Sony is holding millions of dollars from its consumers that they have very little -- really, zero -- reason to. There's no service or good that they're providing to its consumers here with that held money. Mom and pop stores have an alternative to exact payments for purchases not meeting the card mininum -- cash. What is PSN Store's? People have the right to blast this as anti-consumer.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony should really stop with this whole $5 min to add to wallet bullshit.
- Thread starter CrazyDude
- Start date
Vinsanity.
Member
Agreed. And while we're at it, Microsoft needs to stop with the separated wallets for the Microsoft Store and XBox Store.
If you pay through paypal, they still do that "5 dollar minimum" thing anyway.
JershJopstin
Banned
This. Like, I know what I'm doing, but it shouldn't be this counterintuitive. Nintendo's digital store makes more sense than this, mediocre as their online network is.
Vincent Grayson
Member
I'm confused as to why people are acting like this is only a Sony thing. Don't Valve and Nintendo do the same thing? I assume MS does as well.
Because it is a Sony-only thing. All other digital stores either allow direct purchases or add exact funds with no minimum.
Valve only forces it for adding to the wallet without purchasing anything.
Direct purchases have no lower limit.
Valve and Nintendo - no.
MS I have no experience with, but I don't believe so.
dragos495
Member
i bought numerous and separate times, themes and avatars, costing around 1 pound, 2 pounds. i used paypal. i did not have to pay 5 pounds first. i got charged the exact amount.
dont know what you guys are doing wrong.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Yes it's pretty lame.
Sorry, I really don't mean to bring it back to Nintendo, but I was so surprised to see that its online store (for all of its barren shortcomings) straight up gives you "exact cost of purchase" option when using your card to fill your store wallet. This should be an industry standard.
Sorry, I really don't mean to bring it back to Nintendo, but I was so surprised to see that its online store (for all of its barren shortcomings) straight up gives you "exact cost of purchase" option when using your card to fill your store wallet. This should be an industry standard.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Nah, this is a Sony special thing.
I've never heard of it being the case on Nintendo Switch consoles and I know for a fact it isn't the case on Xbox, Steam, GOG, or Origin.
Sony just wants your extra money in the account so you feel obligated to spend it on something else, thus starting the cycle over again.
Weird, bought Guacamelee and it's DLC last weekend using pay pal payment on PSN and it had to add 5 bucks to my wallet when i paid the DLC which was under 5 bucks.
bitbydeath
Member
So it's ok to lay blame without proof?
FreshCakes
Banned
Don't most stores do this if you're using a card?
I heard it cost more than the actual dollar value to put it on a card for some businesses if it's below a certain amount
I heard it cost more than the actual dollar value to put it on a card for some businesses if it's below a certain amount
Head.spawn
Junior Member
What other storefronts are you using that has a minimum charge amount?
Chronospherics
Member
I didn't place blame on Sony, I said there were obvious contry dependent factors influencing the decision, and that the fact that it was only in America didn't mean it wasn't their fault.
Ultimately however, yes the decision does lie with Sony whether they require a minumum charge or not. The lack of a minimum charge is likely a more costly decision in America, yet that in itself didn't force Sony's to implement the minimum into their service. Especially when similar services from other companies operating in the same region do not feature the same minimum charge.
In the end, as a consumer you have the right to place blame for service disatisifaction on the company providing the serivce. The economic factors leading to their decision to have the service operate in the way that it does, are not something the individual consumer should have to consider.
If a PS4 breaks is it factory that produced it who are to blame, or is it Sony, who chose to use them to manufacture the console? If Ubisoft's servers go down, is it the third rate outsourced data centre that is at fault, or was it Ubisoft's fault for making the decision to use their service?
As a consumer your exchange is between you and the service provider, the external factors that build into, and interact with the problems you have with their services are not something the consumer should have to attribute blame as these are all attributions of the service that the service provider, chose to provide.
bitbydeath
Member
Ok, that was all I was driving at.
BobNewbert31
Member
I am aware.
That's how I normally go about it. I was just testing what others were talking about as I didn't know that's how it worked with money already in your wallet.
Pandora012
Member
Isn't the $5 min because of the bank charge? If the Nintendo and them don't have it, it seems like they are eating the charge, while Sony doesn't. I don't really mind it because a lot of the stores around me use the $5 min for buying groceries and stuff, so I just got used to it.
Goldenroad
Member
That is such a weirdly specific thing that most people never run into though. Most people don't carry a balance in their wallet...I assume...though I just traded in a bunch of games at EB games and am carrying a $150 PSN balance right now...so maybe it's not so strange.
Herp Derpington
Member
Sony needs to eat the costs. It's a part of doing business. If MS can do it Sony can too. I have a real problem with multi-national corporations that won't absorb cc fees and feel they need to impose restrictions on how you purchase or worse yet just pass the fees to you. Unfortunately so many do this it's hard to get away from.
It's a stupid decision and another one of my little nitpicks with Sony's online infastructure (the other major one being cloud saves locked behind a paywall).
There have been numerous times I wanted to buy themes or avatars or even discounted games below 5 dollars and just haven't bothered because the minimum is such a dumb concept.
There have been numerous times I wanted to buy themes or avatars or even discounted games below 5 dollars and just haven't bothered because the minimum is such a dumb concept.
Giftofgab24
Member
It's not an issue on my Xbox here in the US, so yes. It's a Sony problem. I'll never understand you corporate white knights.
Okami Haundo
Member
Their competition gets around it just fine, so the problem is most definitely Sony.
The Albatross
Member
Regarding the legality of this in the US...
Minimum amounts used to be forbidden by credit card companies in the US, but there was no federal law around it, and so many smaller retailers used to regularly set minimums on consumers. Consumers could call the credit card companies and report those retailers, but most people do not, and even if they did most CC companies didn't bother penalizing the retailer though they could have. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill set a federal ceiling of $10-minimum throughout the country, which forbade credit card companies from preventing retailers from setting a minimum up to $10 (and law also had other restrictions, like no minimums allowed on debit purchases and every CC has to be treated equally so you can't require a $10 minimum for Visa but $5 minimum for Mastercard). What this means is that retailers can set a $10 minimum on credit card purchases, but nothing higher than that. Today most retailers have no minimum for credit card purchases and it's becoming less common, though you still typically see this at smaller, independent or franchised retailers. In the real world for instance, I buy most of my groceries from a major super market that has no minimums, but I buy my dog food from a small grocer/general store that has a $5 minimum for CC purchases.
Prior to Dodd-Frank this was regulated state by state, with most states either having no regulation on it or having a $10 or lower rate. Credit Card companies strictly forbid minimums for retailers, and retailers who set minimums -- prior to 2010 -- were supposed to be reported to the credit card agency. Now, CC companies have to respect retailer minimums, but no retailer has to set a minimum... It's completely optional. It can be argued if this is anti-consumer or not... From a consumers perspective, having a $10 minimum to use a CC seems anti-consumer, but the argument from Dodd-Frank is that this protects small retailers from multi-billion dollar credit providers dictating their business, which ultimately (as the argument goes) helps consumers by protecting small retailers.
This could very well vary from state to state. The OPs $10 figure makes sense federally, that is the US federal ceiling for minimum purchases for credit card transactions. But it's extremely rare, like virtually non existent anymore, for online retailers to require a minimum payment to use a credit card... It was more common 10 years ago, before Dodd-Frank and also when online retail was also much smaller than physical retail. This usually manifested itself in the form of gift cards, points cards (Microsoft Points were usually only sold in amounts of $5 up until like ~2010 when Microsoft got rid of the MS Points system), or virtual currency (think, Rocket League keys, microtransactions for in game perks, 2K SPorts Virtual currency, EA Sports Ultimate Team packs, etc).
One thing is for certain, Sony is not a small retailer. The optional $10 ceiling for minimum transactions by US law is made to protect small retailers. Major businesses using this to require minimum payments for something is certainly anti-consumer, though it's still protected under law for the retailer to do that, it's just a shitty, unnecessary thing to do for a major retailer.
Minimum amounts used to be forbidden by credit card companies in the US, but there was no federal law around it, and so many smaller retailers used to regularly set minimums on consumers. Consumers could call the credit card companies and report those retailers, but most people do not, and even if they did most CC companies didn't bother penalizing the retailer though they could have. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill set a federal ceiling of $10-minimum throughout the country, which forbade credit card companies from preventing retailers from setting a minimum up to $10 (and law also had other restrictions, like no minimums allowed on debit purchases and every CC has to be treated equally so you can't require a $10 minimum for Visa but $5 minimum for Mastercard). What this means is that retailers can set a $10 minimum on credit card purchases, but nothing higher than that. Today most retailers have no minimum for credit card purchases and it's becoming less common, though you still typically see this at smaller, independent or franchised retailers. In the real world for instance, I buy most of my groceries from a major super market that has no minimums, but I buy my dog food from a small grocer/general store that has a $5 minimum for CC purchases.
Prior to Dodd-Frank this was regulated state by state, with most states either having no regulation on it or having a $10 or lower rate. Credit Card companies strictly forbid minimums for retailers, and retailers who set minimums -- prior to 2010 -- were supposed to be reported to the credit card agency. Now, CC companies have to respect retailer minimums, but no retailer has to set a minimum... It's completely optional. It can be argued if this is anti-consumer or not... From a consumers perspective, having a $10 minimum to use a CC seems anti-consumer, but the argument from Dodd-Frank is that this protects small retailers from multi-billion dollar credit providers dictating their business, which ultimately (as the argument goes) helps consumers by protecting small retailers.
This could very well vary from state to state. The OPs $10 figure makes sense federally, that is the US federal ceiling for minimum purchases for credit card transactions. But it's extremely rare, like virtually non existent anymore, for online retailers to require a minimum payment to use a credit card... It was more common 10 years ago, before Dodd-Frank and also when online retail was also much smaller than physical retail. This usually manifested itself in the form of gift cards, points cards (Microsoft Points were usually only sold in amounts of $5 up until like ~2010 when Microsoft got rid of the MS Points system), or virtual currency (think, Rocket League keys, microtransactions for in game perks, 2K SPorts Virtual currency, EA Sports Ultimate Team packs, etc).
One thing is for certain, Sony is not a small retailer. The optional $10 ceiling for minimum transactions by US law is made to protect small retailers. Major businesses using this to require minimum payments for something is certainly anti-consumer, though it's still protected under law for the retailer to do that, it's just a shitty, unnecessary thing to do for a major retailer.
Do you mean like the Windows Store/Xbox Store or as in the Xbox and their online shop?
To be on-topic, I didn't know they did this, but that's crap.
Mister_Ruck
Member
It is stupid, I agree. I had $6 in my wallet left from buying Project Diva earlier this year and went to buy some Persona 5 costumes and I was like, a dollar short. I figured it would just take the dollar from my card and I wasn't really looking and as a result I now once again have a weird amount of money in my wallet I won't be able to spend without adding $5 more.
Hairsplash
Member
or you could just use playstation money cards... then your minimum is 20 dollars... lol (not sure of the minimum, but it is greater than 5$) /snark
Megatron
Member
Lol. Nope. Nintendo and Microsoft dont do this in the us.its definitely Sony. SoA anyway...
SweetJohnnyCage
Member
I don't add money to my wallet until I'm ready to purchase something. You'll hardly ever run into this problem if you do this.
Similar threads
- Poll