Should Sony be liable?

Remove all ads!

Gun companies should be held harmless for gun violence, but Sony is responsible for gun violence at places where PS3 is sold -- WHAT?!?

I believe the video gaming industry need to be help to a higher standard than they have been, but not this.

 

I'm not saying that Sony did not deliberately under-release the product, and it certainly seems that demand far outstripped supply. However, even if Sony produced two or three times the quantity that they did, it STILL wouldn't have been enough to meet demand. To say they should delay the release until beyond the Christmas season is lunacy, not to mention bad business.

I have no idea how many PS3s were produced, nor what the current demand is, so I'll just pull numbers out of thin air here. Say there is an immediate demand for 10 million PS3s. But Sony only has the manufacturing capacity to produce 1 million PS3s prior to Christmas. At $500 each, Sony would be losing out on $500 million worth of sales for the Christmas season by withholding the release - that doesn't make sense.

I also do not think that this is part of Sony's marketing strategy, because it already announced the console would sell for $500. Whether they produced 1 million, 3 million, or even 9.5 milliion, they still wouldn't have enough to meet demand, and they still will get $500 each for the products they sell. Therefore, it is only logical to think that Sony would produce as many as possible and get them on the store shelves before Christmas. That they cannot meet the demand doesn't matter - it is in their best interest to get as close to that demand as is possible.

 

go ahead and blame the people, but there is no way to control the people, in essence what you are saying and what sony are doing is advocating anarchy.

im not talking about the business side of things, it makes sense from a health and welfare point of view. everyone here seems to prefer free trade at the cost of law and order...

 

I am still flabbergasted that anybody can seriously blame Sony for this! In most urban areas, anybody who hangs around outside at strange hours carrying money is running a risk of being a victim of crime. That's not a good thing, but *I* know not to run that risk, so I don't do it.

That's as crazy as blaming a company that makes a car that can go more then 30kph.

"Ooh the car company should reasonably expect that people might want to drive fast and hit each other. They are so evil! They should only make slow cars, the greedy corporate pigs! I suspect that their strategy is only to make money."

 

You can see what he's saying though, Harbs. Sony have deliberately created this situation, knowing full well what they were doing. They're creating a mad hysterical circus around the PS3 release and getting free advertising that no amount of money could get otherwise.

I can see both sides of the argument to be honest.

 

Well of course they are deliberately creating excitement. That's good marketing. But they're not using mind altering drugs to chemically induce people to abandon all common sense. I still think you're a moron to go and stand out in the street with $500 in your pocket when everyone knows you're queuing up to buy some electronics.

The people who did the robbing and beating up should still be thrown in jail, because they are criminals, but Sony are doing nothing more than what every single sensible company in the world does (the ones that want to make money, that is).

Things sell out ALL the time! What Sony has done is so un-radical and un-unusual (hmm), it's laughable to single them out for any negative publicity.

 

Thats funny because sony actually loses money on each console it makes, as does every other console company.

And don't tell me I need a source, it is well known in the gaming world... plus, I have Wired right next to me

 

As to this universal truth, it needs a little clarification. They make their money selling the games and the rights to develop games for their console. Nobody is in a business to lose money.

 

i see both sides too, but its more fun to argue the unpopular one

at first, yes, the development costs still hang in the background, it wont take them long to recoup that though, like with airbus and the A380, they estimate that they need to sell 120 at £600mil each to break even, but they had orders for 60 before the prototype even made it off the ground. it wont take them long to recoup those losses especially since there's an estimated 380% mark up on those machines.

the same could be said for "inciting religious hatred" or "motivating terrorism" its not the person saying "kill all americans" doing the killing, so why is he singled out?

 

Ok, if you've just walked out of the store with your brand new PS3 and someone shoots you to steal it and sell it on the black market for money, it isn't Sony's fault that the PS3 is worth so much and Sony shouldn't be held accountable for making a valuable product.

If the thief instead did it so that he could have it for himself (or give it to his kid or whatever, but personal use), then Sony should be held partially responsable, just like the guy yelling 'FIRE!' in the theatre is.

The thief goes to jail for shooting you and stealing from you either way, and in the first case for trafficing in stolen property, but Sony also takes blaim in the second case because they knew it would happen and did nothing to try to prevent it.

On the other hand, if Sony restricted its initial release to major cities in an attempt to prevent this, hired extra guards for their shipments and maybe even the stores, or did anything else that could reasonably be seen to eliminate or at least mitigate the ensuing violence, then they at least made an attempt and I'd say they get off the hook.

 

Bah. This is like blaming Porsche when your 911 gets stolen. They shouldn't have made it so shiny and fast. They should have known that it would be a target for thieves.

 

Your argument makes no sense. Its simple business...the irrational behaviour of consumers is in no way due to Sony's business practice.

Non-issue!

 

I didn't say that, I said they lose money on the console itself. They make all their money on game rights, various new addition products (fancy controllers), and once the technology becomes less expensive, they break even on the consoles.

 

Did sony tell the thief to go steal the persons money? no. ergo sony did not act like the man telling a person to kill.

did sony tell anybody to hurt other people to get thier product? no.

Sony has in no way advocated the use of voilence or thievery to get thier product, so its not even partly thier fault.

Thier is a law against thieving, thier is a law against advicing and/or ordering people to break the law. thats why people who tells other people to kill/steal etc. are targeted and thrown to jail. Sony has done neither.
Thier is no law that says that certain items may not be stealeble,therefor porsche or sony or any other company can not be held responceble when someone chose to steal thier product.
its simply not thier fault, how could it be?

Your the one that didn't secure your object, its not the companies job to think for you. if you are to stupid to insure yourself or your items, or actually make sure what security measures the item comes with and/or how its insured, its your own god damn fault if anything happends to it.
in the case of thievery the thief should of cause if caught pay any damage and loss issues regarding the items.

But thier is no way the producent of an item can be held responceble for you loosing it to a thief.

 

That assumes you're comparing Sony to someone who verbally encites a riot. If you compare them to the one that yells 'FIRE!' in a crouded theater, it works better. The guy never said you should all trample each other, or that it's every man for himself, he just said there was reason for you to want to leave when doing so means hurting other people. He caused a panic without due cause.

Likewise Sony hasn't told anyone to be violent, just told them all that there's a reason they want this (perfectly legal) and that only a few would get it (iffy) which combined to cause panic that would certainly lead to harm and violence.

Are you saying people should ensure their PS3s? Are you saying they should take 'security measures' to make sure they get into and out of the store unharmed? That sounds like you think everyone should be carrying a gun to me. I could be putting words in your mouth, I know, but that's what it seems like to me.

 

All Sony have done is make something and sell it. The product itself does not cause any harm (it's not blowing up in people's faces).

Anybody who feared for their safety should have just NOT gone to the shop to buy one on opening day. If you buy it a week later, then you are no worse off than if Sony had released it a week later with more stock available.

It's only an electronic gadget, people!

 

Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is a poor analogy to the Sony debacle. When you yell fire, you cause a situation where people fear for their lives. Sony created no such panic...most people would kill to save their own life, but not to procure a PS3.

It also differs in the fact that if the theater patrons knew in advance that there was a fair chance someone could yell 'Fire!' and cause a crowded theater to stampede, then each moviegoer could choose for themselves whether or not to attend.

Sony may have set up a *potentially* hazardous situation on purpose(I don't know for sure that they did). However, the fruition of that potential into chaos depended *solely* on the participation of the consumers. If they did not congregate with large sums of cash to buy valuable items at a known time and place, they would be far less likely to be targeted by armed men. Just because Sony invites you to act like an idiot does not mean you must accept the invitation.

You know, this actually may have been a failed attempt by Darwinism adherents to cull the herd.

 

How about common sense. Use a bank card or credit card for your purchase, don't go alone to such a situation (like having a large friend/relative with you), and don't dawdle in getting out with your stuff.

 

well honestly it seems securing anything to you NOG meens to use force. by having an insurence, my items are secured, in a manner of speaking. if a robber breaks in to my house, steal my valueble ps3, i get either the money for a new or a new one.

If i get robbed on the street, for cash. I rpety much lose it (it has to be over 2000kr which is roughly 400$, before anything is covered) but if i lose my creditcard, i call my bank and stop all transactions. and if you read again i never wrote take securit measures, i wrote check what securety measures the item comes with, for instance, what locks are on a car, does it have a car alarm, does my insurance cover it.

So in no way did i imply using force.

Secondly comparing a possible fire, where people fear for thier life, to the sale of an entertaintment item, is silly. they are on so different levels. If people have to be told that a ps3 isn't lifesaving, isn't an object they have to run amok for, its hardly sony faults. there is something completely wrong in thies peoples heads.