Your analogy falls apart somewhere for me but I can't pinpoint the exact correction to make your analogy work for me. Either way I agree. If they don't like only being able to buy digital PS games via Sony's platform, go to one where they can.

That's not the fight I'd personally focus on. I'd personally focus on them revoking digital access after you've "purchased it". Then again, I don't have a game console and I don't "buy" digital media. I either rent via streaming subscription or own the physical.

▲

stingraycharles 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s that there is a large upfront cost (buying a PlayStation) which isn’t in the analogy.

Additionally, many of the games are already on different platforms (PC), just not any other consoles.

I think the biggest thing is that Sony doesn’t actually make the games (they don’t have the kitchen nor the cooks), they just sell it.

So a more apt comparison would be a grocery store, I think.

▲

wilg 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The large upfront cost is lower than it would be because its subsidized by buying the games for it!

Sony does make the games, they have many excellent first party studios!

What are you talking about!

▲

stingraycharles 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They make games, they just don’t make all the games. Similar like a grocery store having their own brands in the shelves, you don’t expect to be able to buy these at other shops.

And yes the upfront costs being subsidized is exactly the point.

	▲	MBCook 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not quite. Grocery stores make common products and clones. Sony’s 1st party stuff is (often) exceptional. It’s the reason an Xbox or PC isn’t a complete replacement.
	▲	wilg an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I can only respond to what you actually said which was "Sony doesn’t actually make the games" and "they don’t have the kitchen nor the cooks".

▲

braiamp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The PS5 was breaking even less than 6 months after its release. They don't subsidize anything. BTW, Nintendo also don't subsidize it. The BOM of the Switch 1 and 2 is lower than the total price including the margins for retailers!

▲

wilg an hour ago | parent [-]

This is a conversation about Sony, not Nintendo. As far as I can tell from current data, Sony is still subsidizing PlayStation consoles overall.

▲

bryanlarsen 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sony stopped subsidizing the PS5 8 months after launch.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/sony-says-499-ps5-no-longer-sells...

	▲	wilg 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I can see why you might think that, but that is not what this article claims or what Sony said. The CFO said this in 2021: “But the profitability of PS5 in -- there was this view of reaching breakeven point in June, but PS5 breakeven point for standard edition, more correctly on standard edition, that's how we explain the situation. And it's been progressing according to the plan. Overall, hardware profitability and peripherals hardware profitability, including peripherals, as we have been saying, is proceeding smoothly.” And PCMag is inferring this means ONLY the $499 edition of the console which they previously suggested could become profitable later. It doesn't mean every edition of the PS5, and things have changed since 2021. And Sony said it was having losses on consoles as recently as 2024.

▲

ytoawwhra92 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The large upfront cost is lower than it would be because its subsidized by buying the games for it!

This isn't true anymore.

	▲	wilg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		As far as I can tell, despite Sony saying they would like the consoles to be profitable, they are still subsidized as of right now in aggregate. Perhaps some models are more profitable than others.

▲

cwmoore 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can imagine that BK’s “have it your way” branding does enable the occasional off-menu Big Mac style burger sandwich transaction.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]