It is both. If the obnoxious store tax did not exist we would be paying less for games and apps. This is an interesting suit because the non digital versions of older games do get discounted and they only have a slim retail markup. Whatever, this is all Apple and Valve's fault.That article is a joke. Is not the consumers that get ripped off by the 30% tax, its the publishers that put the games on the store. And all stores charge a 30% tax, except Epic as far as i know.
It is both. If the obnoxious store tax did not exist we would be paying less for games and apps.
How would stores exist it they didn't tax products? And how would that lower prices?It is both. If the obnoxious store tax did not exist we would be paying less for games and apps. This is an interesting suit because the non digital versions of older games do get discounted and they only have a slim retail markup. Whatever, this is all Apple and Valve's fault.
Their goal is not to succeed, but to raise awareness
Epic Games Store and Microsoft Store for Windows charges a 12% commission fee. It's not standard for any digital store front.30% is a standard tax for any digital store. They going to sue them all?
What exactly is here to be gained except for companies making more dollars?
Technically, it all stays the same but the distribution would be different. Remember how Epic said that the cut would benefit better quality games, payment/deals for developers and lower prices? I don't see any of this; first, quality is hard to quantify and second, what there is to quantify I can tell you it doesn't make the cut as of now. I don't see games on release cheaper on EGS than on other platforms. Same goes for the Windows Store that supposedly takes 10% IIRC., e.g. Outer Worlds cost regular 59,99 EUR still.
I mean, this happens all the time. Like a decade ago the kerosene taxes for air lines which then increased their ticket prices? Increasing tenure cost for stores and restaurants who then increases their prices? Money, if imagined on a scale, usually flows into one direction since the world's first inflation in the 16th century when the Spanish brought 300 tons of silver per year into Europe. Companies want (to keep) their cut and they will simply increase prices. What will perhaps never happen is that they lower them, especially long established and accepted prices. So taking the cut from one company will only give it to another. The end-consumer will always pay the same unless companies try to undersell for acceptance, usually to gain market entry (EGS does this sort of with giving away games for free or vouchers all the time to get people use that platform, which gives Epic more leverage in negotiations when they say how many users they have).
It is for consoles. You can bet this will spill over to Nintendo and Microsoft (Xbox) if anything comes of it. I'm not sure why people are actiing surprised since this has never been hidden news and it was ba large part of the Epic VS Apple case.Epic Games Store and Microsoft Store for Windows charges a 12% commission fee. It's not standard for any digital store front.
But the problem is the same.That has nothing to do with game sharing.
Your arrangement isn't common and not an argument in defence of Sony's practices. The games still cost $10+ over physical and thats the point.
About time someone highlighted this type of practice when it comes to digital games, Xbox & Nintendo are just as bad.
Patches do not correspond to so much traffic as whole gamesPatches are sent to the customer on physical discs then? Sounds inconvenient and wasteful.
But the problem is the same.
You lose access to your game either way.
Digital is more safe and convenient for me.
Unlike PlayStation, you can purchase Xbox Digital Games from other retailers like Cdkeys, Amazon etc... They may have a case about Sony limiting their Digital Games to PlayStation Digital Store..It is for consoles. You can bet this will spill over to Nintendo and Microsoft (Xbox) if anything comes of it. I'm not sure why people are actiing surprised since this has never been hidden news and it was ba large part of the Epic VS Apple case.
Unlike PlayStation, you can purchase Xbox Digital Games from other retailers like Cdkeys, Amazon etc... They may have a case about Sony limiting their Digital Games to PlayStation Digital Store..
So the stores that no one uses have a lower cut. Now name the ones that use 30%.Epic Games Store and Microsoft Store for Windows charges a 12% commission fee. It's not standard for any digital store front.
But the problem is the same.
You lose access to your game either way.
Digital is more safe and convenient for me.
The word is lose.how does the consumer loose?
ever year I buy Cod my mate buys the other bigger hitter what ever that is, we game share and we can play each other on the same game with game sharing so how do we loose? I spend 60 he spends 60 and we get 2 games for that , which we can each play at the same time
Epic Games Store and Microsoft Store for Windows charges a 12% commission fee. It's not standard for any digital store front.
Wrong.The games cost $70 whether you buy digitally or physically dumbo. The 30% has fuck all to do with that.
100% this. Digital software should be purchasable from any retailer and that retailer should be able to set the price for what they are selling.About damn time.
It can’t be right that the only way I can purchase a digital game on my PlayStation is via the psn store.
Whereas on switch and Xbox, I can buy codes from legit vendors like Amazon, game collection etc.
This still would not allow competition with the software price. You'd still be charged the same price for the game. There would still be only one source for the actual digital software. The retailer could offer customers a sale the platform owner might not.Sony sells PSN Store credit in 3rd party retailers. This lawsuit is not about that. Its just nonsense.
The limiting of digital software to just one store was a more recent move as well. It certainly doesn't allow for pricing competition as it is now.Unlike PlayStation, you can purchase Xbox Digital Games from other retailers like Cdkeys, Amazon etc... They may have a case about Sony limiting their Digital Games to PlayStation Digital Store..
Wrong.
Ebay
GameStop
GAME
CD-Key sites
Numerous ways to get new games for less than MSRP.
Wrong.
Ebay
GameStop
GAME
CD-Key sites
Numerous ways to get new games for less than MSRP.
All of which are going to charge you $70 at launch
The 10$ isn't a digital tax, dumbo
Are you saying new releases are priced below the base price and they eat all losses?Wrong.
Ebay
GameStop
GAME
CD-Key sites
Numerous ways to get new games for less than MSRP.
But none of that has anything to do with the 30% commission on digital stores.
So you're talking about sales?My original comment wasn't about any 30% tax, just the point that physical is available cheaper for widely
So you're talking about sales?
My original comment wasn't about any 30% tax, just the point that physical is available cheaper for widely
The various outlets you talk about still pay Sony/MS/Nintendo to even have the games.My point was that if your digital only your restricted to pay what ever Sony/MS/Nintendo charge on the stores.
With physical, you have a pick of various outlets that can offer lower prices, even on new games.
But with Nintendo and MS that’s not true. Both of them allow other retailers to sell digital codes. Most stores have a wall of digital cards right next to their game cases. Sony banned the sell of codes a while ago so now the ONLY way to buy a digital PS game is through their store.My point was that if your digital only your restricted to pay what ever Sony/MS/Nintendo charge on the stores.
Exactly! If consumers want to pay more for their hardware then be my guest. Epic charge 12% but the prices are the same. Let the consumer take the hit instead of the publisher etc.MS, Sony and Nintendo's risk is developing the systems these games can exist on that often run at a hardware cost loss and are made up for in royalties.
Also don't forget the billions that MS/Sony/Nintendo have to put in to develop the systems. Which they sell at cost or a slight loss. Just imagine if they put $100 on each console?most retailers have a 30% mark up, doesn't matter if its digital or physical. people are forgetting things like gamesharing which comes into effect to. do we want cheaper games yes of coarse but the commission will always be the same.
end of the day we want the best consoles and that costs for R&D and we want the best games that also costs. do people think if Sony didn't charge 30% commission that games like God of war of Horizon zero dawn would be as good? that money they earn goes into there own studios and makes better games
Apples profits are inhumane!Apple charges 30% and they make fat coin on their hardware, unlike Sony.
Gotta keep them shareholder dividends rolling in.Apples profits are inhumane!
And SONY put all the R*D into making the hardware and sells it at razor thin margins with the intent of making profit on the gatekeeping of the store. SONY pours billions into making the hardware that these developers want to put their games on, SONY should be able to make a profit for that risk. *SONY can be replaced by MS or NIN in this argument as you please...Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple, Steam, etc... if I'm not mistaken, all of them charge 30% commission. That is way too excessive. All of them deserved to be sued...
Publishers and developers deserve a bigger cut of the profits, since they are taking all the risks and are actually developing the game.
Well, never stopped to think about it before, in a way, setting up your own sandbox and setting all the pricing and fees is sort of anti competitive, and if the law says it's not allowed there since 2015, maybe they have a real leg to stand on. If they do same applies of course to ms/apple/Nintendo.
That's not what anti-competitive means. Anti-competitive means that you are abusing your market share dominance in order to strong-arm the industry. Sony didn't do that. Almost everyone in the industry is doing the same thing.
Also, the 2015 law doesn't say anything about this. I read through it trying to find out what leg the lawyers have to stand on, and they don't have one. This is a garbage lawsuit that should, and will, fail.
My original comment wasn't about any 30% tax, just the point that physical is available cheaper for widely
And you provide GAME and GameStop as examples?
Come the fuck on lmao