@Dogbreath another LOL. Using the verb "to rob" to describe a consumer buying and selling games they have paid for with their own hard earned cash.
Having said that, you may be a psychic channelling Sony management so it's good to be aware of this point of view.

@Vertere I can't believe you excuse dynamic pricing as "targeted sales". Economically it is exactly the same thing. Of course they don't jack up the price for those who they determine are less price sensitive,that might wake up the whales to what is going on. But in a world where games frequently go on sale, denying sale prices is the same thing.
One possible future is that some of us will see fewer and fewer sales whereas others see more frequent ones. I know what group I'd rather be in, so I'm taking steps to free myself from Sony. Like in the PS3/360 era I will use PlayStation for exclusives and other stores for everything else.
This user refuses to be meekly monetised.

@Vertere hey, thanks for the “prompt” response

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I see Sony gaining pricing power from the elimination of a physical storefront. You don’t.
Let’s wait to see how things pan out.

PS: I totally agree that the more productive discussion is around digital ownership rights. That’s why I think this article moves the conversation forwards. Physical is dead, we need to build something new to replace it. Let-that something new be pro consumer by design.

@Vertere That’s the point: you do not take into account in your analysis the fact that Sony will be in effect a monopolist in how games are purchased (either directly, or in the rare occasions when there is demand for a code in the box (given its lack of resale value)), because it will all go through PSN.
As I understand your position, you seem to think that prices on PSN will remain much as they are now. Even setting aside the fact that digital discounts for some games are a lot poorer than what you can find eg on eBay, I think that misses the fact that Sony will be in a much stronger position to dictate terms to other publishers to keep prices high. Eg no discounts greater than 50% unless the game has been on sale for at least a certain number of years. This is just an example of the sort of policy a monopolist might devise to ensure it maximises its take. Or as they themselves put it “monetising the installed base”.
This is why I think Sony’s new policy will make all consumers worse off in the medium term.

@Vertere I’m afraid it is you who have fundamentally misunderstood how monopoly pricing works. Currently, unless your console is digital only, Sony does not have a monopoly on how you purchase games. Hence it is limited on how much it can charge (or alternatively how rarely and steeply it can run the discounts that it allows other publishers to opt into, as you say). This is simply because if it never gave discounts more people would buy and resell second hand games for example.

Once that source of competition is gone, Sony will be free to reduce the frequency or steepness of discounts. There will still be some of course: monopolists like to maximise profits and will try to segment the market for example between those who can wait after the holidays and those who can’t. But it’s ECON 101 stuff that a monopoly will capture more surplus than a competitive market like the current scenario. For example, Sony could restrict the timing of discounts, or the number of games that are subject to the steepest discounts etc. there are many ways for Sony to control things even if it doesn’t set prices directly (which I agree is the case). What you can be 100% sure is that Sony will try to maximise its profits and that it will have an easier time of it after it has eliminated the threat of competition from physical and 2nd hand sales.
One more thing, this is irrespective of the current percentage of digital vs physical sales. If anything, the relevant metric for this analysis would be the percentage of digital only consoles (ie those on which Sony already has a monopoly). Look up “contestable market” if you want more information: “A contestable market is one where there are low barriers to entry and exit, allowing potential competition to threaten existing firms.”
The point is that the games market for disc consoles is currently contestable and this reduces the monopoly profits Sony can charge.
One more thing, dynamic pricing will turbocharge the monopolist’s pricing power once the option of going physical is gone. If nothing else, I would be very wary of putting anything on my wishlist, even if they fix that feature.
That’s why I think regulation of this market is necessary, and it would be to Sony’s long term benefit if they got ahead of the game and introduced some of the features mentioned in this article of their own volition.

This is the most important article since the announcement of the end of physical media on PlayStation.
Discs are not coming back. That decision is irrevocable. But the new all digital future must be more customer friendly than before. If Sony doesn't implement these standards willingly, regulation should require them to.
Or otherwise, allow other stores on PS6.

There is an assumption in a lot of these comments that if you don't buy physical then this does not affect you. Yeah, we are sorry for our physical buying friends, but at least we won't suffer as we would always buy digital anyway.
I'm sorry to say this point of view is naive. The existence of a physical option, even if only used by a minority, limits the prices Sony can charge while maximizing profits. Because those of us with a disc console will flex our purchases towards used physical if digital prices rise too much, depriving Sony of a cut of those sales.
I'm afraid this will lead to higher prices for all.

I can only hope that antitrust authorities will now require Sony to allow multiple marketplaces on PS6. Or at least restrain things like dynamic pricing, which become a lot more viable for Sony if we can only buy games from their store.

This editorial is spot on.
The only thing we don't know, and which might lead me to a different take, is what was retention like at Bluepoint, having worked for so long on a title that perhaps many developers were not particularly keen on, and then having that canned last year. It could be that there had been an exodus of staff and the Bluepoint that existed in January 2026 was very different from the one Sony acquired. In that case, it might make a bit more sense to consider a closure. But then that would just be a different type of mismanagement that Sony's executives would be responsible for.

@Gr8VngnzN4esAngr Please don't bring your politics into this.

I understand that this is the last month of PS4 only titles. Form January, all games in PS+ essential will have a native PS5 app.
If that is the case, then this selection is a bit disappointing. I was hoping for a heavy hitter PS4 only title to bid farewell to those types of games.

It's always annoyed me that I have dozens of digital games on my PS3 that are worthless as my PS3 is not plugged in, yet my much smaller library of Xbox360 games is at my fingertips on my Series X.
Out of all those games, the most annoying ones are the PS2 classics I bought on PS3. Does Sony expect me to buy them again in the future, for the 3rd time? Who do they think they are, Nintendo?

Please let this have the SEGA CD soundtrack.

Article should mention that you can save money if you buy them on PS3 or Vita instead (Dino Crisis at least).they are then available on PS4/5 as well.

Without a doubt, this is the great moral outrage of our times.

A lot of short names. Easier to type with one hand I suppose...

The game is fixed. Nice one CDPR, I see what you did there.

PSVR2 = Kinect 2 of Sony.

I was going to say PS Vita but then I remembered that the good old Vita was actually supported by Sony for the first 18 months or so.

This aimed at people who don't know any better. Like parents or uncles buying a present for a teenager. Unwrapping a PS5 game may look better than a PS4 one, but if it were me getting it I would feel guilty.
On the other hand, CDPR is generous enough to give the update for free to PS4 version owners. So I suppose we shouldn't begrudge them that they fleece the masses who can't tell the difference.

@WallyWest games on Gamepass tend to stay on the service for at least a year. The only notable exceptions were the R* duo (RDR2 & GTA V). I'm not saying GP is perfect (I let my subscription expire earlier this year) but in this area it seems better.

Will I need two PS5 controllers to play Overcooked on PS5 if I want to play couch co-op?

What is the noise level like?

I suspect he's got a work account which is where he plays the games he's designed like Knack.

I have 2 accounts / user profiles on my PS4 Pro so I can access the UK and US stores. Will the two profiles be transferred to my PS5 in this way?

Uncharted Lost Legacy please.

My worry is that the games might rotate out when I'm half way through playing them. That is a feature of PS Now that I really, really dislike. PS+ on the other hand, lets you keep the games forever, so long as you have claimed them in the month they were available (and you maintain your membership of course). I hope they follow the same model here, after all it is a PS+ benefit.

Any chance of a special edition any time soon?