Sony Bricked my system, then banned my PSN, and I lost access to all my digital games

I can sympathize with OP...Sony is really sneaky with the way they fund your wallet with the PS4...I have the global setting as 'Do Not Fund Wallet' Automatically' (meaning they don't automatically charge your credit card when the PS+ membership expires)...I don't use the PS4 much but I tried out PS+ a few times (first time was free and the 2nd time I paid for a 1 month membership)...when I paid for the 1 month membership (and it seems like anytime you buy a new PS+ membership) Sony changes whatever custom setting you have in place to 'Automatically Fund Wallet'...that's crazy...so I need to change it back every time I renew

they want people to screw up and forget to change the setting back and I'm sure tons of people forget...they do post a message on-screen that the setting is being changed and how to change it back but it's still shady
 
schizrade said:
This is a hilarious thread. OP defrauded Sony and issued a charge back, which was not legal as Sony debited the payment as he had agreed when he signed up. Now the legal minds show up to stoke his ego and sorrow. Some of you need to read the terms of service you sign up for. What you think "should be right dog-gone-it!" isn't what you agreed to.

OP committed fraud to get his $50 back and got his account banned. But hey, at least they offered to reinstate for $50. They could ask for fees as well. ;)
Click to expand...

It is hilarious how one can be left without hundreds of dollars worth of games because there is an issue with a tangientally related service. And it is sad how it is an acceptable state of things today. Millenial mindset indeed.

Oh, but the TOS said they are allowed to, well, that makes it all right then.
 
Meeho said:
It is hilarious how one can be left without hundreds of dollars worth of games because there is an issue with a tangientally related service. And it is sad how it is an acceptable state of things today. Millenial mindset indeed.

Oh, but the TOS said they are allowed to, well, that makes it all right then.
Click to expand...

It's not "tangentially related", it's the same exact account.
 
Meeho said:
It is hilarious how one can be left without hundreds of dollars worth of games because there is an issue with a tangientally related service. And it is sad how it is an acceptable state of things today. Millenial mindset indeed.

Oh, but the TOS said they are allowed to, well, that makes it all right then.
Click to expand...

What Sony did was legal and plainly spelled out, that's what matters. It's also blindly obvious common sense that a charge back is always the final "nuclear" solution to a problem. It should NEVER be your initial course of action when dealing with a company. I don't even need to read a TOS for any service to know that a charge back will automatically cancel the account and there will be nothing that CSRs can do without that balance being paid. Until someone manages to sue a company and have this drug into court everyone using a service is legally bound by the terms they agree to when signing up.
 
Meeho said:
It is hilarious how one can be left without hundreds of dollars worth of games because there is an issue with a tangientally related service. And it is sad how it is an acceptable state of things today. Millenial mindset indeed.

Oh, but the TOS said they are allowed to, well, that makes it all right then.
Click to expand...

What is hilarious is his willingness to "throw away" a few hundred dollars worth of games over $50. The TOS said that his account would be locked with the cancellation of the account, which, as said before, is standard with pretty much every account out there. This whole ordeal would of had a quite simple fix. Pay to turn it back on, then call Sony, reason with the CSRs, call, not chat, and they probably would of refunded his money. Then the account is back on, he has access to his games, everyone is happy. Instead, this guy throws away money, throws his hands up in the air, and screams bloody murder.
 
Ocellaris said:
It's not "tangentially related", it's the same exact account.
Click to expand...

It's a service on his account that is separate from them. I would view it as getting banned from single player game X because I cheated in a game Y.

Look, I'm not justifying his actions. I am against the notion that single player games are treated as SaaS and that one can have his properly paid games taken away because there is an issue somewhere really not directly related to those games. They could have banned him from further services, but not this. I don't care how legal or TOSed it is, it's not right.
 
that practice is illegal in some countries, steam do the same, But until someone challenges these companies they will continue to do it.

With steam if you reverse a charge they then will ban you from using your existing library. Same sort of thing.
 
Meeho said:
It's a service on his account that is separate from them. I would view it as getting banned from single player game X because I cheated in a game Y.

Look, I'm not justifying his actions. I am against the notion that single player games are treated as SaaS and that one can have his properly paid games taken away because there is an issue somewhere really not directly related to those games. They could have banned him from further services, but not this. I don't care how legal or TOSed it is, it's not right.
Click to expand...

There is one small detail here you are missing: He got a new system. The ban didn't suddenly make games on the system unplayable. There were no games installed on the system for Sony to ban him from using. Digital game DRM on the PS4 is system specific, allowing anyone signed into any account on the primary system to play them. Depending on how things are set up on Sony's end if he had been banned, say, before his initial system got bricked he might have been able to make a new account and play anything currently on the system. However, since her got a new system the ban prevents him from logging into that account and downloading anything.
 
Derangel said:
There is one small detail here you are missing: He got a new system. The ban didn't suddenly make games on the system unplayable. There were no games installed on the system for Sony to ban him from using. Digital game DRM on the PS4 is system specific, allowing anyone signed into any account on the primary system to play them. Depending on how things are set up on Sony's end if he had been banned, say, before his initial system got bricked he might have been able to make a new account and play anything currently on the system. However, since her got a new system the ban prevents him from logging into that account and downloading anything.
Click to expand...

The end result is he can't play the games he payed for, even single player ones. They could've prevented him from using their services, buying new games via their system, online play via Sony network and similar, but he should be able to play the games he already owned that aren't dependent on PS+ or whatever the service was. I'm not familiar with console technicalities, but I'm guessing there is no way for him to make them playable on the new hardware without Sony's blessing and that they are refusing to do it basically holding his games hostage.
 
It's worrysome that so many people don't understand the severity of a chargeback...
 
Yeah. It has been spelled out several times but maybe it wasn't blunt enough.

With his chargeback for a service that auto renews OP stole $50 from Sony as far as they are concerned. If he had called and cancelled the account they would have given him a refund and not banned him. Instead OP busted out the big FU stick not realizing Sony wields a much bigger one. (Played with fire got burnt, yadda yadda yadaa)

I do agree with the initial point that Sony should take care of an update bricking his system.
 
Kardonxt said:
I do agree with the initial point that Sony should take care of an update bricking his system.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however the charge back "mach 3.5 kick in the dick" reaction kinda overshadows every other valid point made here. :(
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
The end result is he can't play the games he payed for, even single player ones. They could've prevented him from using their services, buying new games via their system, online play via Sony network and similar, but he should be able to play the games he already owned that aren't dependent on PS+ or whatever the service was. I'm not familiar with console technicalities, but I'm guessing there is no way for him to make them playable on the new hardware without Sony's blessing and that they are refusing to do it basically holding his games hostage.
Click to expand...

So they should just let him continue to have access to the store and risk him doing another fraudulent charge back? The OP committed fraud against Sony. Sony didn't charge him by mistake or for something he didn't agree to. His account was set to auto-renew so it auto-renewed. The charge back meant that the OP stole money that Sony was rightfully owed. There was zero attempt on the OP's part to communicate with Sony about the charge and figure it out. If he hadn't acted irrationally and actually talked to Sony when he saw the charge appear this would have never happened.
 
Derangel said:
So they should just let him continue to have access to the store and risk him doing another fraudulent charge back?
Click to expand...

I've stated the exact opposite.

The OP committed fraud against Sony. Sony didn't charge him by mistake or for something he didn't agree to. His account was set to auto-renew so it auto-renewed. The charge back meant that the OP stole money that Sony was rightfully owed. There was zero attempt on the OP's part to communicate with Sony about the charge and figure it out. If he hadn't acted irrationally and actually talked to Sony when he saw the charge appear this would have never happened.
Click to expand...

Oh, he stole $50 so it is ok for them to steal $500 from somewhere else. I see, that is how things should work.


MikeTrike said:
It's worrysome that so many people don't understand the severity of a chargeback...
Click to expand...

Just like so many think it is ok to do another wrong in response to the first wrong.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
I've stated the exact opposite.



Oh, he stole $50 so it is ok for them to steal $500 from somewhere else. I see, that is how things should work.
Click to expand...

If he can't access the store then he can't download his games. That's how things are set up for the system. He committed FRAUD. If it was a large enough amount he could get in serious trouble for it. Sony could come after him for that money, if it was an amount worth paying lawsuit fees for. Sony didn't steal anything from him. Whether you like it or not software laws in the US states that you are only granted a limited use licence that can be revoked. Unless a law is passed to change that or it's challenged in court that is the reality of the situation. What Sony did was revoke the licence until he returns the money he stole. Charge backs are an incredibly serious matter and companies will stop dealing with people that do them. They can do a hell of a lot of harm to a company. It sucks for the OP, but your personal black and white view of mortality can't help him. A little dose of calm and some common sense would have prevented it from happening.

If you really want to know why people aren't as mad at Sony as you about this here is some information on chargebacks: https://www.dalpay.com/en/support/chargebacks.html

I will quote some relevant parts of the article.

Credit card online transactions are considered to be CNP or Card Not Present transactions. Generally, a merchant account agreement specifies that the merchant will be 100% liable for any type of possible online fraud that might happen.
Sadly, whether it is an actual fraudulent transaction, or a case of malicious attempt by a cardholder, the merchant will have to face the consequences. If it is determined that there is not enough proof to back up the transaction, the merchant will lose the sale and will be subjected to chargeback fees, which will range anywhere from $50 to $75 or even more.
Click to expand...

The cost of chargebacks does not end only in losses in financial aspects. Racking up chargebacks has even worse consequences on the part of the merchant. During physical transactions, where both the cardholder and the card are present, it is the credit card institutions who take sole responsibility in cases of chargebacks. However, during online CNP transactions, merchants are solely responsible. Having too many cases of chargebacks will lead to steeper chargeback fees, as you will become labelled by the credit card institution as a highrisk merchant.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but having an excessive number of chargebacks can also lead to the potential termination of your online account. This will cripple your ability to accept credit card payments, and can lead to severe losses to your business. It is important to note that merchant accounts that become suspended due to high number of chargebacks are almost always impossible to restore.
Click to expand...

Chargebacks can cause many problems for a merchant. The expression "guilty unless proven otherwise" is probably the best way to put it. The credit card industry has made it easier for consumers to file chargebacks and transaction disputes, while the merchants are left with little industry support, if any.
Click to expand...

So, that chargeback actually cost Sony at least $100 to $125. Potentially a lot more depending on how Paypal handles that, the number of chargebacks to their Paypal Merchant account, and any labor cost accrued dealing with the chargeback.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
Just like so many think it is ok to do another wrong in response to the first wrong.
Click to expand...

What would you have done in his situation? Is it safe to assume that you'd have done the exact same thing?

They stole nothing, he can still fix this problem, he just needs to use the non-tantrum method and work though the problem. Which is now a bit more complicated due to his fraudulent action(s).

He filed a lazy claim for an "unauthorized" Sony charge. Why would someone not think "hey I have some Sony stuff" and contact Sony first? It's not like he didn't know he had a Sony account, or a Playstation, or the ability to infer X amount could possibly relate to Y service.

I'm just going to leave this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Here's a heavily condensed version of how this could have went, we'll label him as "Potential Fraudster" or PF for short for the illustration, and because it may not have been intentional.
  • PF: Hey guys what's up with this charge?
  • Sony: Your PS+ was set to auto-renew.
  • PF: Well I don't want it, can you reverse that for me?
  • Sony: We're sorry to see you go, are you sure we can't keep you active?
  • PF: No thanks.
  • Sony: No problem, we've issued the refund, it'll take a few days, contact us again if you change your mind.
  • PF: Thanks Sony guys, man I was worried this was going to be a long drawn out process. I almost thought I had to start an ignorant troll-thread on [H] to vent my frustrations over how shitty Sony is due to my poor choice of actions. To think my first reaction was to take the most extreme action possible and file a charge back! I'm so glad I didn't bother doing that, and having you guys proved me wrong instead. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You guys are having trouble separating the two issues in my argument. No amount of chargeback wrongdoing, legality, TOS, critical thinking, being smart and paying as to not losing access to games...makes it alright to lose the games you've paid for. That is my argument. I don't care how wrong his actions were, I care how wrong Sony's are and no amount of butthurt from their side and money lost regarding the PS+ chargeback makes it acceptable for them to take his games away.
 
Meeho said:
You guys are having trouble separating the two issues in my argument. No amount of chargeback wrongdoing, legality, TOS, critical thinking, being smart and paying as to not losing access to games...makes it alright to lose the games you've paid for. That is my argument. I don't care how wrong his actions were, I care how wrong Sony's are and no amount of butthurt from their side and money lost regarding the PS+ chargeback makes it acceptable for them to take his games away.
Click to expand...

It's called learning the hard way, defrauding service provider is much different than a retailer.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
You guys are having trouble separating the two issues in my argument. No amount of chargeback wrongdoing, legality, TOS, critical thinking, being smart and paying as to not losing access to games...makes it alright to lose the games you've paid for. That is my argument. I don't care how wrong his actions were, I care how wrong Sony's are and no amount of butthurt from their side and money lost regarding the PS+ chargeback makes it acceptable for them to take his games away.
Click to expand...

Really. For video games? This isn't something like water or power for the house.

"take his games away" makes it sound like we are disciplining a child tbh
 
trentchau said:
Really. For video games? This isn't something like water or power for the house.

"take his games away" makes it sound like we are disciplining a child tbh
Click to expand...

It's [well, should be] his property. It could be cookies or a space shuttle, doesn't matter. "I'm going to take your games away if you cross me" is exactly like disciplining a child and a stupid state of affairs.
 
What do you suggest they do instead that won't impact the cost of their services?
 
MikeTrike said:
What do you suggest they do instead that won't impact the cost of their services?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar enough with their system to know. Maybe ban him from opening new accounts and any usage of their services beyond being able to play the games he already owns.
 
Meeho said:
I'm not familiar enough with their system to know. Maybe ban him from opening new accounts and any usage of their services beyond being able to play the games he already owns.
Click to expand...

How would they reliably identify his new accounts? This would open up accidental problems for new customers and increase operating costs. Tackling his current account gets his attention and forced him to contact them if he wishes to regain access. It's the cheapest and most reliable method.
 
Meeho said:
I'm not familiar enough with their system to know. Maybe ban him from opening new accounts and any usage of their services beyond being able to play the games he already owns.
Click to expand...

How would they reliably identify his new accounts? This would open up accidental problems for new customers and increase operating costs. Tackling his current account gets his attention and forces him to contact them if he wishes to regain access. It's the cheapest and most reliable method.
 
Meeho said:
I'm not familiar enough with their system to know. Maybe ban him from opening new accounts and any usage of their services beyond being able to play the games he already owns.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thing to know what was suggested. But didn't the OP take money from Sony but they offered access to the games if the said money was paid.

How did we get to banning new accounts and stuff? Why not just pay the $50 and be done with it?

Sounds like he jumped the gun, did the extreme, and Sony still offered him access to the service for cheaper than what they will be charged.



What you guys are talking about is kinda why I stopped playing video games on consoles last generation. Media management like how apple does it (Use our service or you don't get access to what you paid for) always was a turn off for me.
 
MikeTrike said:
How would they reliably identify his new accounts? This would open up accidental problems for new customers and increase operating costs. Tackling his current account gets his attention and forces him to contact them if he wishes to regain access. It's the cheapest and most reliable method.
Click to expand...

Yes, legal blackmail usually is.
 
Meeho said:
Yes, legal blackmail usually is.
Click to expand...

You can call it what you want, it's the most cost effective method to combat/thwart fraudulent claims. Let's not forget that he did in fact file a fraudulent claim.

All he needed to do after he realized his mistake was contact Sony and begin the process of healing...
 
Meeho said:
You guys are having trouble separating the two issues in my argument. No amount of chargeback wrongdoing, legality, TOS, critical thinking, being smart and paying as to not losing access to games...makes it alright to lose the games you've paid for. That is my argument. I don't care how wrong his actions were, I care how wrong Sony's are and no amount of butthurt from their side and money lost regarding the PS+ chargeback makes it acceptable for them to take his games away.
Click to expand...

You aren't exactly providing anything that resembles another solution. In order for him to have access to those games Sony would need to allow him to be able to sign into the banned account AND have access to the store. How exactly is any of that a good option for Sony? How is opening themselves up to further chargebacks from a person a good idea? You are bitching so much about what's "Right" for the OP but you are too damn tunnel visioned to look at it from all perspectives. Did you even read what I posted? That link gives some pretty good reasons as to why companies take drastic measures when someone initiates a chargeback.

Why does your perspective of right and wrong only include one person?
 
Derangel said:
You aren't exactly providing anything that resembles another solution.
Click to expand...

I am, actually, but in the end I really don't have to. My argument doesn't rely on it.

In order for him to have access to those games Sony would need to allow him to be able to sign into the banned account AND have access to the store.
Click to expand...

Why? Because they are incompetent of segmenting those things?

How exactly is any of that a good option for Sony? How is opening themselves up to further chargebacks from a person a good idea?
Click to expand...

It's not, that's why they shouldn't open themselves to that.

You are bitching so much about what's "Right" for the OP but you are too damn tunnel visioned to look at it from all perspectives.
Click to expand...

I've covered all perspectives.

Did you even read what I posted? That link gives some pretty good reasons as to why companies take drastic measures when someone initiates a chargeback.
Click to expand...

Either your reading comprehension or the ability to grasp the multiple things involved in this case are lacking. We are going in circles and there is no point in continuing. I've already addressed your points and concerns. Please read the discussion again.

Why does your perspective of right and wrong only include one person?
Click to expand...

Sigh...
 
trentchau said:
What you guys are talking about is kinda why I stopped playing video games on consoles last generation. Media management like how apple does it (Use our service or you don't get access to what you paid for) always was a turn off for me.
Click to expand...

Steam/Origin do this too. Try a charge back on Steam and see what happens... This basically leaves you with GOG
 
I wonder if he's contacted Sony yet... I'm curious to hear back from the OP on this adventure. :D
 
Ocellaris said:
Steam/Origin do this too. Try a charge back on Steam and see what happens... This basically leaves you with GOG
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Most service providing businesses will cut you off in a similar fashion. It's not like he's attacking their merchant account standing in a way that could potentially disrupt the service of others or anything like that... :rolleyes:
 
Ocellaris said:
Steam/Origin do this too. Try a charge back on Steam and see what happens... This basically leaves you with GOG
Click to expand...

Exactly and that is why GOG is a much better digital distribution service! You buy it, you own it.
 
If sony were doing things legally their options would be to either chase the money as debt, suspend future transactions on the account including new free content or write it off, removing access to existing content isnt legal in many of the countries they operate in.
 
popcorn.gif~c200
 
MikeTrike said:
How would they reliably identify his new accounts? This would open up accidental problems for new customers and increase operating costs. Tackling his current account gets his attention and forces him to contact them if he wishes to regain access. It's the cheapest and most reliable method.
Click to expand...

Amazon doesn't seem to have a problem identifying accounts of mine. I did a fraud chargeback like 4 years ago. I called customer service about a charge that didn't show up on my account and which I didn't recognize, they told me I needed to know the email address the charge was connected to or to contact my bank. I did the latter and my Amazon account was promptly banned. I've moved twice since then and even tried opening new accounts but I can't get more then 1-2 orders thru on a new account without being banned. They have some sort of electronic tracking system for closing accounts. I'm sure most merchants have some way to stop accounts from people they've banned.
 
That sucks. I hope your story catches and spreads. That's usually the only hope that Sony will rectify the issue.

Sure, they may have been within their TOS, but this is a complete customer service failure on many levels.

You could try calling and talking to another CSR. Discuss the charge back and tell them you're willing to reverse it (cancel it with PayPal) if they agree to unban the account and process the refund. Have them look at the notes for the bricked firmware.

As always, record the calls. They're recording you and likely state so "for quality assurance" which grants you the same right. I've had issues in the past where I needed a recording and most companies will refuse to give them without a court order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top