I support this action, and hope they win, but realistically we need to be ready for Sony’s likely responses from their lawyers to persuade a judge. If you can counter-argue the following, props to you, because I’m unfortunately better at playing devils advocate than forming the best preservation arguments.
“Your iPhone doesn’t have a disc drive. Your watch doesn’t have a card slot. Personal computers don’t even come with disc drives anymore. The world has moved long beyond the idea that software is associated with a physical item, and our customer data reflects that. The disc drive has long been a heavy point of failure in the PlayStation’s design, and provided less benefit as more users across territories become internet-enabled. Requiring Sony specifically to retain an archaic design when the same expectation is not set on manufacturers like Apple or Microsoft is tacitly preferential legislation. Sony has built the PlayStation architecture and naturally benefits from it; others are free to design their own devices if they feel there is underserved competition.”
There’s a lot of good talking points about preservation, but not much that directly addresses the idea one company is receiving specific requirements.
Except those all have competing app stores. Some of them even had to be forced to allow them, but they do allow them. By moving to digital only, you MUST buy ALL games through Sony and their storefront.
This is the core of the issue. If Apple and Google have to allow alternative app stores, then why can Sony have a monopoly? There is prescident for that argument already, which ruled against Apple and Google. I don’t see Sony winning where Apple and Google lost.
I support this action, and hope they win, but realistically we need to be ready for Sony’s likely responses from their lawyers to persuade a judge. If you can counter-argue the following, props to you, because I’m unfortunately better at playing devils advocate than forming the best preservation arguments.
“Your iPhone doesn’t have a disc drive. Your watch doesn’t have a card slot. Personal computers don’t even come with disc drives anymore. The world has moved long beyond the idea that software is associated with a physical item, and our customer data reflects that. The disc drive has long been a heavy point of failure in the PlayStation’s design, and provided less benefit as more users across territories become internet-enabled. Requiring Sony specifically to retain an archaic design when the same expectation is not set on manufacturers like Apple or Microsoft is tacitly preferential legislation. Sony has built the PlayStation architecture and naturally benefits from it; others are free to design their own devices if they feel there is underserved competition.”
There’s a lot of good talking points about preservation, but not much that directly addresses the idea one company is receiving specific requirements.
Except those all have competing app stores. Some of them even had to be forced to allow them, but they do allow them. By moving to digital only, you MUST buy ALL games through Sony and their storefront.
This is the core of the issue. If Apple and Google have to allow alternative app stores, then why can Sony have a monopoly? There is prescident for that argument already, which ruled against Apple and Google. I don’t see Sony winning where Apple and Google lost.