Stop Killing Games: It's time to sue Sony, join us
Consumer advocates in the Netherlands are suing Sony over its PlayStation digital distribution model, arguing that forcing users to buy games and in‑game content exclusively through the PlayStation Store lets Sony abuse a dominant position and keep prices artificially high. Commenters are split between those who see this as necessary enforcement of EU competition rules and broader digital consumer rights, and others who argue that consoles are optional, competition from PC/mobile is strong, and regulation here risks undermining a viable “cheap hardware, locked store” business model. Underneath the legal debate are recurring concerns about digital ownership, the end of physical media, resale rights, and how much control platform owners should have over software on hardware consumers purchase.
Scope of the Lawsuit / Campaign
- Campaign targets Sony’s control over digital PlayStation game distribution and pricing (“Sony tax”), not disc discontinuation per se.
- Core claim: Sony abuses a dominant position by forcing all digital purchases through the PlayStation Store, allegedly keeping prices artificially high.
- Some posters note similar class actions in US/UK and say this case aims to enforce existing EU/Dutch competition rules on abuse of market power.
- Others find the legal theory unclear: Is this about codes for retailers, about “platform fees,” or about broader app‑store regulation? Which exact law applies is not fully spelled out in the thread.
Monopoly, Market Power, and Analogies
- One camp argues Sony’s walled garden and sunk-cost lock‑in (console purchase + non‑transferable library) create effective market power, even if Xbox, Switch, and PC exist.
- Counterpoint: Sony doesn’t have a legal monopoly; consoles and PC/mobile provide many alternatives, so this should be a free‑market issue, not a regulatory one.
- Analogies debated: Big Mac/McDonald’s (exclusive sale of a differentiated product), grocery stores, company towns, and phone app stores. Some think these analogies fail because consoles involve high upfront investment and non‑fungible games.
Digital Ownership, “Killing Games,” and Consumer Rights
- Many commenters say the real issue is weak digital ownership: revoked access, DRM, inability to resell, and disappearing games/services.
- Some want laws guaranteeing “right to unlock” hardware, root keys, or alternative OSes/app stores; others focus on rights to transfer licenses or have used-digital markets.
- Skeptics dismiss the campaign as “slopulism” or a distraction from deeper industry problems (ballooning budgets, bad design, etc.).
Business Model and Economics
- Defenders emphasize the classic console model: sell hardware at break-even or a loss, recoup via a closed software store. They argue restricting store competition is integral to making a $400 console viable.
- Critics respond that “this is how it’s always been” doesn’t matter if regulators deem the model anti‑competitive or harmful to consumers.
Alternatives and Strategies
- Several say the practical answer is to stop buying PlayStations and move to PC/Steam or other platforms that allow multiple stores and sometimes DRM‑free games.
- Others argue you “can’t beat monopolies with innovation alone”; regulation and lawsuits are necessary to preserve competition and consumer rights.