Sony should really stop with this whole $5 min to add to wallet bullshit.

Dec 6, 2008
14,958
0
0
I always use prepaid-cards. Where is the problem in having 3-4€ of spare-money in your psn-account for the next purchase? Seriously, this is a total non-issue.
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.
 
Jul 26, 2014
202
9
270
uk
If you pay through paypal, they still do that "5 dollar minimum" thing anyway.
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.
 
Sep 23, 2011
13,113
0
0
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.
 
Feb 15, 2012
1,082
0
0
Yeah I just used paypal to buy Persona 5 dlc for 2.99 and it loaded 5.00 into my wallet. Now my grip is when the next dlc comes out for 2.99 i will have to load 5.00 again instead of 1.00 because I have a like 2.00 left over in my wallet.
 

Head.spawn

Junior Member
Sep 3, 2013
6,745
1
320
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.
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.
 
Jan 31, 2015
14,163
0
0
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.
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.
 
Nov 25, 2015
5,430
1,797
475
Of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not Sony's fault that it's like that. There are obviously country dependent factors that influence how these systems are set up, but don't act like it's out of Sony's hand to change them.

I'm sure there are plenty of other companies operating in those countries without a minimum charge.
So it's ok to lay blame without proof?
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
So it's ok to lay blame without proof?
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.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not Sony's fault that it's like that. There are obviously country dependent factors that influence how these systems are set up, but don't act like it's out of Sony's hand to change them.

I'm sure there are plenty of other companies operating in those countries without a minimum charge.
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.
 
May 7, 2014
5,807
0
310
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.
 
Jun 14, 2012
8,423
0
0
Canada
If you have five dollars in your account and the game is $5.99 you can't add just 99 cents. You have to add five dollars because that is the lowest amount you can add.
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.
 
Sep 29, 2015
825
0
0
41
Mckinney, Texas
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.
 
Jan 8, 2015
1,176
2
0
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.
 
Apr 15, 2010
25,095
2
0
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.
 
Dec 30, 2014
4,268
0
0
Agreed. And while we're at it, Microsoft needs to stop with the separated wallets for the Microsoft Store and XBox Store.
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.
 
Feb 5, 2013
535
0
0
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.