Former CEO of Square Enix thinks Sony will be a benevolent Monopoly, not like the other monopolies.

Navok’s interpretation rests on a lot of maybes and charity.

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I want someone to come up with a single example where a company lowered prices on a product without reducing its original size.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    There are normally plenty of examples when an effective monopoly is broken of prices coming down to stay competitive, patents expiring on drugs normally sees prices tumble. A single example where a company becoming an effective monopoly lowered prices might be a better comparison because I'm fairly sure that hasn't happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Apple lowered the price of the original iPhone in 2007 from $600 to $400 after 10 weeks on the market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    The Sony PSX launched at $800 (aud) and dropped to $400 a few months later when the N64 was released at $400.

    It turns out that Sony had that 100% headroom all along.

    Reducing costs just pumps margins. Removing competition with retail boxes will not reduce the price.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    It won't.

    Driving costs down doesn't drive prices down. You may see prices stabilize and see more sales, but as you see today the digital and physical prices are the same for the first few months/years. With digital you are at the mercy of Sony, with physical you're at the mercy of the retailer.

    The only time Sony offered anything to the user as a charity was free online play and PS+ was $40 a year, but that's because they were losing the console war with poor PS3 sales. There's no incentive for Sony to do anything for the consumer.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    While it certainly would lower the cost of producing and distributing the games, anyone with half a brain will realize those savings will absolutely not be passed down to the consumer. PC games have been purely digital since the late 2000's and they have actually gone UP in price.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    This theory posits that it will force full-priced games to trend downwards, and points to the trajectory of Final Fantasy XVI’s costs on Steam to illustrate that when it budges, it budges further down.

    Bro really said that because the cost goes down on Steam (due to not being a monopoly) that means that making PlayStation a monopoly (be getting rid of second hand games) would also make the prices go down?

    Steam being digital isn't the relevant part, there'd be nothing wrong with PlayStation being all digital...

    If that didn't make it a monopoly

    He's logic is predicated on publishers being able to sell Steam keys on their own without paying Steam because it didn't "sell" thru Steam's storefront.

    And I'm pretty sure even a "steam box" doesn't lock it to Steam store only.

    This article isnt for people buying games, it's rationale for Sony investors to ignore how bad this will be. It's PR

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    “Current prices are tied to retail. Without physical discs holding digital hostage we’ll see a larger spectrum of pricing similar to steam.”

    Too many people think prices are based on what the product costs to sell, instead of what customers are willing to pay. The former simply sets a minimum price.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Nice try Sony

  • source
  • [+] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago

    Digital game store breaks traditional supply/demand curves. Their supply is functionally infinite.

  • source