A Dutch consumer group is arguing that Sony’s plan to discontinue physical PlayStation discs by 2028 does not just change how games are delivered. It removes the last competitive pressure on Sony’s storefront pricing and, in SM&C’s view, even on how long players are allowed to use what they buy.

SM&C chair Lucia Melcherts told WCCFtech that “No discs means no second-hand market and no alternative to the PlayStation Store, so from 2028, Sony alone decides what a game costs and even how long you are allowed to use it.” That claim sits at the center of SM&C’s €400 million ($457 million) lawsuit against Sony, which focuses on the 30% rate Sony charges on games sold through the PlayStation Store. The group now believes the move away from discs “removes the last place where a PlayStation game could still be bought and sold at a competitive price.”

From a business perspective, the complaint is less about nostalgia and more about bargaining power. Physical discs historically created a parallel market: buy, resell, discount through retailers, and sometimes find competitive pricing outside the platform owner’s store. If physical is gone, the consumer’s options shrink to the store, the store rules, and the store economics. SM&C frames that as structural unfairness, with Melcherts saying, “That is exactly the harm our Fair PlayStation claim is about: a price can never be fair when the buyer is left with no ownership and no alternative.”

Why does this matter beyond PlayStation? Because this is the same basic fight regulators and courts have seen before in other app store style ecosystems. The source directly draws a comparison to “Epic’s Apple Store challenges and the antitrust lawsuits faced by Steam.” In those cases, the underlying theme is control: who sets the commercial terms, who controls distribution, and whether users and competitors get real room to operate. The article notes that Apple was eventually forced to relinquish some control over its ecosystem, in large part because it sold the hardware and maintained its own storefront, “a system which closely maps to Sony’s.” Even if the technical realities differ between PCs and consoles, the executive and legal pattern is familiar: a platform owner can sometimes consolidate pricing influence when alternatives disappear.

SM&C’s lawsuit also lands in the broader competitive landscape around storefront take rates. The article points out that Steam charges a “flat 30% take … from everyone on the platform.” It’s an important detail because it undercuts the idea that 30% is automatically illegal or uniquely predatory. The key difference, as the source suggests, is not the existence of a platform fee, but the presence or absence of substitutes that reduce the owner’s leverage. On consoles, the ecosystem owner is closer to the gatekeeper for the user. On PCs, users typically have more flexibility.

That contrast is why the source spends time on Steam and device openness. “You can install alternate operating systems, competing storefronts, and even physical PC games onto Steam Decks and Steam Machines.” In other words, the platform owner cannot always fully dictate the terms of competition when the user has technical escape routes. It is also why the article argues that Sony’s controls resemble Apple’s more than Steam’s, because Sony and console hardware are non-jailbroken devices where the ecosystem owner’s boundaries matter. For executives, this is the second-order implication: even a fee percentage that looks “standard” can become a lightning rod when the alternative paths are removed.

The numbers in the story are also a reminder that this is not a small consumer complaint. The article references PlayStation 2025 revenue as ¥4.69 trillion ($29 billion), which is part of the reason a $427 million lawsuit “isn’t anything to sneeze at.” High revenue plus a high-stakes legal theory is exactly the combination that draws attention from boards, regulators, and platform partners, because outcomes can ripple into pricing strategy, store policies, and future deals with publishers.

There is also a regulatory timing angle. Sony’s own announced discontinuation of physical retail games by 2028 becomes a schedule that can sharpen scrutiny. SM&C’s argument is essentially that the harm accelerates as alternatives shrink, so the longer the transition proceeds without concessions, the harder it becomes to claim the market remains meaningfully competitive for consumers. The source closes by noting that “something’s gotta give,” adding that analyst Daniel Ahmad has advocated for some concession to consumers and watchdogs. For decision-makers at other platform companies, the practical takeaway is simple: control without optionality invites legal trouble, especially when you can point to a roadmap that reduces consumer choices.

If you run a platform business, this case is a stress test for how courts and regulators may evaluate “fairness” when distribution channels consolidate. If you run a publisher, it raises the question of whether platform economics will face sustained pressure as physical options disappear. And if you’re an investor or operator watching the ecosystem shift, the headline math is clear: €400 million ($457 million) plus a structural change by 2028 is a signal that the storefront era is heading into a harder regulatory fight, not a softer one.