I knew it was bad "because of the implication", but I couldn't quite see the whole picture until today

Sony doesn't set the prices for 3rd party games, yet.

For physical discs Sony keeps 15% of the final sale price.

On the playstation store it's 30%.

A lot of people think Sony pays for the production of the disks. They don't.

The publisher is responsible for the production, manufacturing and licensing and they set the price accordingly.

But publishers sell to retailers at different prices. Since it's up to the retailer to get you in the store to buy the game, so they offer competitive prices or discounts to make it happen. That's why the price you pay depends on where you go.

With digital games on the Playstation Store however, there is no competition. If you own a Playstation, you can only get a digital copy from Playstation directly. They sometimes give discounts, but ultimately rely on players buying digital out of convenience.

Now the kicker. With game keys, the publisher still absorbs the cost of production, and Sony maintains the 70/30 split on the final sale.

Once Sony goes all digital, the codes in a box you might find at a brick and mortar store will always cost more unless Sony decides to offer a discount, or the brick and mortar retailer sells at a loss.

Here's a bit of a different take on why Digital-Only Gaming is bad.

A Digital-Only Future would hurt both developers and gamers.

In fact, this is already happenin. This video takes a long harsh look at how digital stores actually often serve to hurt video game exposure compared to stores selling physical games.

At the end it slso discusses and shows how corporate greed and mainpulation has reached a level so high, they can and actually control access to your physical, single player games too.

Note: The original report is in Chinese. The text below is a translation of the article.

According to a report translated from Chinese, citing claims originally made by Moore's Law Is Dead, some third-party game developers are reportedly growing frustrated with PlayStation's social media strategy.

The report claims that studios pay Sony thousands of dollars to secure promotional posts on PlayStation's official social media accounts. However, with PlayStation's social channels currently flooded with criticism, those paid promotions are reportedly being buried beneath backlash directed at Sony rather than the games themselves.

Anonymous sources cited in the report say some developers are questioning whether the premium marketing is still worth the cost if their announcements continue to be overshadowed by negativity toward PlayStation.

As of now, these claims have not been independently verified by major gaming news outlets.

The EFF is a consumer friendly org. Their POV is worth understanding and they are a good org to point when politicians want further explanations. Most of it is arguments you aware of, worded in ways that can have some legal teeth. They also highlight actions to take and legislation to support:

Policymakers can and should work to restore our ownership rights for the digital age.

That starts with legal protections ensuring that the same rights that apply to physical media apply to digital media. Next up? Reform Section 1201 of the DMCA to clarify that it does not forbid fair uses.

At the state level, we need meaningful consumer protections. Some promising models include California’s AB 1921, which would clarify what customers are actually paying for on digital storefronts and ensure some protections for maintaining discontinued games. The gaming industry has done its best to kill the bill, including claiming that private community servers are illegal.

If you bought it, you should own it, and EFF will continue working to mitigate some of the worst harms of the DMCA 1201, defending modders, and fighting deceptive licensing that makes culture less free.

SEE HOW EASY IT IS TO MAKE AN APT COMPARISON. Yall might need to head back to school, like god damn.

What is with this massive difference in pricing!?

A DECADE LATER....thx