MMR: Is Sony to Blame for the PlayStation 3 Launch Violence?

[MxM]

I think I will post here in support of Rob's article.

Look, he does not say that Sony is the ONLY one to blame, but Sony is partially to blame for this. Why? Because Sony was in position to make some steps to avoid this (like asking retailers to create lists instead of life lines).

So, if Sony had that choice and chose not to do it, then Sony is responsible (partially, but still responsible). Because this is what responsibility is. Free choice -> responsible.

Imagine a slim woman deciding to go for a walk just for fun along at night in a high crime neighborhood, perfectly knowing about very high chance to become a victim of some kind of crime. And if she did become a victim, whose responsibility is that? Of cause it is responsibility of that criminal who did it, but it is ALSO her responsibility as well. Because she could avoid the situation and she chose not to.

So Sony IS to blame (along with retailers, criminals etc.), because it did nothing to avoid the situation created by its own actions, while it could avoid it.

MxM,
All sarcasm aside,
THIS IS THE MOST IDIOTIC POST I'VE EVER SEEN!
Makes all the fanboy flames pale in comparison. Rob Wright is problably wincing at the mere thought that this is in his defense (if not he should be). You sound like a convicted rapist trying to do everything to not accept the responsibility of your actions.
WTF are you thinking that a woman is responsible for her own rape?!?!?!?
And why is that germane to this topic; about indirect corporate responsibility for the actions of hoodlums?

Please re-read my post carefully. If do not say that she is the only one who is responsible, but she does shares some responsibility, for perfectly knowing that she may end up this way with high probability and still deciding to go walking without any need of doing so except for fun.

I also not saying that in most cases woman have any responsibility for the rape, but in that particular example she does share some level. Plus, actually I did not talk specifically about rape (I know it is vary painful topic and I did not want to touch it). I was talking about crime being done upon a person who obviously can not himself defend, yet she still goes into dangerous place. I probably should have used a man in the example, rather than woman to avoid rape reference. I do apologies to anyone who thought about rape in this example, it was not my intend. Just a crime.

I can give you another example. If you give somebody your gun, who you know is not trained to handle the gun and then that somebody shoots himself, you do share responsibility.

Another example, if you see your guest drunk and leaving your house and wanting to drive his car, it is again your responsibility to try to prevent that.

I can give you gasilion other examples, where you also share responsibility for being able to predict catastrophic actions of other people yet make some decision of acting in a particular way that did not prevent the catastrophic event, when you could have easily acted in another way to prevent it.

If you disagree with this, then please define WHAT IS BEING RESPONSIBLE and whom we hold responsible for which actions.

 

[MxM]

So... according to your argument, the people in line are to blame for waiting in line in the first place.

Pure Genius. Not attacking you, but you should really think something like that out to its logical conclusion before you post it, otherwise you are going to get flamed big time. And this time, you deserve it.

Here is the post above you:

Sony sure as **** isn't to blame. It's people's responsibility to behave in a civil manner, and to be ready to defend themselves against attacks if the police aren't there. (Like carrying a pistol or pepper spray.)

And MxM is a ****** moron.

And omitting such niceties as calling me a ****** moron, he does confirm my point: if you see that it is dangerous place and there is no police, it also your responsibility to protect yourself, or at least do not carry cash at night there.

I think many people miss a very simple point. It is not black and white. There is no a single entity which caries whole responsibility. Sure the majority of responsibility is carried by criminals themselves, but other parties are partially responsible as well. And that includes Sony.

I will give one more example. If you put your money into a bank, and that bank decides to transfer money from one location to another using just a single man without any protection, and that man would carry money in transparent bag and as a result of that some criminals would take your money from him whom would you blame? Of cause the bank!!! Meanwhile criminals are also responsible, you would not even think to blame them.

Situation with Sony is not very dissimilar from this. Sony does share some level of responsibility.

 

[captainlooney]

I agree with reaper, Mayor Menino's stance is just plain retarded. He obviously isn't doing his job and is pointing the blame at some corporation for his lack of ability.

This article clearly has alot of negative feedback, maybe someone should remove it *hint hint.* What's with the string of Sony hatin, I think out of all the Tom's Hardware divisions, this one seems the most opinionated and biased as ever. I always come to THG to look for (for the most part) unbiased reviews and tech news but damn, TwitchGuru blows in that department. It's like watching a Korean Drama, too much unecessary drama whoring. The 10 reasons why not to buy a PS3 was bad but this recent one takes the cake.

Sheesh, this is Wiitarded, Wiik fanboys are relentless at bashing Sony. Sony is to blame for the launch violence and failure to prevent it? Maybe it should be blamed for terrorism, George Bush in office, and also for me eating tasty babies.

 

[MxM]

Sony did the best that they could to try to meet the demand they knew their product would cause. Trust me, I am sure they wish they could have had LOTS more units to sell.

I disagree with you here. Oh! I understand that the wish they could have had lots more units, but they did not. However they could have if they had delayed the launch. So they did not "do the best". They have decided to delay launch, and did zilch in preventing all those situation crated by their decision to launch PS3 with such limited supply.

 

[hergieburbur]

I do understand exactly where you were coming from, and the gray area you were describing in shared responsibility for certain events.

However, as you admitted, you chose a very poor and inflammatory way to gt your point across.

As for the people in line, yeah, carrying cash was dumb, but if anyone should be responsible, it would be the stores and local authorities for not providing adequate security for something you could see coming a mile away (At least you could if you grew up in an area anything like where I did).

Sony did the best it could to provide what units were available at launch. Believe me, they wish there were two million more that they could sell. This whole situation sucks for them. They couldn't delay it again, as that would be suicide, plus have major stock and consumer confidence ramifications if they missed the Christmas rush, and on top of that, they sell the things at a $250 loss while some guy goes out and buys it, then resells it at 500%+ markup.

I think what would have made the most sense economically for Sony (and this will get me crucified here), was to not sell the PS3 at a loss once they realized there was a shortage. Selling at a loss hoping to recoup on consumables only works when you have enough supply to both meet demand AND create demand for said consumables at the same time. Sony could not do that here, and for obvious reasons, they could not increase the price either. (Though that is funny, since the same people buying them for 3K on ebay would have screamed bloody murder if they PS3 listed at 1K.)

 

[MxM]

I think what would have made the most sense economically for Sony (and this will get me crucified here), was to not sell the PS3 at a loss once they realized there was a shortage.

I am with you on this here. This would reduce demand and would reduce those lines, at the same time would make more money for Sony in a short run.

However, I think Sony was afraid that people would remember that PS3 is way way to expensive, and would not think about buying console even when the price goes down. Sony got more advisement from those lines, by showing that people really want PS3.

 

[heat84]

I'm confused. How can the same people who traded in their SUV's for cars because the couldn't afford the gas, afford 5 or 600 dollars and 60-70 dollars per game?

I'm thinking of buying one and selling it on E-Bay for a million dollars. 😛

 

[hergieburbur]

Very true, Like I said, they got themselves stuck in a corner. Personally, I don't think $600 is too much for what you get, depending on how well the system actually runs Linux.

I like the Idea that I saw about Sony auctioning them off directly starting at $500 a piece a la Ebay. They would have made a killing, and it would have solved the line problems.

Of course, then they would alienate the retail stores and still be screwed.

 

[hergieburbur]

I'm confused. How can the same people who traded in their SUV's for cars because the couldn't afford the gas, afford 5 or 600 dollars and 60-70 dollars per game?

I'm thinking of buying one and selling it on E-Bay for a million dollars. 😛

Someone already tried that.

And they aren't affording it for 5 or 600, its in many cases nearly 10 times that. Cause junior is a spoiled little rich brat.

On the other hand, your first point is a matter of economic choice, and you could say that about almost any one product versus another.

 

[Flash1]

Sony did the best that they could to try to meet the demand they knew their product would cause. Trust me, I am sure they wish they could have had LOTS more units to sell.

I disagree with you here. Oh! I understand that the wish they could have had lots more units, but they did not. However they could have if they had delayed the launch. So they did not "do the best". They have decided to delay launch, and did zilch in preventing all those situation crated by their decision to launch PS3 with such limited supply.

Ah, there lies a bit of argument that I think holds a lot of weight... I was browsing hoping someone would bring it up.

Seriously, if my company invents a cure for cancer but says that it can't manufacture more than 100 per month, I'd be seriously to blame and responsible if rioting happens out the factory's door. Obviously, I should contact the police and warn them that I may have some safety issues for customers AND employees. This would totally be my responsibility and I would feel ashamed if I came out with a breakthrough cancer remedy and couldn't meet anywhere near demand without taking steps to help solve potential violent acts. Still, PS3's are not a cure for cancer and the comparison pales in importance.

So where was Sony's fault heh? In not warning local police stations or having line policies. I don't think this is within Sony's *jurisdiction* to do this. They could've stepped up and contacted regional police bodies and warned them, it would have been a good step yes... But I think Sony's greed is where the problem is. Akin to Microsoft last year, Sony wanted to be out of the market. They WANTED folks to know, by means of TV commercials, by means of magazine ads, by means of online advertising, that the PS3 was available for Christmas launch. They wanted people's money (Don't argue that they're losing money... They're pushing products for their entire lineup with the PS3, they'll be making fortunes in no time.)
EDIT : Think LCD 1080p Bravias, Blu-Ray Movies, game royalties, extra controllers, proprietary memory cards... it goes on and on...

There lies Sony's fault. Advertising a product in such demand without backing it up with available units. Increasing anticipation on an already highly anticipated product. Coming back to my initial comparison, if I had a cure for cancer, I would still roll it out my products if it could save people's lives. But this is not cure for cancer and IMHO, Sony should have waited and launched its product when they knew they could meet the demand, at least partially. As the author pointed out, they knew how many PS2 units they had sold... But thy wanted to be out before Christmas, like the 360 and the Wii. So they pulled a smokescreen and fooled us all. Shame on us I say for being fooled as such! But shame on Sony too (and any other company that does the same) for their greed.

 

[conslerb]

No company in their right mind would wait until they have "enough" units (and how exactly can "enough" be defined, anyways?) to start selling something. The quicker they get a product to market, the quicker they make money. When demand is that high, they'd be idiots to hold off, knowing they could make even more money since people will pay higher prices. It just doesn't make good business sense to do such a thing.

Sony, or any other company for that matter, have no responsibility to provide or even suggest greater security for a product launch. That's what law enforcement is for. It's the retailer's responsibility to manage their own store's security. If they find it lacking they'd better beef it up themselves or call the police to ask for assistance.

Of course, if some human beings weren't such idiots, we wouldn't have to worry about this kind of stuff. Ultimately, the ONLY ones you can truly blame are those who committed the crimes, not even the stores, because most of that stuff happened outside their doors.

The store, and in fact, the police, have no responsibility to escort PS3 buyers home to make sure they don't get robbed. Hence my advocation of self-defense.

 

[rampage52]

you cant blame Sony for the chaos, they cant predict how many to make or sell if they did then mabe they would potentially know there sales or mabe they would not. Why would u invest in a lemonade stade in the desert where they is not ppl, that would just be a loss. Sony if they wanted could of just sold 1 unit to the highest bidder if they wanted to. There was like 200,000 unit in America to what 300,000000 people. China has like 2 billion people and they got 2 unit and a bag of chips is there chaos there. No report from Canada, Uk, China Australia etc, It is just petty thiefs wanting to make money fast since the 360 was lauched and ppl realized there is a market for this. Bungie release halo 2 that you had to pre order and had so many for release date, no one was hurt for that release because there was not alot of money to be made from a single game.


manufacturers make products, not chaos.

 

[Flash1]

No company in their right mind would wait until they have "enough" units (and how exactly can "enough" be defined, anyways?) to start selling something. The quicker they get a product to market, the quicker they make money. When demand is that high, they'd be idiots to hold off, knowing they could make even more money since people will pay higher prices. It just doesn't make good business sense to do such a thing.

Yes you're right. it does not make "good business sense", but creating a massive worldwide hype over an unavailable products does not make much moral sense either. Depends what kind of companies you like to support I guess. It was a greedy move and none can argue that. They didn't want to lose Christmas 2006 money and such they wanted their product out there, regardless the implication of their acts (I'm not saying they are alone doing this!)

Sony, or any other company for that matter, have no responsibility to provide or even suggest greater security for a product launch. That's what law enforcement is for. It's the retailer's responsibility to manage their own store's security. If they find it lacking they'd better beef it up themselves or call the police to ask for assistance.

In this I think we partially agree. It was more of a retailer / local police issue. Sony could've stepped up, be pro-active and find a solution. They did not and they deserve a tiny bit of responsibility for this. Still was mostly a police/retailer fault in this I agree.

Of course, if some human beings weren't such idiots, we wouldn't have to worry about this kind of stuff. Ultimately, the ONLY ones you can truly blame are those who committed the crimes, not even the stores, because most of that stuff happened outside their doors.

The store, and in fact, the police, have no responsibility to escort PS3 buyers home to make sure they don't get robbed. Hence my advocation of self-defense.

Well, in the country I live in, carrying a hand gun will only help me get in jail faster than rioting outside my retailer's doors. Plus I fail to see how carrying a gun will help relieve the violence factor but then again, it might be because I've never even thought of carrying a personal firearm. I personally don't believe justice should be served by the people... You are right though in stating that the human tendency to lose all sense of morality when confronted with strong desires. We are the ones to blame most of all! But I think that Sony, in some fashion, deserved to be partially blamed.

 

[rampage52]

The fans and media create the hype i dont think Sony makes up alot of it. Also Sony does not need an action plan for stores and retailers. the stores themselves do, they are selling it, they dont want problems dont sell the item.

 

[conslerb]

You can't blame Sony for having a successful product line. They made a great product with PS1, you can't blame them for making and advertising subsequent products. I disagree that it's immoral to do so. Every company does, and without advertising, they don't make as much money. I'm not saying I like advertising, at times it is extremely annoying, especially nowadays with how pervasive it is. Every corporation is out there to make money, and Sony really didn't NEED to hype up PS3, the demand was there before they even started development.

Since I don't want to get way off topic, all I'll say is that it's every person's responsibility to defend themselves when there are no police around. (That is, unless they like getting threatened, beaten up or killed.) How you do it is up to you and is limited by laws, but there is always a way. Even if I had nothing but my fists, you can be damn sure I'm not gonna let some two-bit crook take my $600 PS3 that I waited in line for 18 hours to get without a fight. But I'm just one of those people who believes in fighting for what is right, regardless of the danger in doing so.

Simply being prepared for these things (by carrying a gun, or pepper spray, or what have you) doesn't prevent violence in itself, but it can help stop crimes if employed properly and lawfully.

 

[Flash1]

You can't blame Sony for having a successful product line. They made a great product with PS1, you can't blame them for making and advertising subsequent products. I disagree that it's immoral to do so. Every company does, and without advertising, they don't make as much money. I'm not saying I like advertising, at times it is extremely annoying, especially nowadays with how pervasive it is. Every corporation is out there to make money, and Sony really didn't NEED to hype up PS3, the demand was there before they even started development.

First of all I commend you on not jumping on my previous statement that, when I reread afterwards, could've been interpreted as negative toward one's values or one's country's laws/ideology.

I do understand your position and it is right in a legal point of view. I don't think Sony will/would be found guilty in a court of law. And no it's no immoral to roll out a product in low volume and then find out its increasingly popular and not meeting demands. I guess the author's comment were, and mine as well, that SONY was well aware that they would not be anywhere near close to demand. Anyone with half a brain would've predicted that it would cause issues (and yes it has caused issues up here in Canada also, although I think to a lesser degree). I would find it hard to believe Sony didn't know they were causing worldwide albeit very minor chaos. My point is they were doing it only to keep a few of our hard-earned bucks going to their rivals. I fully understand that certain business models will tell you to sell whatever to anyone at anytime. I personally like business models that will cater to the customer even to the extent of delaying a product until it is ready for release (and availability is part of that) even if that means losing a few bucks... I personally know of at least two very big fans of the PS2/Sony that were very disappointed with this tactic and one of them even bought a 360... This does not make for a good business model in the long run if you ask me...

Cheers!

 

[garykings]

does that mean a gun manufacturer is a fault for gun related crime, what a thing to say hey!! :roll:

 

[Tazman777]

All I can say in response to this thread is wow. Firstly, one big difference that I see people mistaking is responsibility and liability. Legally, Sony is in NO way to blame for what happened. What happened though was in direct result to something Sony did, therefore IMO that they are responsible (just slightly though).

There are many different degrees of responsibility. In this case, my opinion is that Sony should have TRIED to set something up with retailers knowing from the past what would most likely happen. Legally though, they don't have to.

It all comes down to what you as a person feel about this statement:
It is man's responsibility to watch out for their fellow man, to an extent.

If you disagree then you think that people are only responsible for themselves. You see the world in black and white. Your basically alone.
OR
You think that everyone is responsible for everyone, period. You'd probably love communism. Everyone is equal and its my responsibility that little Joey is failing math some town across the country.

If you agree then responsiblity and blame could be placed anywhere in any situation. The "to an extent" part provides gray area everywhere. This is me, and I hope MOST other people. Lets just say I would much rather buy from a business that would keep my welfare, and not just their pockets, in mind.

Lastly, someone said it wasn't the cops responsibility to provide protection for the people that were standing in line (I know thats not exactly what was said, but this is what was implied). This is absolutely absurd. Thats a police officers job. It is his/her DUTY to maintain order and deter criminals. Not just arrest people who have already commited crimes.

 

[conslerb]

Who said anything about police not having the responsibility to protect the people in line?

I said they didn't have the responsibility to escort them home. It would be absurd for police to be expected to provide VIP-like escort service between the store and home. First of all, that's not their job, and second of all, there's no way any police force can handle such a thing.

Had I been a PS3 buyer, I would've locked my car doors and driven around for a while before going home to make sure nobody followed me. And I would've brought my pistol.

I still think manufacturers have absolutely NO responsibility to do anything once the product is shipped from their warehouses, except provide support for their product. Blaming Sony for people being stupid is, well, stupid, much like blaming gun makers for gun violence is stupid. They're not liable nor responsible for what PEOPLE do with their products. But that's just an example, and I don't want to start a debate on THAT topic. The same can be said about cigarette manufacturers, car companies, alcohol brewers etc.

 

[Tazman777]

I apologize if I didn't get my point across about the police thing. I did not mean they should have to escort every person home. But if they knew or had a very good idea one of those people would get robbed, or suspected someone else was going to try to rob them, it would then be their duty to try to stop that.

I myself would have done the same as you. Not just drove home really fast but gone out of my way to go in circles to make sure noone was following me.

In all the examples you gave manufacturers ARE responsible for the safety of their product. Cigarettes have warning labels on them, guns have warnings and safety's, alochol has warning labels, ect.... Like I said I think that manufacturers have a limited amount of responsibility. Even a bare minimum would have been better than nothing in this case.

A good example would be a company selling a liquid in a bottle but not telling anyone what it is. Obviously not many people would buy it. But you only need one person that buys it and then drinks it down just to see what'll happen. Well the liquid was poison and that person died. Who's responsible?

 

[conslerb]

Although I certainly understand your logic, I have to disagree.

I think it's sad how everyone wants to shrug their personal responsibilities nowadays. Let's blame someone else. Only an idiot would drink from an unlabeled bottle. Cigarette companies shouldn't have to put warning labels on cigarettes, hotels shouldn't have to put warning signs up when they mop the floor. Any idiot can see the floor is wet, and if they don't, that's their own damn fault. Shit happens. EVERYONE knows cigarettes are bad for you, this is common knowledge. Besides, anyone with half a brain can be an informed consumer, it's not the companies' fault their customers don't do their homework. Idiocy is not an excuse.

Companies are only responsible for harmful or dangerous DEFECTS in their products. That's it. Misuse by consumers isn't their fault.

There should be a common sense clause in the law with regards to liability. Oh, what's that? You forgot to put the safety on when carrying your gun and you shot yourself in the leg by accident? Your holster didn't have a trigger guard on it? Man, that sucks, but you should've known better. Learn how to use a gun before handling one. It's like learning how to drive before buying a car. The only reason we have to get licenses to drive is because idiots bought cars without knowing how to drive them, and the government can make a quick buck charging us for them.

I mean, should a pencil maker be responsible for a customer who snaps the pencil in half and a shard hits their eye and blinds it? Sadly, someone COULD sue and COULD win for something like that, because there's no warning label on the pencil's packaging, and common sense is completely unaccounted for in the law.

But this is getting off topic... 😛

 

[Flash1]

Like I said, I don't think they are responsible. But in all the examples you gave manufacturers are responsible for the safety of their product. Cigarettes have warning labels on them, guns have warnings and safety's and such. Like I said I think that manufacturers have a limited amount of responsibility. Even a bare minimum would have been better than nothing.
An good example would be a company selling a liquid in a bottle but not telling anyone what it is. Obviously not many people would buy it. But you only need one person that buys it and then drinks it down just to see what'll happen. Well the liquid was poison and that person died. Who's responsible?

I guess we all kinda think that Sony does not have legal issues with what they did. Their equipment is definitely approved for safety hazards (I'm guessing CE and CSA) and how you use the equipment is then out of the regulations and thus you are usually not liable unless you lied about some issue or knew there was an issue and failed ot mention it, even if it is outside the Safety agency regulations.

I guess the point I (and the Author and you also, I think), is that they did not behave in a proper fashion in this. They knew this was going to happen, they knew what to expect from such a highly anticipated product, they knew that their supply was 3% at best what worldwide demand was, they even inflated demand by running commercials that left the viewer under impression they could get one and yet they rolled the product out. I'm probably naive thinking a company would delay a product until they can supply at least a fraction of the market but if so, then yeah I am. I think this is unfair to customers (I'm not one btw, I'm plenty satisfied with my original XBOX) and to retailers.

 

[torque79]

just clicked reply on the last post, this is not directed to anyone in particular.

I just wanted to point out that probably a big reason THG has been doing a lot of Sony bashing lately (not just for consoles), is due to Sony's strong push for DRM (which editors and many readers seem to hate), and also their recent spyware/rootkit on their music cds.

I would have to agree with that standpoint, as do several of my professional IT co-workers, that we now always avoid considering Sony products whenever possible. In recent years they have made many business decisions we do not like, and it makes me feel like I'm being manhandled into restricting DRM security on items which I actually pay for. I was truly shocked to learn about the Sony rootkit, and that also makes me feel mistrust and disinterest in Sony in general.

I hope this post does not change the direction of the discussion, I just thought it might be helpful to add perspective on my personal (and maybe others) position in appreciating any Sony bashing conceptually.

With that said, my appreciation for Sony bashing aside, I do NOT feel they share any responsibility for consumer behaviour at all. However, their decision to release such a dramatically short supply of product just gives me another reason to dislike this company in general.

 

[Tazman777]

I agree people do try to shrug off their own personal responsibility. The consumer is where MOST responsibility lies. I understand that what you say about how its not Sony's fault that someone drove by and shot bb's at people standing in line. That much is true. Sony isn't to blame that people got robbed on their way home either. However I feel Sony does SHARE some responsiblity in making their product rollout resonably safe. Its certainly not theirs and theirs alone.
I agree with Flash1. Sony had a pretty good idea what was going to happen and did NOTHING to try to stop it. I think the Author went a little overboard on Sony's share of the responsibilty. And I certainly think Mayor Menino went WAY overboard.
Conslerb, how would you like to be in a world where everywhere you go you have to be super careful on where you put your feet. What your saying is something like, the government built roads, but they shouldn't have to put up stop signs. Its human nature to act stupid. THAT is common knowledge. Pushing the limits is another human nature. We all want to see how much we can get away with (that includes seeing how much blame we can push on someone else).

Flash1, I totally understand why Sony would roll out a product while only have 3% of the units that are demanded. You cannot expect a company to hold onto $240 million worth of product (thats 400k units at $600 a piece) just because there will be a lot of consumers unhappy about not being able to get it. In their eyes, the sooner they lose the money on the PS3 console, the sooner they can recoupe said money by selling games.

 

[Flash1]

Sony's DRM is another example of where a company should draw the line toward making profit.

Taz : While I understand the financial burden of shelving units and waiting for a proper launch. 400k unit at 600 squid, with 10% interest over three months, that's 8M. It's a bunch of money, especially for a company that had financial troubles in the past years. While this is not by any means a first, I don't think it's a good business practice to do soft-launches of such highly anticipated products. We'd probably be surprised at how many people walked out the store with a 360 or bought a Wii after being tickled by Sony's campaign...

I still think as you do they bear a small portion of the blame. It's too easy to say the human nature is to be stupid. While true, they knew what they were doing. The Mayor went overboard for sure as you pointed out although if he doesn't, we're not having this discussion here today. Extremists do serve some purposes at times I guess...