Hacker News Reader

Comment by horsawlarway | Hacker News Reader

By your own argument:

Sony prefers charging a tax on game sales that's high enough to recoup the cost of the hardware discount.

This means playstation owners are getting a discount on hardware, and then paying so much more for each game - to the point Sony prefers this because they get higher revenue than just selling the hardware at cost.

---

You are literally advocating for the worse model for yourself.

Jailbreaks don't ruin anything other than a "predatory loan" style arrangement.

Personally, I fail to see the problem.

View on HN

The problem is if you want upfront payment on the hardware or not. That is generally how the market split historically. PC gamers pay upfront high hardware cost for flexibility and console games paid low hardware prices but paid premium on games. The steam machine is trying to being the PC model to consoles. The problem is assuming everyone wants the hardware costs upfront model. Your reply suggests you think there is an ideal or optimal solution for every gamer. Markets find equilibrium based on demand unless some crazy actor forces someone's hand and we end up with restricted solutions.

>if you want upfront payment on the hardware or not.

You don't get a choice is the issue, more so this is hidden from the consumer that it's occurring.

If when you buy a PS5 you sign a contract saying that you're buying hardware below cost is one thing, but without that contract there is no binding agreement at the time of sale. Without this selling the hardware below cost and you paying for the games is just a really nice thing that Sony hopes happens.

> Markets find equilibrium based on demand

This is decidedly untrue non-fungible item markets (ex - the market where you can only play Sony exclusives on a playstation).

> in markets for non-fungible goods - price formation and demand equilibrium do not rely on a single, continuous market-clearing price. Instead, they rely on discrete matching, asymmetric information, and social coordinates.

Basically - no. Fuck off. Sony is acting in their best interests with asymmetric information (ex - they know how much profit they make of those game sales and you don't, they know how much profit/loss they make from that playstation sale and you don't).

You know how we know? Because absolutely nothing is stopping you from still opting into a model where you don't pay costs up front.

> The problem is assuming everyone wants the hardware costs upfront model.

We have an absolutely smorgasbord of financial services that would LOVE to let you pay over time, or give you a moderate loan, to buy a playstation with low upfront costs... to just list some of the bigger ones: affirm, afterpay, klarna, paypal, zip, bread, upstart, albert, withcherry, etc... there are SO many of these.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com