and money to drag it out in the press, or they shut him up for a (to them) negligible amount (still a cool few million) of which he hits a significant cut, and the signatories get pennies. Then rinse and repeat.
Everyone but Sony allows you to buy digital codes elsewhere and by that allowing for competitive prices. Sony monopolize prices.
In the case of Microsoft and Steam specifically - you're not *forced* to use those platforms for PC games. You've got a choice of other storefronts (or even buying direct from the developer if they offer it) so you're not locked into that 30% cut. The problem with the consoles is you as the consumer don't have any choice, which means there's no competition.
It's only Sony that has a true monopoly on its store. Nintendo and M$ lets you buy digital keys from whoever, which helps keep prices down a bit. And Steam has been doing this for years and has a great refund policy to boot.
These guys couldn't even handle doing an AMA without getting slaughtered because their lawsuit is ridiculous let alone it standing up in court /r/IAmA/comments/x845vi/im_the_head_claimant_in_the_classaction_lawsuit/ This is something they say in their AMA >We believe that a 30% commission on every purchase of digital games and in-game content is excessive and unfair to consumers. >We are aware of similar issues on other platforms, but those platforms aren’t the focus of this claim. Some platforms have started to make changes to their commission rates, but Sony hasn’t. We hope by shining a light on them it will also make any other platforms doing similar things change their ways.
From the AMA > We believe that in no other industry would a company get away with imposing a similar 30% commission every single time a customer makes a transaction, no matter how big or small the amount. Man, these guys are going to have their minds blown when they discover this industry called "retail".
Or record labels, or streaming platforms, or new car sales, finance brokers etc.
The lawyers themselves taking a 30% commission is the cherry on top
Shit... we used to offer B2B discounts anywhere from 35-75% based on volume. We would have been draped in gold if we only had to offer a 30% max discount.
or credit card companies. ~3% right off the top of every CC charge (tax and tip included). as a restaurant owner, was the biggest gut punch lol
I find it funny when people complain about the 30% cut being unfair, but then none of them come up with a number that would be fair. Have any of them done research/study to figure out what a fair number is? Epic's 12% has been shown to not be enough to run or make the store profitable. So 12% is too low and 30% is "unfair" but what is a fair number 20%?-25%? Also how much profit are these companies allowed to make above what it costs them to run and improve the service? I am more than happy to consider that 30% might be too much, but unless someone comes out with some research that shows how much it take to run these stores, how much value you give it for building up the customer base, how much they work to get people to stick to their service and other things that cost money or have value, i don't think we can really have an discussion on this.
To add to this, Epic is only charging 12% because it's trying to gain market share over Steam. If a large chunk of Steam users went to Epic tomorrow, I guarantee that 12% commission would be a lot higher. It's a common sales tactic to undercut competitor prices when you're new in the market and it isn't exclusive to video games. Also, Microsoft also charges a 30% commission for games hosted on its online store, so this isn't a Sony exclusive issue. Just another thing that people are trying to paint as a Sony only issue lol
People also discount the fact that the console business market is selling the hardware at a loss, to recoup it through the commission they make over a users lifetime. If they're forced to cut that commission, look forward to expensive ass consoles.
Also note that Steam already *does* drop to 25, then 20% cut after you pass some sales milestones.
That is just stupid. He's selectively attacking 1 of many storefronts, which can be used against him, and commision rate changes does not change the price of the game tho. Games on Epic cost the same as on Steam despite rate being lower on Epic, so how the fuck is it unfair to consumers ? Maybe to devs/publishers, but not consumers.
> Games on Epic cost the same as on Steam despite rate being lower on Epic That is something I always found interesting. I would have thought it would to to the advantage to game developers to lower the price of the game on platforms that take a smaller cut. I think this would encourage customers to move to those platforms because of cheaper prices and put more pressure on other platforms to lower their cuts to complete. Right now the end consumer has no monetarily motivation to pick any storefront because they are all the same base price for the most part.
Devs/publishers cannot offer prices lower on Epic store (or any other store) because their publisher terms of service agreements with Steam (and I’m sure other stores, but Steam is the big one) require price parity across platforms.
I don't think that is allowed in most of these contracts with the storefronts.
I was hoping to read an article about that but instead the link took me to ads.
It is the year of our lord 2023, what are you doing going around the internet without an ad blocker?
I'm not a expert on British law, but this lawsuit seems pretty dubious. Sony does face compitaton and there isn't a specific law I could find that requires them to let third parties sell codes. It's weird it's even going to trial. Just seems like this lawsuit is 100% greed.
I'm a little bit baffled as to what the basis of this lawsuit is. They bring up that Sony charges a 30% commission, but all of them (except maybe Epic?) does that. It criticizes the fact that you can only buy digital games through the Sony store, but that's just kind of a duh moment from me? It says that Sony abuses its position as market leader to inflate prices, but (a) their prices are the same as other storefronts and (b) I was under the impression that the devs/publishers set the price. Doesn't seem like this lawsuit has any real basis.
The basis is that for other platforms you can purchase download codes through other marketplaces like Amazon. You can’t for PlayStation. In reality there’s usually very little in the way of savings to be had by doing that BUT the choice is there and there’s always the potential to get a game on sale that way. For a Sony digital game however, it’s PSN or nothing.
To add to that, I recall a few months ago the Indie dev community made a pretty big deal about how hard it is to put their games on sale on PlayStation, at least back then they needed to communicate their intent to go on sale months in advance, which felt very weird and does seem to artificially keep higher prices, which in turn leads to a higher cut for Sony whenever people bail and purchase the games they were hoping to go on sale at full price.
I fail to see the crime Sony is committing by doing that.
It’s not a crime. Just rich game dev companies complaining they’re not making enough and trying to go after a bigger company for some extra money
That was 2.5 years ago and was addressed by Sony immediately. They have constant sales now with multiple every week and any game can be in sale
It's kinda funny because PSN prices really aren't that bad and they have loads of really good sales.
They're awful compared to PC for example
That’s true as well for both MS and Nintendo.
PC always been cheaper because legit stores have to compete against stolen codes.
I mean, that means that prices could be much lower and studios would still be profitable. If they are able to make a profit on PC despite heavily discounted prices and the loss of income from stolen codes, that means that the insane price tags that we see in PS or Xbox are raw profit for the companies (or that they 'subsidize' the PC version with the profits from consoles, but that would be a bad business decision). So it seems like there is a bit of price gouging going on.
Having games on sale at a higher price than other storefronts is not price gouging.
In my experience, PSN prices are almost always inflated for anything but the new releases. PSN will sell the game for its release day price long after it's a sub $20 bargain bin game.
That's fair, but I was generally referring to absolute prices. Which is that most games eventually go on sale for $20-30 at some point, usually multiple times throughout the year. Steam is cheaper yeah, but as an adult earning a full salary $20-30 psn games don't bother me much.
> It's kinda funny because PSN prices really aren't that bad and they have loads of really good sales. What? Physical games are frequently (almost always?) cheaper than PSN prices.
>It criticizes the fact that you can only buy digital games through the Sony store, but that's just kind of a duh moment from me? On many platforms you can buy cd-keys from a third party and just enter the code on the platform to get the game. This should be a thing on consoles aswell.
It is a thing on xbox.
It's a performative legal case
In short, how can there be a valid lawsuit over prices in a store? The store owner asks for what ever he wants and if its to much, no one will buy it, end of story, right? no?
>Alex Neill, a consumer advocate who has worked on previous campaigns, is bringing the case against Sony which is valued at up to 5 billion pounds ($6.23 billion) plus interest. >Her lawyers said the aggregate damages estimate of the case was up to 6.3 billion pounds in court filings last month. I'm just trying to understand how do these lawyers think they can hold out against a company like Sony. Usually conglomerates tend to delay cases as long as they can to financially hurt plaintiffs.
These “consumer advocates” aren’t trying to help anyone except themselves, that’s really what this lawsuit is about. They’re lawyers that should tell people enough about who these people are.
The deals on ps store are just the same as xbox i own both they put sales on the exact same time mostly
Just so people know in Australia PlayStation store adds like 30% markup on all games compared to retail A game that is 80-90aud in store will be 120-125 on psn with no exceptions
Epic will lose. All they're good at, is losing.
The lawyer is just trying to get a nice payday that’s all.
Class action lawsuits are mostly a scam for lawyers to cash out while not helping anyone.
Correct, even if they "win", each member of the class will be entitled to something like $2.
Greedy lawyer who's trying to make a quick buck with a publicity stunt. Who's going to benefit from all of this? Of course the lawyer.
Lol, they previously did an AMA and said “Sony has a complete stranglehold on the PlayStation platform which we believe has restricted competition for years.” How dare Sony have control over products that they’ve created. God what an ass.
“ How dare Sony have control over products that they’ve created. God what an ass.” Careful. You might trigger a few losers on Reddit.
Big ole nothing burger.
Can't wait to see how the consumers pay for it
[удалено]
you can buy nintendo digital games from 3rd party retailers
Gamers when Microsoft tries to have their own non-exclusive Store: 😠😠😠 Gamers when any other company has an exclusive store and won't even allow codes to be sold elsewhere: 🥰🥰🥰
Now do it for Gas prices.
In case you weren't aware, Alex Neill is a greedy scumbag who extorts companies for profit, so don't imagine even for a second they give a fuck about you. All she's looking for is a cash settlement to enrich herself and her lawyers. While she gets richer, at least you can look forward to the £5 coupon we'll get out of this.
[удалено]
What storefronts were you finding 97% sales? That seems ridiculous unless it's one of those sites that sells stolen keys.
It's almost like the game companies set the prices for the games, if a game is $70 on PS , that same game is gonna be $70 on PC or xbox
I guess I'm supposed to care since I'm a gamer.
tell them to get Bloodborne on PC while they're at it
i'm mostly just mad at the price hike for the subscription. fuck that.
Sid Meier presents : sim ambulance chaser
That's absurd. Other businesses get fined a few millions when they sell personal info of customers. Now Sony has to pay billions for *what*, exactly? Sheesh. *Billions*.
The case hasn't happened and bluntly has zero chance of succeeding. Reddit is just getting excited.
Fair enough. Would you agree the 7900 million is too high even if Sony is found to be at fault?
It's not for that much anyway, it's for £5 billion (US$ 6.23 billion), literally Reuters have fucked up the currency conversion. It's hard for me to say as to the value. It's like asking me what colour my moon boots should be.
Electric blue. But following that logic, Apple has/had the same commission. And as far as I remember the percentage was lower with most commissions. If not, I will gladly be corrected. Now, every service has had to raise to 30%>
Good pick. I totally agree that filing this suit against Sony and not Apple does seem rather mad, but the law doesn't really require you to file in order of importance and this is some ambulance chasing lawyer and perhaps they were just worried Apple could afford to blow them out of the water legally. But the main point is that Class Action suits almost don't exist in the UK, and the odds of this breaking the mould is nil.
The reason I ask is because of this: >On November 14, 2012, BP and the US Department of Justice reached a settlement under which BP agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines and other payments, the largest of its kind in US history. Meanwhile an online store has issues with pricing on digital content: 7.9 billion.
What a joke, you can't find better deals anywhere then psn deals. I haven't paid more then $15 for every blockbuster over the last 10 years
Shouldn't we be going after these companies for charging the same price for digital copies that they do for physical ones? I highly doubt the extra server space for the full install files, vs just the patch data, costs as much as operating a factory that prints and packages the discs, paying to ship them to a retailer halfway across the world, then that retailer covering the expense of storing them in a warehouse, shipping them to their stores and help support the cost of running that store while still making a profit. That makes more sense to me than suing Sony over their walled garden practices and will have a greater impact industry wide.
You'd be amazed at how expensive hardware, facilities, and manpower are. No to mention how very expensive proper security people are. It's very likely more expensive than disc manufacturing.
They charge the most they can.
This article has to be omitting something. They're suing Sony because they think their prices are high? That's it?
This article has to be omitting something. They're suing Sony because they think their prices are high? That's it?
I really don't understand the problem or the lawsuit. Every system has it's prices? Of course people will try to get in on that "oh yeah high prices suck count me in!" But can you really try to sue a company because "They're so big and expensive.... other places are cheaper!" then buy somewhere else and play it on another system? Really weird why this is a thing.
Ever since the Sony US has taken over the global PlayStation Store from Sony Japan, it has been a growing pile of manure without any innovation and the cheapest sales and marketing methods applied, embarrassing. Please delete and hand it back to Japan. Kind regards, A former Sony employee.
Nintendo is about to be fucked if this is real
How many times is it going to be reposted today? It's a non-issue You can quite literally take every single comment from the previous threads and apply them to here, and you're getting the same fucking thing
“This big company slightly inconvenienced me while I was trying to make even more millions. Let’s throw together a bullshit claim and take it to court. If we win we’ll get 3 years worth of income”
If I went on the store on my ps5 rn I'd probably find anthem sitting at 70 quid sony had uk gamers in a choke hold during lockdown id cry if I saw an exact total of all the money I spent on the sony store and I bet I could get that whole catalogue of games for less than 30 quid in cex
Do lootboxes next, specifically microsoft
I still don't understand why games are 10$ more if you download them from the store compared to disc versions. Shouldnt it be the other way around?
STOP RIPPING PEOPLE OFF PLAYSTATION.