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

[MxM]

I think it's sad how everyone wants to shrug their personal responsibilities nowadays.

No one try to "shrug their personal responsibilities" on this board. Sure, people should be responsible for their actions. But it looks like you are trying the shrug all responsibility from the companies. Companies are also responcible for their actions.

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

If all what company does is manufacturing, (like contract manufacturer), then I 100% agree with you. BUT! Sony also distribute the product, it also make advertisements (controls the demand), and make derision how, when and how many units it sells, and as such, it is responsible for the consequences of these actions, if they where easy to predict and avoid.

EDIT: If company put false advertisement, do you also say that company is not responsible, because it is not "harmful or dangerous DEFECTS in their product".

 

[hergieburbur]

Yeah, entertainment value 😉

Did Sony drop the ball on handling this launch? Absolutely!

Should they have delayed the launch til a later date? No!

Should they be held liable for any damages? No!

Should they be held responsible, at least in part? Maybe, but the stores should be held far more liable. They were the ultimate distributors, and as I've said before, you could see this coming like the sears tower if it was placed alone in the middle of the midwest.

Think of how different this discussion would be if someone caught pneumonia waiting in line outside a store and died. Then who would be catching the blame?

 

[torque79]

you're right, people would screm bloody murder at Sony if someone died, but that would just be hysteria and not change the situation at all.

I am shocked that anyone can say Sony is responsible for people being idiots in response to a successful advertising campaign. It is likely the ads were prepared well ahead of time, before the company was aware of a shortage of blue ray diodes or whatever caused a shortage of units. That is NOT false advertising, that is why stores get away with having sales all the time on items which only have 5-10 items in stock per store.

I agree with the other person who stated that Sony's responsibility ends at providing a safe and functioning product. If Sony allowed customers to line up outside their store and saw they were causing problems, even then it would not be the corporate bigwigs responsible, but the individual store owner/manager present who is responsible for the safety of his employees and patrons.

Although it could be suggested that Sony tell retailers to make sure their employees and patrons are safe, why is that necessary? How can you run a retail store without being concerned for security and safety at all times? A console release is no different, it could just present some different challenges, and the store owner is NOT obligated to allow a lineup outside his store anyways.

If you're going to sell a dangerous product (rifles, acid, game consoles), you must always ensure a safe environment as much as possible. I do not know if the sidewalk in front is considered to be store property, but if so, the store owner is responsible at that point for ensuring safety and security in my opinion. Of course the owner and employees cannot stay there all night with those in line, and unless willing to pay security staff, should not allow the lineup to exist in the first place. if they expect people to disobey that requirement, they can call police and remove people for tresspassing. they ARE in control.

 

[conslerb]

Actually, a world without traffic signs isn't that crazy of an idea... http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

MxM, I'm not saying anyone in particular is trying to shrug responsibility, just that people in general are. That woman who put her McDonald's coffee inbetween her legs while driving and got burned won a lawsuit against McDonald's... Why? Because she's an idiot? Is that all it takes nowadays? I suppose we should be able to sue Sony if we drop our PS3 and break a toe? There's a liability crisis going on, especially in the US, and it disgusts me. People need to learn to take care of themselves and stop looking for scapegoats. Shit happens, it's a part of life; people need to learn this and just deal with it.

Although I abhor Sony's push for DRM, that's a completely separate issue and should have no impact on news or opinions published regarding other Sony stuff. Letting your prejudice towards Sony affect your writing is just bad journalism and nobody will be convinced by a biased argument.

 

[Flash1]

Although I abhor Sony's push for DRM, that's a completely separate issue and should have no impact on news or opinions published regarding other Sony stuff. Letting your prejudice towards Sony affect your writing is just bad journalism and nobody will be convinced by a biased argument.

I guess if I want to wrap my opinion on this, it would be directed toward Sony as to how they handle their business. That's why on some level I do think DRM matters. They handled the PS3 situation in a manner I would describe as dubious at best. They handled DRM in a dubious fashion also. They love to create things that don't have the customer in mind. They do have a great design team and often come up with very good products. Forcing people to buy your standard where you have the control of every aspect of the product, including availability is a business practice I don't appreciate. I guess I feel strongly about this enough to make me think on some level they deserve to be pointed at for some responsibility (not as far as legal liability though) in handling this situation poorly. Kinda like for some reasons people choose not to buy at Walmart or wherever they choose not to...

They are to be shamed for advertising a product that does not exist in sufficient quantity but most of all WE are to be ashamed for wanting an entertainment product enough to attack people for...

 

[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.

 

[rampage52]

It is ppl trying to shrug their responsibilities, Sony knew what would happen. So did the stores they are the ones selling and know what going to happen so it is there problem, just sony is the big company and ppl put it on them. Joes electronics down the street cannot and does not want to provide all the extras cause it is not feasible to them. Author is wrong, u buy a intel chip overclock it and it dies and it is intels fault, buy a sport car and take out hte governor. no it is the ppl themselves.

 

[captainlooney]

Although I abhor Sony's push for DRM, that's a completely separate issue and should have no impact on news or opinions published regarding other Sony stuff. Letting your prejudice towards Sony affect your writing is just bad journalism and nobody will be convinced by a biased argument.

Absolutely, positively, correct! Bad journalism! Nicely put btw.

 

[robwright]

Although I abhor Sony's push for DRM, that's a completely separate issue and should have no impact on news or opinions published regarding other Sony stuff. Letting your prejudice towards Sony affect your writing is just bad journalism and nobody will be convinced by a biased argument.

Please re-read the column. Not once is DRM mentioned. In fact, I don't even know why is was brought into this discussion. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever written about DRM other than a Counter-point I did with Aaron earlier this year where I argued against copying and testing PC games. Not sure how that makes me a DRM hater/lover either way.

Let's stay on point; if you want to bash me for criticizing Sony's handling of the launch, go for it. But DRM's got nothing to do with any of it. I don't have a grudge against Sony, either. If anything I'm holding them to a higher standard (again, re-read the column). I just feel a company of their size and reputation should have been better prepared for the launch and taken a more active role in ensuring the safety of their flock. We can agree to disagree, I suppose. Our perspectives differ in the sense that many people here on the forum feel that Sony's corporate responsibility ends with making sure the PS3 doesn't overheat and explode in people's faces, whereas I and a couple others feel that Sony bears some -- not all, just some -- responsibility for not have an organized plan in place to handle the crowds and provide additional security at the launch stores.

Just to clarify my stance once again:

The robbers, muggers, rioters, looters and other chuckleheads are first and foremost to blame for this mess.

I don't think Sony should be legally liable for any crime or injuries incurred from the launch.

I don't fault Sony for marketing their product and creating demand. It's good business, and it's their right.

I don't fault Sony for launching the PS3 with a limited supply. Again, good business and their right.

However, I do think they should have anticipated the mayhem, given the above points, and could have done more to curb it.

This has nothing to do with DRM.

 

[conslerb]

Well I don't know you or your views, I was going off of someone else's opinion of your previous writing. That's what I would've thought if you did have a bias, but as you say you don't, it's not relevant. That would only be a case of bad journalism if you were biased.

Anyways, it's not like Sony could do anything really, besides issue a warning, but anyone with half a brain could've seen this coming. Surely the stores noticed people camping out days before the launch and put two and two together. I mean, you're basically criticizing Sony for not making a few phone calls or issuing a press release stating what is obvious. If it wasn't obvious the demand would be so high a month in advance, it certainly should've been a few days in advance when people were camping out and it was making the news. That's more than enough time for the stores to notify police of potential problems with crowds. It's not Sony's job to oversee every little detail in every part of the world regarding the launch of a new product. Crowd control is not Sony's responsibility, it's the retailers'.

Besides, I doubt anyone realized how bad it would be. A little pushing and shoving is to be expected, it's not like this is the first time there's been a highly anticipated product released. Muggings, a drive-by, the outrageous markups on eBay? No one knew it would get that bad.

I mean, seriously, who the hell would've expected THIS?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Santa-and-Gang-Deliver-PS3-Christmas-Morning-Worldwide_W0QQitemZ330052529771QQihZ014QQcategoryZ62054QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[robwright]

Besides, I doubt anyone realized how bad it would be. A little pushing and shoving is to be expected, it's not like this is the first time there's been a highly anticipated product released. Muggings, a drive-by, the outrageous markups on eBay? No one knew it would get that bad.

You bring up an interesting point here. From my perspective, I was immersed in PS3 pre-launch stuff for a more than a week and then I sat around a Circuit City for 10 hours the night of the launch. I had been reading and reporting on all the stories regarding violence and near-rioting at some of the stores, plus I had first-hand experiences with how people were behaving in line (no violence at Circuit City, but police were still needed to handle some jerks). To me, it was obvious that things were going to be messy that night. I had a bad feeling going in to the launch, and sure enough there were plenty of incidents the next day that confirmed my fears. However, I can see how other people who hadn't been following the launch and its lead-up as closely as I did might have a different perspective on whether Sony was at fault.

 

[SunnyOverHere]

You waited around for 10 hours? And you think you got perspective? Here's my perspective - I've been following PS3 pretty much when PS2 came out (rumors of the PS3 pretty started a few months after the PS2 launch). I loitered the Best Buy, Circuit City, and Walmart floors for weeks before the launch of the PS3 trying to catch store managers and find out info. Did I get a PS3 nope - that's even with a pre-order. I followed the XBOX 360 like a nerd with 3 inch thick bottle glasses last year. I had good fortune to score a XBOX 360 on the 2nd day and oddly I got it by just walking in a Walmart mid afternoon (it was hidden behind three old XBOXs behind the display case).

In anycase, 10 hours doesn't mean you have perspective of the situation. I've waited for rock concert and sporting event tickets and those are roudy and sometimes overnight campers!!! You also have the same things happening but in my book even worse - there are plenty of organized "scalpers" who basically run businesses hiring people to stand in lines. They have ZERO shame and don't hide that they are just line holders to buy tickets. I've seen two scalpers even brawl for territory rights. People have been mugged and beat up for tickets... If you go to any concert or sporting events there's always a dozen people out there openly scalping tickets.

Rob, I wrote to you yesterda in response to your article and said you were way off. I still think you are. But I'm going to draw one thing that I share with you - I'm tired of thugs, jerks, idiots, the inconsiderate, and folks that have bad motives. Once I had a scalper nearly try to kick my ass for refusing to listen to him - $320 for a single nose bleeder seat at a Red Hot Chili Pepper concert. One of the greatest things (outside of the $8-10 fee) for the concert and sporting events is the organization of selling tickets (Ticketmaster) at a semi-controlled rate by purchasing tickets online and doing early Internet pre-launch ticket sales. I don't think this model would work for PS3 since it's a unique product that doesn't have a yearly product cycle. In my book, I see a lot of the frenzy driven by the opposite Internet service... and that's Ebay and Craigslist.

Overall, I hope this thread dies soon. I'm getting sick of that idiot who has basically stated that if a woman looks sexy and goes out, she is partially responsible for being raped. That's sick and I don't even understand the logic.

 

[hergieburbur]

Rob, you have to excuse us for taking your comments with a grain of salt though, As I pointed out earlier, all of your articles about PS3 have had a bit of a negative connotation attached to them. Admittedly, some deservedly so.

 

[JackM]

Should we have sued Sesame Street, Jim Henson's family, and the makers of Tickle Me Elmo when kids were getting trampled on the floor while parents (even some grandparents) were beating up other parents on the eve of Thanksgiving years back? Apparently your history is blind.

Actually, I think Sony's history is blind. As I stated in the column, the company had prior experience with the launch of the PlayStation 2. As someone who witnessed the chaos and crowds firsthand for the PS3, I know some of the mess cannot be avoided. There are bad people everywhere and they'll seek to take advantage of a situation like this. I expect nothing from those people. But I do expect more from a company that has the history, knowledge and experience of Sony. They were holding the cards in the game -- if a retail location or city or town was unwilling to put up more police and security for people waiting in the parking lot, then Sony should have denied them their PS3 shipments. The company could have gotten together with each retail to develop a universal system to handle the crowds and manage the order of the lines. It didn't, it was poor planning on Sony's part.

Do I think Sony should be sued by people that got trampled or shot or robbed? Absolutely not. But do I think the company should take a long, hard look in the mirror and learn how it could have done more to prevent this mess? Yes, absolutely.

As for Tickle Me Elmo, I didn't really follow that phenomenon.

I would agree with you on this. In terms of legal responsibility for any injuries or crimes, no, Sony shouldn't be responsible. However, as a business, it is of their interest to not be associated with real world criminal behavior. They could have taken an few extra measures to ensure a peaceful roll out. They certainly have the capital means. This is the difference between just another big mindless corporation, and a business that takes care of its customers and goes the extra mile to make the buying process a good one. For Sony, it's a financial decision. If they can keep up the profit margins in spite of a bad rap, they won't do anything more than a worthless public announcement decrying what happened.

Does this mean we are powerless? No. Give your business elsewhere. You have that freedom. But if you keep buying Sony products and don't like how Sony treats its customers, then you have no one else to blame but yourself.

You CAN stand in long lines if you wish. Personally, I think it's silly. But that is your choice. But then you need to be willing to accept the consequences for your decisions.

 

[JackM]

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.

I think you bring up an interesting and valid argument. It is people's choice to avoid "bad" neighborhoods. Smart folks won't put themselves in situations where the risk of getting harmed increases dramatically. Making sound decisions is a responsibility of each and every person. But I disagree that that woman is criminally responsible in any way. She had just as much right to be in a bad neighborhood as the criminal. The woman is guilty of poor judgement, not a crime. And that is the difference.

 

[conslerb]

I seem to be at a loss here. For those of you who think Sony has some sort of responsibility, what do you think they could've done? Waiting longer until they had more units to ship wouldn't have made any difference, unless they made more than the number of people who initially wanted to buy one, which would've been damn hard, and impossible to predict.

 

[Shandorf]

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, you are the biggest tool in the box.

Women who are raped are not responsible in anyway for the horrible crime that is committed against them.

You are sick. You sound like that crazy Muslim Imam a couple weeks back that said that women are evil and corrupt a mans soul. And that when they wear sexy clothes they deserve to be raped.

 

[Shandorf]

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.

Ya know.. I am bored today so i am going to shred your inane and faulty logic.

"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."

Wow, what a completely retarded analogy. It has NOTHING to do with the PS3 and SONY. Okay... So, is SONY suppose to be the person giving the loaded gun to the other unsuspecting person? And is the PS3 suppose to be the "gun" in this case? If that is so, tell me how does a PS3 kill somebody? Also if a person does accidentally shot himself with the gun, and it not by defect of the gun, how is the manufacturer reponsible?

Your analogy is just wrong. Plain and simple. A 12 year-old could see that.

Okay, here is your second "example":

"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."

Again, you have utterly failed to make an analogy argument. This analogy doe not fit the situation we have with SONY, PS3s, crimminals, and buyers of PS3.

So, the drunk person in your analogy, is that suppose to be the PS3 here? If so , then a PS3 is like a drunk speeding down a highway waiting to smash into a mini-van of cripples, right? So, SONY selling the PS3 is like getting your friend all liquored up and handing him the keys to his car? But how does the PS3 endanger people? Is the console inherently dangerous? Is the act of just owning a PS3 a life threatening situation? Were is the crimminal robbing people of their property in your analogy? There is nothing symbolizing that element. The PS3 in itself isn't the crimminal here, and buying a PS3 and walking to your car in a parking lot is NOT the equivalent of drinking and driving. AND SONY selling you the PS3 is NOT the equivalent of getting someone drunk and letting them drink and drive.

Just as women are not responsible for being raped, consumers are not responsible for being mugged or robbed. If you think so, your are elitist tool.

 

[SunnyOverHere]

Shandorf - way to go. Real logical interpretation. I'm assuming you took philosophy and logic in college. I remember taking those two courses and especially logic where you can break down an argument into a near mathematical solution. The author of this article should go and take an upper level course in logic. Good break down... makes me want to go back and crack open my old logic book.

If in fact Sony is at fault like the author claims, every Fortune 500 company will have to hire as many lawyers as they can. Ironically then there would be a shortage of lawyers and the price for lawyers would sky rocket and then we will find lawyers being sold on Ebay. Ayyyyyyyy! Viscious cycle.

 

[Flash1]

Shandorf - way to go. Real logical interpretation. I'm assuming you took philosophy and logic in college. I remember taking those two courses and especially logic where you can break down an argument into a near mathematical solution. The author of this article should go and take an upper level course in logic. Good break down... makes me want to go back and crack open my old logic book.

While not judging of the quality of the initial analogy, saying the analogy is completely retarded is a comment that is definitely out of place. This type of forums discussions/rhetoric does not have to be composed of simple direct analogies (one item does not have to equate the other for a point to be valid or not) for an argument to hold value. There are things in life much more complicated that A = B and C = B then A = C that require a bit (edit typo) more to understand. This is why there are many different analogy types to be used. I'm not saying they all hold the same value, but stating that the analogy was completely retarded seems a bit excessive.

 

[r0x0r]

How about blaming the society that drove people to be so materialistic as to commit acts of violence in order to obtain something as inconsequential as a games console?

 

[Greyskye]

Eh, I haven't owned a console since the original Atari but I think this whole PS3/Sony deal is just getting out of hand.

First off, ban the damn overnight camping sprees. Loitering it sounds like to me. Toss em in jail. Do everything on pre-order only basis and pre-pay. Put an end to the very reason to form a line. When release day hits, have a list based on fcfs and put a sign in the window saying "We are sold out." Go Away! Also, have an automated phone recording to do the same to save countless wasted hours for your employees answering phones.

Make it so Wal-Mart or whatever opens up pre-orders a few weeks in advance of the release. You pays your money, your guaranteed a 'spot' in line. Half of these crimes can be prevented by getting rid of the midnight sale. Make it around noon and just toss a phone call or email to those pre-orders that actually are lucky enough to get a system.

I think the problem with Sony isn't so much that we think their products suck, but more about my Grandma''s bridge club could have antcipated and reacted better to the PS3 launch.