“Fair” Compensation
by IrishSiren, HSM guest contributor
One consumer sentiment that I’ve seen popping up during my recent lurking is this notion that Sony, whenever they decide to switch Home off, should somehow feel obliged to compensate users for their “loss.”
This is ridiculous to me.
If this sentiment were limited to just the usual gaggle of self-entitled loudmouths on the SCEA forum, I wouldn’t care as much. (It’s the same names I saw years ago when I left Home! Seriously, do those people truly have nothing better to do than sit on a dying forum and bitch at each other behind alternate accounts all day, every day?) But I’ve seen it popping up elsewhere, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out the justification for such an argument.
Whenever Home gets turned off — whether it’s a year from now or a decade from now — let’s get one thing clear: Sony doesn’t “owe” us anything.
First off: look at your EULA that you agreed to. Legally, Sony’s covered.
Second: you don’t actually own anything. Again, look at the fine print: you paid for the right to access to a piece of metadata on a server. That’s it.
Third: where does this idea come from that Home is some sort of “investment”? Really? Honestly?
Home’s not an investment. It never was. It’s no more an “investment” than eating at your favorite restaurant every week of the year. Whether you’ve spent one dollar or ten-thousand dollars in Home, you spent discretionary income on fun diversions and experiences. That’s it. It’s no different than spending discretionary income on a night at the movies, a fancy dinner, a vacation, a spa day (woot!), or something equally ephemeral.
Do not confuse the longevity of an experience with the residual value of it.
“But, but, I’ve spent all this MONEY in Home over the years and now it’s all GONE!” Goes the sentiment. “I EXPECT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR MY LOSS!!!11!!!”
Shush.
No, really. Shush. And grow up.
You’ve already been compensated for your “investment” — the days, weeks, months and years of enjoyment you got out of the things you purchased. The majority of which, if you’re honest, sit unused in your storage while you hypocritically complain about having too much stuff. You paid for an experience, and you were rewarded with that experience. End of transaction. Nowhere did that purchase come with an ironclad guarantee, writ upon stone tablets, that that experience would always be available for you unto the end of time.
Jesus, is Home the first video game experience you’ve ever had on the first console you’ve ever owned? Go back and add up all the money you’ve spent over the decades you’ve been gaming. Obsolete consoles sitting in cardboard boxes. Ancient games blanketed in a sheen of dust. Thousands of dollars — more, probably — spent on those experiences.
Do you consider those to be “investments,” too?
Got news for ya: if you want to actually invest in something, try the stock market. Or real estate. Those are investments. PlayStation Home is not. And I’m saying that as someone who spent a lot of money (and time) in Home and walked away from all of it, without shedding a tear. I had a lot of fun with the money I spent, and when I was done I happily moved on to greener pastures. I’m not about to go embarrass myself by demanding that Sony should somehow compensate me, any more than I would go to Apple and demand compensation for the years and money I’ve spent buying their shiny new products which became obsolete and discontinued.
Your voluntary loyalty to PlayStation Home does not entitle you to any sort of compensation when the service is closed.
Look, I get that people have a very odd perspective about Home. It’s the redheaded stepchild of the PlayStation pantheon. Most people don’t understand it, or deride it from afar. So you have a somewhat insular group with a persecution complex that stays fiercely loyal to it and manages to keep driving its profitability. The idea is that if you put that much effort into keeping Home alive — in being a true believer — you should somehow have the blow softened when Sony itself pulls the rug out from underneath you.
I know this is going to hurt, but you have to get this through your head and your heart: you might view Home as some sort of holy cause or personal quest, but to Sony it’s ultimately a for-profit business. It’s a line item on a spreadsheet. That doesn’t mean there aren’t great developers working on it, but it does mean that you as a consumer need to have some damn perspective. It is not Sony’s fault that you went that deep down the rabbit hole, nor are they morally or legally obliged to make you feel better about the discretionary money you chose to spend and have fun with.
Here’s the other problem: even if Sony does decide to compensate Home users for their “loss” once the program is shuttered, what exactly constitutes fair compensation for an experience as unique as Home? And how should Sony delineate who is qualified for such compensation?
The only thing I can personally think of that might make for “fair” compensation (frankly, I think it’s overly generous) is PlayStation Plus membership. After all, Home is an online experience, and on the PlayStation 4, you have to be a Plus member to have access to online multiplayer features. As for the duration of that free membership — a month, three months, six months, a year, etc. — along with the question of who would qualify for such a gift, I leave that up to Sony.
Will this please everyone? Probably not. Someone’s bound to scream that they spent thousands of dollars in Home and all they got was an add-on to their existing Plus membership (again, conveniently ignoring all the years of enjoyment they got out of their purchases). But let’s again keep some perspective: chances are, the loudest screams will come from people who won’t be satisfied with anything less than Home itself being guaranteed migration to the PlayStation 4, given a budget of a bajillion dollars to “do things like how they do it in Japan,” and staffed with a million moderators and community managers who instantly respond, telepathically, to even the slightest and silliest issue. Oh, and absolutely everything has to be free. Don’t anyone dare charge for anything.
In short: ignore such complainers. You’ll never please them, anyway.
If Sony decides that it’s worth the expense to give away some freebies as a PR move whenever Home is finally shut down, I certainly won’t object. Hey, I’m a consumer, after all. But I’m sure as hell not expecting anything, nor do I feel I have the inherent right to expect anything. Like any other number of online experiences which had their day in the sun and eventually closed down, Home will one day go the same route. I knew that going in — and so did you. Let’s take responsibility for ourselves and our choices as consumers.
May 15th, 2014 by IrishSiren | 11 comments
IrishSiren is a former casual Home user who enjoyed Loco Roco island, Dragon's Green, Conspiracy, and ModNation Racers. In real life she is addicted to scuba diving, Grumpy Cat and reality TV. She lives in Hawaii.
Share
| Tweet |
I’ve got a download list littered with DLC that I will never use again. Virtual content, outfits, items and levels. Does this mean all the money I spent on early need for speeds, gta4, uncharted 1, etc etc. Does this mean I should have compensation when I can’t play these either. I might of spent more on home but I’ve enjoyed the money I’ve spent. That’s what matters did you enjoy your money spent. If not don’t keep spending it. If you enjoy it keep spending.
Okay, I disagree with how you put Femaelstrom’s article and his facts that was researched in question with yours, then state just how no one is entitled to their compensated.
This is opinion versus facts. I can respect that but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
I’m sorry but I fully disagree entirely with this.
Secondly (and to add), as an avid users of Playstation Home (versus a former casual user), I don’t think this article will hit home with others that feel differently than the usual when I say, it’s one thing to deprive negative naysayers and the misinformed.
But this is literally bashing Home users as escapism and creative means of expressions. That won’t sit very well with those that uses this application legitimately.
I truly don’t know what to say about this at all.
One thing that’s worth pointing out: legally, just looking at what the user agrees to when signing up for the service, it does indeed look like Sony’s covered, and there doesn’t appear to be any sort of obligation to provide compensation if and when the service is turned off.
(Disclaimer: I could be totally wrong, of course. I don’t work for SCEA/SCEE, nor am I a lawyer. I just took the time to read stuff like the EULA from end to end.)
When we, any of us, disagree with a strong point of view, the natural reaction is to challenge it by pointing out that it’s op-ed instead of factual. It’s important to not dismiss, though, factual information that’s underneath an author’s opinions — even when that information is emotionally uncomfortable.
Do I personally agree with every single story published in HSM? No. But that doesn’t mean those viewpoints aren’t worthy of discussion. In this case, the primary thrust of the article appears to be the living-in-denial disconnect between user expectation for compensation if/when Home is closed versus the cold legal reality that no such obligation appears to exist, as well as challenging the (frankly odd) user notion that discretionary spending in Home constitutes some sort of investment vehicle. And given what a powder-keg social issue Home’s unknown future is, this is bound to provoke strong reactions on all sides.
(Heck, that’s what HSM *prides* itself on — bringing up these sorts of issues and discussing them. It’s amazing to go back and read some of the impassioned — and at times even heated — debates that have raged across the pages of this publication throughout the years, sparking counterpoint articles and even further discussion.)
Here’s the real question this article provokes, and I’m hoping someone on the team will write it: while Sony may not have a legal requirement to offer up some sort of consolation gift if/when Home ends, would it be a good PR move to offer something up, despite the cost incurred? And, if so, what should be offered? And how should Sony decide which users are eligible and which aren’t?
With any luck, Home has a long lifespan still ahead of it. But the great thing about social issues like this one is that they’re evergreen; they’ll be just as relevant next year as they are today.
If this article spurs other people on to write their own coverage of this topic (or related ones), then it has done its job. I think it’d be great to read a counterpoint piece written by a Home user who feels duly entitled to some sort of compensation, making a convincing business case — despite not having any readily apparent legal justification to stand on — as to why Sony would stand to benefit from a PR standpoint (despite the incurred cost), what sort of consolation giveaway should thus be offered, and to what level of Home consumer it should be offered.
In the context of Home’s eventual closure, “I expect to be compensated!” has been treated as some sort of sacred-cow inviolable user right; and up until HSM started challenging this issue over the last week or so, *no one* had dared to dig underneath the emotion and really start examining some of these cold questions — because doing so means you have to emotionally acknowledge the reality that one day there won’t be a Home. And that’s uncomfortable.
(As Eric Hoffer states: “We have perhaps a natural fear of ends. We would rather be always on the way than arrive.”)
It doesn’t mean everyone’s going to agree with each other when these issues are brought up and challenged — indeed, this is why we keep looking for a multitude of different viewpoints on any given topic — but we do ourselves and our readership a disservice if we hide from them. Hopefully, additional articles will be written on these social hot-button topics that the Home community faces. I certainly look forward to reading them.
I understand.
And I really do. I agree to what you say in regards to published articles and social hot topics. I’m all for it.
I’ll discuss further privately. Thanks for the reply.
We are beta testers!
While I fundamentally agree with this article I am a little uneasy with my perceived spirit of the phraseology. I agree that Sony owes us nothing. I’ll even go as far to say that I don’t even like the idea of the PlayStation Plus membership as compensation. One of the reasons I say that is, plus membership is mandatory for online play on the PlayStation 4. Having to pay for a membership helps filter out some of the undesirables that enjoy trolling but not enough to pay for it.
We are beta testers! We will be beta testers until the beta is over. We should feel privileged that we were given this wonderful gift or free. Cost only comes into play when we ourselves make decisions to make purchases to enhance and personalize our enjoyment of said gift. In the national parks department decided to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday weekend by allowing everyone to camp in any national park for free, and I go out and buy a new tent, sleeping bag, propane grill and a canoe to enhance and personalize my camping experience, and I load up my new gear and go to the national Park of my choice for a weekend of camping and on arrival the weather is too bad for me to set up camp so I have to go home, does the Parks department oh me compensation for my purchases?
We are beta testers! But often it’s not just time we invest. Sometimes we invest money, emotions and friendships. These are valuable investments to us. So emotions may run high. I will be the first to admit that the thought of losing Home makes me very emotional. I’m emotional now. And I admit in my emotional state I am sensitive to some of what I perceive as harsh phraseology in this article. I do not like it when the over entitled squeaky wheels on the forums demand that Sony owes them. But as someone that truly loves Home and is very concerned about its future, terms like “grow up” or I should’ve invested my money in the stock market or real estate are uncomfortable to me.
We are beta testers! We will have many personal opinions. Emotions will run high, but I truly hope that respect for others’ opinions will run higher. But that’s just me hoping again.
We are beta testers! Be proud of that!
PLEASE believe me… this is not a shameless plug nor am I trying to ride the coat tail of this article, but a good companion article to this is my “Where’s My Cup Holder” article… just saying
If anyone thinks that Sony hasnt covered themselves in this area think again. There are so many MMOs that have closed and real life businesses that have had to close that were involved in second life when a t & c s change forced them to close. None of these users or businesses were entitled to compensation. If anyone thinks the fear of compensation is going to force Sony into putting home on the ps4 either think again that’s just idiotic at best. And if anyone thinks that if home users say I won’t buy a ps4 if home isnt on there. That will bother Sony again look at the ps4 sales home not being on there has hardly dented them. And there are plenty of home users that already have one. So ultimately no compensation, no effect on ps4 sales, no real power from home users legitimate using it or not. Sony are holding all the aces.
Another well written article IrishSiren.
While I agree with your assessment 100%, I couldn’t help feel a bit embarrassed by the condescending tone of this article. I really understand what your saying here, I really do, but don’t belittle your readers.
I understand you left Home and have issues with the game. I myself don’t play Home half as much as I used to, but I still love the game and know that people come here to HSM because they enjoy partaking in many different ways with the game. I would never feel justified talking down to readers no matter how much I disagreed with them.
Again, different viewpoints make the world go around. I respect yours, perhaps next time you could return the favor.
You should’ve seen the original draft that was submitted.
Something I should probably make clear: I don’t dislike Home. Or this magazine’s readership. (To the contrary, actually.) I dislike the entitlement attitude I’m seeing from some other parts of the community — particularly the SCEA forum — I’ve been lurking around while getting up to speed on where Home is at these days.
I get that my disenfranchisement is somewhat incongruous with a Home-centric publication. Art is as much timing as it is execution, though; whenever the inevitable day comes that Home is indeed announced for shutdown, and the truly vocal members of the community blow up on this topic, revisit this article and see if still seems so unjustifiably sharp to you. Betcha it won’t.
I agree on the entitlement attitudes that has been displayed around on Home.
And it’s a shame, yes.