The PS5 Pro is certainly one of the consoles of all times. It boasts a $700 price tag, a selection of games only purchasable through the PS store, and a disc drive... sold separately for $80.

It's a trend Sony started with their original PS5 launch in 2020, offering a digital-only console for cheaper than its disc drive counterpart. This followed after a decision in 2019 to prevent retailers from selling digital game codes. From get, it was clear what Sony wanted to accomplish - a monopoly on digital games.

In 2021, an anti-trust lawsuit was filed against Sony Group Corporation and its entertainment subsidiary under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolization through anti-competitive practices. A settlement was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in December of 2024, offering to give out $7.8 million of electronic credits. This was denied by the judge this past July, frowning upon Sony's offer of a "coupon settlement," or offering relief that has no real value outside of the PlayStation store.

It's not unheard of for judges to reject an agreed-upon settlement. In essence, a settlement is like a contract. Two or more parties agree to certain actions in exchange for something else, and both parties are bound by the agreement in that they must perform their respective duties to completion. Thus, settlement agreements are governed by contract law in that they cannot be unfairly written or illegal. The one who determines this is the judge.

I don't even need to say it anymore - you don't own your games. But that doesn't mean you can be mistreated as a licensee of those games. Purchasing a game is also like a contract between you and the publishing company. If you're getting ripped off, a court is going to look down upon it.

The problem is no amount of relief will be timely and sufficient in a class-action suit. It's been four years just for a settlement to be reviewed; now everyone has to go back to the drawing board. It's a problem that can be dissuaded with litigation, but not completely prevented.

Publisher & Retailer Relationships

Here's how it works: the developer puts together the game in their creative vision, while the publisher provides the financial backing to see the game through release. Sometimes, they own the studio that makes the game. The publisher then sends out the product to retailers who receive a cut of the sales.

Digital storefronts cut out the final piece, which can allow them to rake in a greater portion of the profits. It's also convenient for the consumer to not spend their precious gas money to go to GameStop or Target. Numbers show that consumers prefer this method, too. The UK-based Digital Entertainment and Retail Association (ERA) reported that almost 90% of UK video game sales in the 2022 were digital. In the U.S., sales have been on the decline for physical games.

This chart shows a steep decline in total physical game purchases in billions of dollars over the past 24 years. Source: Circana

 

Platforms such as Steam and Origin, which host a library of downloadable PC games, capitalize off this. In the case of Steam, games can be self-published or receive permission to provide digital downloads of games from other publishers. They even host development for their own games through the platform's creator, Valve Corporation. However, that means they can also curate the content as they see fit, especially if external forces convince them otherwise.

That's exactly what's happening. Recently, Steam has begun deindexing, or removing from their search engine, adult content from their platform as a result of pressures from MasterCard, Visa and PayPal. Although the corporation claims they weren't directly pressured by these companies, the point is that they are susceptible to change because of the payment providers that collaborate with Valve. What they decide to host on their platform can change at anytime for various broad reasons based on their Terms of Service.

Don't misconstrue this as criticism about Steam, itch.io or any other marketplace. It's intrinsic to the concept of digital ownership. Without payment providers, there's no way people can pay for games digitally - and Steam doesn't seem keen on allowing check by mail. They're one of the biggest digital storefronts for PC games, but not the only one. They would rather upset one community than hurt their business model.

In sum, the games you buy online are very easily influenced. Sony wants to eliminate competition so they can jack up prices. Third parties want to influence what you can buy. It's scary for a developer to find a publisher if people are afraid to publish to certain platforms. Courts need to make it clear - corporations can't mess with the market at the expense of the consumer. They may have the means to, but ultimately, the people have their wallets.