Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Can someone please explain the action man to me?

Gatx:

immortalfrieza:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

I'm sorry, what? A company gets to control how their own products are made and sold? This is also somehow wrong?

It's wrong when they and only they are permitted to make and sell a product. Monopolies cause companies to have no motivation whatsoever to provide fair prices for their product, to provide a very well functioning product, or to provide adequate customer service or to even provide customer service at all. Only when actual competition exists to companies have any reason to NOT charge ridiculously exorbitant prices and to make sure their product actually works.

In short, Sony and similar companies have a license to screw their customers over as much as they like and nobody can do anything about it.

NightHawk21:
Sony could take a lesson from Valve with Steam. I know the rules of the site, but lets just say that when I was a poor, unemployed teenager I used to acquire the few comp games (namely an RTS here or there) in less than legal ways. Now that I've pretty much converted to the Church of Steam, it is literally not worth my time to pirate a game and play around trying to get it to work, than to dish out a few bucks, get the game nicely integrated into my library with achievements and constant updates. There is a reason why my PS3 has been essentially off for a year now, and is only occasionally turned on to play a DVD.

Trust me you're not alone, I pirated a ton of stuff when I was younger and didn't have a job but after getting some work and finally getting into Steam I haven't pirated anything since. I still remember the moment I saw Deus Ex: HR, wanted it, and just booted up Steam and bought the damn thing without even considering torrenting it. Since then I've bought all the games I torrented (minus Duke Nukem Forever) off steam and haven't been on Pirate Bay since. Just why would I even consider messing around with crack file placement, fake server files, and mounting fake disk files when I can spend less money than I use to go out to eat, push a button, and watch Youtube videos until it's done? It's pretty much gotten me to be a PC only game with my 360 gathering dust for two years and my Xbox gold account canceled.

immortalfrieza:

Gatx:

immortalfrieza:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

I'm sorry, what? A company gets to control how their own products are made and sold? This is also somehow wrong?

It's wrong when they and only they are permitted to make and sell a product. Monopolies cause companies to have no motivation whatsoever to provide fair prices for their product, to provide a very well functioning product, or to provide adequate customer service or to even provide customer service at all. Only when actual competition exists to companies have any reason to NOT charge ridiculously exorbitant prices and to make sure their product actually works.

In short, Sony and similar companies have a license to screw their customers over as much as they like and nobody can do anything about it.

You understand Sony has competition in the form of Microsoft and Nintendo right? If people don't like Sony's service with the PS3 or Vita they go buy a 360, a Wii, or a 3DS.

Sony you NEED to copy the late night anime business model.

For those of you who don't know how the anime business model works here it is.

An anime studio will make an anime and then PAY a TV station to air it in the small hours of the morning with the TV station also getting all the ad money. At this point the anime studio gets NO money they then release the anime on physical media with extras for around $90 for 2 episodes at 24 minutes each. Sure that's a lot of money but then only 3000 people need to buy the whole show for it to be profitable and IT WORKS.

So how to apply this to the Vita? it's simple release all games on digital for $10 max but keep it basic just the core game limited weapons/skins what ever then release the physical version for the regular $60 with all the extra's and what would have been DLC a bit later. The digital release then becomes a low cost trial version while the physical release will still sell as well as ever plus with the chance of additional sales of those who tried the digital version.

Now that I've written it, I've realized the cinema to DVD system is a better fit :|

immortalfrieza:

Azuaron:

immortalfrieza:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

That's not what "monopoly" means...

Copied from Dictionary.com

mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.

1. The market in question is called "video game platforms", in which there are currently 6* notable participants:
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Windows**, Android and Apple**. So at best we have an oligopol, but really, there's a healthy dose of competition going.
Control of their own platform does not constitute a monopoly.

If you want to argue "video games" rather than platforms, see 3.

* There may be other participants, but if so, their names escape me ATM
** Both Microsoft and Apple have multiple platforms, ie Windows, XBOX and WinPhone / OSX and iOS, but for the sake of brevity I lumped them together.

2. No government that I know of has officially banned gaming platforms other than one specific one in their country. Ever. So no monopoly there, either.

3. Each of the market participants has "complete" control over their respective market segments*, but that doesn't constitute a monopoly, either. Unless you want to argue that say Ford only allowing engines with specific form factors for their cars constitutes a monopoly.
So while Sony et al. may be in control over what gets released on their respective platforms, you're always able to just switch platforms. No monopoly there either.

4. Like 3, just with the respective services, i.e. PS+/XBox live/Play Store/AppStore. You're always welcome to change platforms, so no monopolies there. One _could_ in theory argue that it _should_ be possible to use PS+ on the 360, say, but that's no monopoly in a legal sense.

5. Noun used for the matter. Irrelevant.

So no, no monopoly there, as much as I dislike the current gaming industry landscape, and especially Sony.

Speaking of which... please, give me a reason to buy the Vita. Give me 5 games worth it, 5 games that my PSP can't give me. PLEASE. No? Well then, I'm going to invest my money elsewhere.
Like with the PSP before, I really _want_ to like the Vita. But the library is just too lackluster. Only bought the PSP when with KH:BBS there finally was a 5th game I wanted for the darn thing. And that was in 2010.

I like how if any of us make a post advocating piracy, it's grounds for banning, but the staff can release one and its all good

And jim, you are wrong: the Vita was always a stupid thing

On another note, if they're interested in selling me PSP games that I already own on UMD, they really need to fix the pricing scheme of that store. There isn't a logical reason in the world that Locoroco is 30 bucks while its sequel is 7. The first 3 Persona games cost 70 BUCKS. I got P3P for Vita when it was on sale for 10, so obviously they're aware of the prices and can/do change them.

This system has been driving me up a wall with every firmware update that causes more problems than the features introduced, slow as HELL download times for virtually everything, selling me last-gen games at near current-gen prices, a severe lack of titles as we sit on hold for P4 Golden, and the sparse selection of 15 YEAR old PS1 games. If I haven't been taught to avoid Sony handhelds, I've definitely been taught that it isn't worth being an early adopter.

Until game publishers, not just Sony, start selling games that are as easy, or easier, to instal and play than the pirates, piracy will remain a major problem.
I don't pirate, but then i don't play that much either, and i have left games unbought because of DRM (Diablo 3 being an example), but i can't make myself really feel too bad for the game companies when they practically beg people to not buy their stuff.

immortalfrieza:
mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.

jklinders:

immortalfrieza:

Azuaron:

That's not what "monopoly" means...

Copied from Dictionary.com

mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.

EH?

It is not having a monopoly to have exclusive rights to sell something you create. The Playstation, Vita, et al are games and systems to which Sony has ownership of. They have competition from Nintendo and Microsoft in the form of the systems and games they have ownership of. Saying that Sony has a Monopoly because only they have the right to sell a Playstation is like saying Ford has a Monopoly because only they can sell a ford model car. It's ludicrous statement. To say something like this is to have no understanding whatsoever of the definition you just quoted.

An example of a monopoly would be like in my area we have only one power utility company. One company provides the power for the entire province. That is a monopoly. They would lose that monopoly if another utility opened up and provided a similar service.

Nintendo and Microsoft provide a similar service with their own technologies therefore Sony as much as I hate those cheeky anti consumer bastards do not have a monopoly.

I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?

Sony has a monopoly because copyright and patent laws mean that unless they premit it (and they don't and probably never will) Sony and only Sony are allowed to produce and sell the PS3, PSVita, any of their other systems, as well as any games exclusive to those systems until their patents and copyrights are no longer valid, which can take years even if they don't renew them.

If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

Every episode of the Jimquisition I says to myself I says:

"I don't think I can like the next episode more than this"

And every time, one week hence, I am proven wrong. Keep on, keepin' on The Sterling Mr. Sterling, and thank God for you, Sir.

immortalfrieza:
True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

And this is, per definition, NOT a monopoly. Note this (bolding by me):

immortalfrieza:

1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.

Kumagawa Misogi:
Sony you NEED to copy the late night anime business model.

For those of you who don't know how the anime business model works here it is.

An anime studio will make an anime and then PAY a TV station to air it in the small hours of the morning with the TV station also getting all the ad money. At this point the anime studio gets NO money they then release the anime on physical media with extras for around $90 for 2 episodes at 24 minutes each. Sure that's a lot of money but then only 3000 people need to buy the whole show for it to be profitable and IT WORKS.

So how to apply this to the Vita? it's simple release all games on digital for $10 max but keep it basic just the core game limited weapons/skins what ever then release the physical version for the regular $60 with all the extra's and what would have been DLC a bit later. The digital release then becomes a low cost trial version while the physical release will still sell as well as ever plus with the chance of additional sales of those who tried the digital version.

Now that I've written it, I've realized the cinema to DVD system is a better fit :|

An even better similarity that would be, if they would release the digital versions for entirely free, just like anime is aired for free on TV.

Though there is no guarantee that it would actually work, the Anime industry itself was created in a freak accident, those expensive DVDs were intended for DVD rentals, the studios themselves were surprised that enough otaku are buying it for themselves to rely on them.

On te other hand, we also have enough proof that pirates are the largest customers in an audience, so even if they would give low prices to the physical copies, they would still sell enough to the "legal pirates" to make a profit.

Whoracle:

immortalfrieza:
True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

And this is, per definition, NOT a monopoly. Note this (bolding by me):

immortalfrieza:

1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.

You just bolded the difference between Sony and Ford. The Ford Focus is a product, not a market, where one sells products.

The PS Vita is a market.

Entitled:

Whoracle:

immortalfrieza:
True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

And this is, per definition, NOT a monopoly. Note this (bolding by me):

immortalfrieza:

1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.

You just bolded the difference between Sony and Ford. The Ford Focus is a product, not a market, where one sells products.

The PS Vita is a market.

THANK YOU!!! Somebody here actually GETS it! Was that concept really so hard to figure out?

immortalfrieza:
If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

Yes, they do have a monopoly within the bounds of their particular hardware/software cul-de-sac. But that's generally considered acceptable because they had to create that cul-de-sac from scratch and allowing the monopoly is society's way of protecting the investment that creation cost. Patents/Copyrights keep other people from simply copying their work without effort.

If that monopoly did not exist, you'd have knockoff cheaper Logitech, Panasonic, etc. PS3 consoles. Which sounds fine this time around, except that who would develop the next console with the threat of anyone and everyone being able to drop in and undercut them? R&D costs are recouped through licensing. No licensing => much less R&D. There's also the added problem of compatibility between all these different consoles. Apple can be all sleek and convenient because they exert total control over their name, domain, and devices.

There's a lot of gray area between private right and public good and patents/copyrights are one line that's been chosen.

Gatx:

immortalfrieza:

Gatx:
I'm sorry, what? A company gets to control how their own products are made and sold? This is also somehow wrong?

It's wrong when they and only they are permitted to make and sell a product. Monopolies cause companies to have no motivation whatsoever to provide fair prices for their product, to provide a very well functioning product, or to provide adequate customer service or to even provide customer service at all. Only when actual competition exists to companies have any reason to NOT charge ridiculously exorbitant prices and to make sure their product actually works.

In short, Sony and similar companies have a license to screw their customers over as much as they like and nobody can do anything about it.

You understand Sony has competition in the form of Microsoft and Nintendo right? If people don't like Sony's service with the PS3 or Vita they go buy a 360, a Wii, or a 3DS.

Whoracle:

immortalfrieza:

Azuaron:

That's not what "monopoly" means...

Copied from Dictionary.com

mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.

1. The market in question is called "video game platforms", in which there are currently 6* notable participants:
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Windows**, Android and Apple**. So at best we have an oligopol, but really, there's a healthy dose of competition going.
Control of their own platform does not constitute a monopoly.

If you want to argue "video games" rather than platforms, see 3.

* There may be other participants, but if so, their names escape me ATM
** Both Microsoft and Apple have multiple platforms, ie Windows, XBOX and WinPhone / OSX and iOS, but for the sake of brevity I lumped them together.

2. No government that I know of has officially banned gaming platforms other than one specific one in their country. Ever. So no monopoly there, either.

3. Each of the market participants has "complete" control over their respective market segments*, but that doesn't constitute a monopoly, either. Unless you want to argue that say Ford only allowing engines with specific form factors for their cars constitutes a monopoly.
So while Sony et al. may be in control over what gets released on their respective platforms, you're always able to just switch platforms. No monopoly there either.

4. Like 3, just with the respective services, i.e. PS+/XBox live/Play Store/AppStore. You're always welcome to change platforms, so no monopolies there. One _could_ in theory argue that it _should_ be possible to use PS+ on the 360, say, but that's no monopoly in a legal sense.

5. Noun used for the matter. Irrelevant.

So no, no monopoly there, as much as I dislike the current gaming industry landscape, and especially Sony.

Speaking of which... please, give me a reason to buy the Vita. Give me 5 games worth it, 5 games that my PSP can't give me. PLEASE. No? Well then, I'm going to invest my money elsewhere.
Like with the PSP before, I really _want_ to like the Vita. But the library is just too lackluster. Only bought the PSP when with KH:BBS there finally was a 5th game I wanted for the darn thing. And that was in 2010.

Mr.Tea:

immortalfrieza:
mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.

I want to know what he was googling for when he found those pictures of little boys in camouflage ....

I remember back when Vita was launched and everyone was saying "VITA WILL CRUSH 3DS!"

looks like history repeating its self, DS vs PSP = 3DS vs Vita

immortalfrieza:
I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone is telling you that you're wrong and you're insisting that the dictionary definition you provided is argument enough to make you right.

Having exclusive rights to something isn't the same as a monopoly. A monopoly is having total control over a market (fuck your shitty dictionary definition argument because it's shitty) not having a product and saying "yeah, this is our product don't steal it".

But please, continue to use your extensive business law education that you received from a dictionary to school everyone.

Entitled:

Whoracle:
[...]
Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.

You just bolded the difference between Sony and Ford. The Ford Focus is a product, not a market, where one sells products.

The PS Vita is a market.

You're right, should have made that "Manufacture Ford tires", although I'm a bit fuzzy on the licensing details on that one, i.e. if Ford let's everyone just make tires for their cars willi-nilly. Nonetheless, given this quote by immortalfrieza (bolding again by me):

immortalfrieza:
[...]
If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.[...]

This is exactly the same. He wants other companies to be able to manufacture PS3s and Vitas, not only access to the vita platform. Which is the same as manufacturing the whole car.

Your turn :)

Edit: @immortalfrieza: I do my snippage by hand when quoting. AFAIK there's no other way.

Edit 2: Just thought of another analogy:
Imagine someone has an apple orchard. He sells his apples on the market. According to you, he'd have a monopoly on his apples if he barred other people from planting their trees in his own orchard. This is not a monopoly. Or rather, it's a trivial, only-in-the-most-strict-sense-of-the-word-and-useless-as-a-definition-for-real-life monopoly. You want to play games and not be under $company1s thumb? Buy $company2s console. You've got the choice. Want to play exactly $company1s device? Then live by their rule. You chose to. You weren't forced. Thus, no monopoly.

immortalfrieza:

Azuaron:

immortalfrieza:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

That's not what "monopoly" means...

Copied from Dictionary.com

mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.

Perhaps you are confused on the definition of "commodity" or "service", then. If Sony controlled all the videogame platforms, then they would have a monopoly. But they don't; they control the Playstation platforms. Since they have substantial competition (Microsoft, Ninentendo, PC), they are not a monopoly. Saying they have a monopoly on Playstation games is like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs.

I face this arguement more times than I can stomach. I can't justifiably talk about how much more my PS3 can do vs an Xbox 360 simply due to the plain and simple fact that I have to do 3x the work, or have to wait considerably longer to get additional content for my games. I used to love Sony and can honestly say that my PSP got tons of my love. I truly miss those days. My PSP was my center of entertainment. It could store my movies, music, pictures, and had plenty of games I loved to play, and with the PSN market releasing PS1 titles that worked for both that I could even transfer save data between, I was in paradise. That was then, though. Back then, the work was fine because it was really the only portable device that could do all this and not be overly complicated for the average user. We have androids and iOS now, though. My phone can actually do everything my PSP could, do it faster, uses memory that is a standard memory unit for all devices these days, and can also provide all of the services that are available to me on my computer. I can stream movies, pay bills, and play high end games right from my phone. I had the whole thing set up to do all of this within a day. However, I've had my PS3 for years and haven't even bothered to set up many of it's other functions just because it's too much time to waste on a simple convenience or service that I can already get from something else in my house.

Mr.Tea:

immortalfrieza:
mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.

And who decided that the "gaming platform" is the category?

If Ford would buy all car manufacturers, you could still say that it's OK, it's still not a monopoly in the "car manufacturing market", because in this case let's say that the service is transportation, and they are still competiting with Airbus and Boeing in that "transportation market".

If Microsoft would buy all PC hardware manufacturers, they could say that they still don't have a computer monopoly, they only control one platform, the PC, in the consumer electronics market, but it wouldn't fly, because the PC hardware manufacturing traditionally worked as a diverse industry.

Where you draw the line between a particular product, and a larger "product group", is ultimately a subjective thing.

But consoles are one of those cases, where the "it's just a product in an even larger market" excuse is obviously abused: The PS 3, the Vita, the 360, the Wii, are all miniature economies on their own, with a large number of products being sold on them, competiting with each other, and the trademarked console hardwares are giving total control to individual companies over entire types of gaming. Entire input methods, technological abilities, and even GENRES OF AN ART FORM, are exclusively ruled by the company that first copyrighted their production method.

Veylon:

immortalfrieza:
If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

Yes, they do have a monopoly within the bounds of their particular hardware/software cul-de-sac. But that's generally considered acceptable because they had to create that cul-de-sac from scratch and allowing the monopoly is society's way of protecting the investment that creation cost. Patents/Copyrights keep other people from simply copying their work without effort.

Veylon:

If that monopoly did not exist, you'd have knockoff cheaper Logitech, Panasonic, etc. PS3 consoles. Which sounds fine this time around, except that who would develop the next console with the threat of anyone and everyone being able to drop in and undercut them?

That would better than the alterative, which is what we have now. As it stands companies like Sony can charge far more than their products than they cost to produce and provide awful service because they have no competition for their product itself.

Sure, if the aforementioned monopoly did not exist then knockoffs would flood the market, but that's a nonissue, and it would NOT mean that they'd no longer make PS4s or whatever. As long as there is a demand there would be someone providing a supply, so there would always be more PS4s and PS5s and so on. What the repeal of copyrights and patents would mean is (for the gaming industry, but it would be pretty much the same for the other industries too) only knockoffs of the PS3 (for example) that weren't very buggy and had fair prices would survive, the rest would go out of business before long, until only a few that made it through this "survival of the fittest" of PS3s would remain, providing competition for each other, ensuring fairer prices, more effective quality control and great customer service across the board.

In short, quality and price is what we're sacrificing for these patents and copyrights. Hell, it's the very reason this very Jimquisition episode was even ever necessary to make to begin with. It's not a benefit to ANYONE except that have these protections, and it pretty much allows those companies to do WHATEVER THEY FEEL LIKE.

Entitled:

Mr.Tea:

immortalfrieza:
mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.

And who decided that the "gaming platform" is the category?

If Ford would buy all car manufacturers, you could still say that it's OK, it's still not a monopoly in the "car manufacturing market", because in this case let's say that the service is transportation, and they are still competiting with Airbus and Boeing in that "transportation market".

If Microsoft would buy all PC hardware manufacturers, they could say that they still don't have a computer monopoly, they only control one platform, the PC, in the consumer electronics market, but it wouldn't fly, because the PC hardware manufacturing traditionally worked as a diverse industry.

Where you draw the line between a particular product, and a larger "product group", is ultimately a subjective thing.

But consoles are one of those cases, where the "it's just a product in an even larger market" excuse is obviously abused: The PS 3, the Vita, the 360, the Wii, are all miniature economies on their own, with a large number of products being sold on them, competiting with each other, and the trademarked console hardwares are giving total control to individual companies over entire types of gaming. Entire input methods, technological abilities, and even GENRES OF AN ART FORM, are exclusively ruled by the company that first copyrighted their production method.

*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* Bravo! ANOTHER person who actually gets the point! Thanks, I was starting to think that trying to get people to understand my point and basically that of this very Jimquistion episode was an exercise in futility.

immortalfrieza:

Mr.Tea:

immortalfrieza:
mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.

I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?

I JUST put the meaning of "monopoly" as it applies to markets around the world IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony does not fit into it? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I did pay attention to what you're saying and what jumps out is that you're using "monopoly" wrong.

I get the increasing problem of patents, copyrights, proprietary platforms, exclusivity and ownership deals dragging games down into a never ending maelstrom of legal technicalities. You want to say it's a problem that should be worked on by invalidating all of that so every game maker can start with a clean slate and be able to make whatever games they want, however they want.
But none of that changes the fact that that's not what "monopoly" means. Saying Sony has a monopoly on its own products is a tautology: "We're the only ones who make this product because we're the only ones who make this product".

You can say that ownership of patents, licenses, trademarks, etc. is bad and is the problem with modern business, and I'd be inclined to agree with you to a point, but use the right terms: Sony runs a closed platform on which they enforce too many licensing rules and it's holding back gaming.
Say that and it's your valid opinion.
Say 'Sony has a monopoly" and it's just factually wrong and people will try to correct you.

Entitled:
And who decided that the "gaming platform" is the category?

The one who thinks that companies could be sued, or, as he put it, "someone goes to jail" for monopoly practises, i.e. immortalfrieza. Also, common ground has it like this: If your frame of reference is so narrow that stepping outside it is ridiculously easy, then you need to talk about the broader picture. Yes, Sony has a monopoly on sony-created products. That is innately so. If it hadn't, the products wouldn't be sony-created. Sony also has a monopoly on licensing of their products. But, and here comes the broader picture: Thexy compete with other companies that have equal products.
After a bit of thinking I think I know where your "error" in reasoning is: You look only on the consumer part of the market. But there's another side to this: The content producers. Developers and publishers get to choose which platform they develop for. Neither Sony nor Microsoft nor anybody else browbeats them into developing for their ecosystems. If all the Devs left Sony in the dust when the PS4 gets released, Sony might be the only ones allowed to produce their console, but it wouldn't do them any good.

tl;dr: Sony can bar others from releasing for their platform, but they can't force others to release for it. Thus, they don't have a monopoly. They do not control their own market segment absolutely, let alone the bigger market of "video gaming platforms".

If Ford would buy all car manufacturers, you could still say that it's OK, it's still not a monopoly in the "car manufacturing market", because in this case the service is transportation, and they are still competiting with Airbus and Boeing in that "transportation market".

Nope, since flight and personal transportation are by their very nature different markets. Also, if Boeing and Airbus sued Ford in that event, do you think the law would let that pass? Do you think the law should let that pass? Following your line of thought to its logical extreme, Swatch would compete with Texas Instruments, since they're both in the market of "sellable goods", so no monopoly would ever be conceivable unless there was only one single company in the world. Or, on the other end of the spectrum, everything that gets manufactured and not instantly shared with the general public would be a monopoly.

If Microsoft would buy all PC hardware manufacturers, they could say that they still don't have a computer monopoly, they only control one platform, the PC, in the consumer electronics market, but it wouldn't fly, because the PC hardware manufacturing traditionally worked as a diverse industry.

Where you draw the line between a particular product, and a larger "product group", is ultimately a subjective thing.

It is, yes. Like every single law, morale and behaviour pattern that isn't born from instinct or forced upon us from an external source. There's no biological need for "you shall not kill, except for self defense", for example. It's just common ground that one part of human society has come to an agreement over. And even then there's the debate on what constitutes "self defense". Subjectivity is the crux of humankind.

But consoles are one of those cases, where the "it's just a product in an even larger market" is obviously abused: The PS 3, the Vita, the 360, the Wii, are all miniature economies on their own, with a large number of products being sold on them, competiting with each other, and the trademarked console hardwares are giving total control to individual companies over entire types of gaming. Entire input methods, technological abilities, and even GENRES OF AN ART FORM, are exclusively ruled by the company that first copyrighted their production method.

Once again: When did (for sake of example, goes for every company really) Sony abuse its market power to force devs to only develop A WHOLE GENRE OF AN ART FORM (whichever genre you meant by this) to develop it solely for their ecosystem? If they did get an exclusive genre for themselves, they did it with the exact opposite of a monopoly: They offered the devs of said genre enough of an incentive that they CHOSE to develop for Sony. More of an incentive than their competitors. Sony chose the limits of their platform(s), and the devs embraced said limits, because the incentives were there. They could just as easily have chosen the 360, PC, or Sinclair ZX Spectrum. But they didn't.

Granted, sucks to be a customer in such times, but it's. not. a. monopoly.

Huh, turned quite into a rant.

Tombi!

Fuck yeah!

I want a PSVita, but I have no way of legitimising the purchase to myself, it's just not worth it.

On an unrelated note.

Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man :D

Not a joke, seriously, you look like you've lost a few pounds.

SonOfVoorhees:
I loved the PS2, they did a great job with that. The PSP sucked, bored me to death and i sold that 4 months after i bought it. But they seem to be getting worse and worse as a company. As jim said, make something awesome and we will buy it......except that Sony thinks we should be lucky we get whatever crap they bring out. The whole "something is better than nothing" mentality. Same with the PS3, they brought it out for £500 (i think) and just expected people to buy it regardless of cost and the crappy game line up. Maybe they have become complacent as a company?

Let's not forget they then (did the same thing Jim's talking about) sandbagged the ps3 with crappy firmware updates that took value away from the machine more than add value to it. My experience with the psp & ps3 is the main reason I don't own a Vita and the reason I probably wont buy a ps4...definitely not at launch.
It really is too bad because they do make great machines that just get the worst support...like the opposite of support...what do you call that?

daxterx2005:
I remember back when Vita was launched and everyone was saying "VITA WILL CRUSH 3DS!"

looks like history repeating its self, DS vs PSP = 3DS vs Vita

I, for one, knew from the get go that the Vita would be a massive failure and take no small delight in being right... or rubbing it in the face of my two friends who were dumb enough to buy the damn thing.

Entitled:

Where you draw the line between a particular product, and a larger "product group", is ultimately a subjective thing.

Taking our increasingly screwed up litigious habits to the extreme, sure. But we're not there yet.

There's nothing subjective about Ford being in the Automotive market, and if they bought all other automakers, they would hold a monopoly. Sure slimy lawyers might argue that they're now a transportation company, but that's a plot for a bond villain. As stupid as the legal world is becoming, that would not fly today.

As for Microsoft, even if they bought all "other" PC manufacturers (nevermind the fact that they aren't even a PC manufacturer themselves), they could certainly SAY that they're now in the Consumer Electronics market but it WOULDN'T MAKE IT TRUE.
Besides, they're already repeatedly being fined in the EU for being too close to a monopoly and using that position to push Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Which led to the Windows N editions.

And the consoles? It's just the unfortunate reality that these are the only companies big enough to create their own hardware/software ecosystem and make them into mini-markets unto themselves. Hey, if you want to say that's a problem in itself, I'm right there with you. But like I said to the other guy, it still doesn't make them monopolies; Any company can still create any software they want and sell it on PCs which is exactly what's been happening with the "indie boom".

By all means, say that trademarks, copyrights and patents are getting out of hand! I'll agree with you!
Just don't use incorrect terms because that'll just make people ignore everything you said and focus on that.

Daystar Clarion:
Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man :D

Not a joke, seriously, you look like you've lost a few pounds.

Maybe! The exercise bike seen in the "Thank God for Me" episode wasn't just for show. I've been on a "Red Dwarf's worth of pretend-biking per weekday" regimen for a few months.

Thanks for noticing whatever minuscule shred of fatty-fat-fat might have disappeared as a result.

immortalfrieza:

jklinders:

immortalfrieza:

Copied from Dictionary.com

mo∑nop∑o∑ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo∑nop∑o∑lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.

EH?

It is not having a monopoly to have exclusive rights to sell something you create. The Playstation, Vita, et al are games and systems to which Sony has ownership of. They have competition from Nintendo and Microsoft in the form of the systems and games they have ownership of. Saying that Sony has a Monopoly because only they have the right to sell a Playstation is like saying Ford has a Monopoly because only they can sell a ford model car. It's ludicrous statement. To say something like this is to have no understanding whatsoever of the definition you just quoted.

An example of a monopoly would be like in my area we have only one power utility company. One company provides the power for the entire province. That is a monopoly. They would lose that monopoly if another utility opened up and provided a similar service.

Nintendo and Microsoft provide a similar service with their own technologies therefore Sony as much as I hate those cheeky anti consumer bastards do not have a monopoly.

I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?

Sony has a monopoly because copyright and patent laws mean that unless they premit it (and they don't and probably never will) Sony and only Sony are allowed to produce and sell the PS3, PSVita, any of their other systems, as well as any games exclusive to those systems until their patents and copyrights are no longer valid, which can take years even if they don't renew them.

If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.

Don't angry or uppity with me bub, just because you don't have a clue what you are saying.

It cannot be a monopoly as there are other products and services similar to what they provide out there. There is competition. there is a lot of competition. For your convenience courtesy of Wikipedia.

A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power, to charge high prices.[3] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[4]

A monopoly is distinguished from a monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations such that one or a few of the entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly), suppliers (monopsony) and the other companies (oligopoly) in a game theoretic manner - meaning that expectations about their behavior affects other players' choice of strategy and vice versa. This is to be contrasted with the model of perfect competition in which companies are "price takers" and do not have market power.

When not coerced legally to do otherwise, monopolies typically maximize their profit by producing fewer goods and selling them at higher prices than would be the case for perfect competition. Sometimes governments decide legally that a given company is a monopoly that doesn't serve the best interests of the market and/or consumers. Governments may force such companies to divide into smaller independent corporations as was the case of United States v. AT&T, or alter its behavior as was the case of United States v. Microsoft, to protect consumers.

Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by mergers. A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors by using practices (such as underselling) that derive from its market or political influence. There is often debate of whether market restrictions are in the best long-term interest of present and future consumers.[citation needed]

In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies, but they rarely provide market power. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.

I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your [i]choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.

I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you [i]implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry maybe because your slavish need for their brand saw nothing past them as alternative. I don't buy their stuff. It's rather easy. therefore there is no monopoly.

Good day sir.

Captcha take umbrage

How ironic

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here