Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Entitled:

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

Jimothy Sterling:

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.

Nevertheless, it seems to be working. Keep it up :D

Could you have stumbled across a a hidden exercise technique?

Are you motivated by this ancient hymn?

immortalfrieza:

Entitled:

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

The cost of living and producing things at a scale large enough to meet demand was quite a bit different as well. Please understand that while government allowed monopolies under copyright and patent laws can stop new ideas based on a copyrighted creation from being implemented until the original creation or idea enters into the public domain, the law has very important uses. The drive to create and provide something taking much time, effort and money would be severely crippled without a guarantee that someone else couldn't take your product or idea and sell it as their own. The law's intent was for the benefit of society while maintaining an incentive for people to make new things.

The recent changes in the lifetime of copyright laws do not leave me with a very positive outlook for where copyright law is going though. Especially in cases where the creator is not the possessor of the copyright on their creation.

The Vita is struggling and Sony should have done more homework and PR to different companies to garner more support IE Capcom for a new Resident Evil perhaps, even maybe a Devil May Cry game, Activision for a LAUNCH Call of Duty, and they should have pulled their shit together and produced a DECENT RPG at launch.
The only RPG that looks good besides Persona 4 (A fucking REMAKE, REALLY?) is Ragnarok Odyssey, and Japan got it long before the US. Which is a massive amount of horseshit. Sony needs to exercise a modicum of accessibility to all and not just Japan, however big their player/consumer base is, they also need to throw the US a few bones every now and then.
The Vita is a good machine, i love mine, it just has bugger all for titles right now. Even the announced titles are somewhat small, i realize its a launch year but still, for a new handheld that's supposed to compete with Nintendo's handheld, they're lagging in support, games and overall customer appreciation. Its just silly how they barely added PSX support. That should have been a major consideration when it was being developed. I just really hope it does better next year and they can get some more 3rd party support. That will help. It wont fix everything, but it should repair some of the larger holes in their sinking ship

Daystar Clarion:
Are you motivated by this ancient hymn?

Darn you all to heck. Now after hearing that I have to go finish watching the rest of those. I only made it through half of the episodes before I had to give the box set back to my friend, and right now I'm in the middle of trying to fill in the episodes of Doctor Who I missed (which I have clearly failed to do in time for the new ones, but oh well). One of these days I'll get caught up on everything...maybe.

Hmmm, Tomba is out now you say Jim? I think I'm going to have to go and purchase that...

OT: Right as always. Thank God for Jim.

immortalfrieza:

Entitled:

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

-Dragmire-:

The cost of living and producing things at a scale large enough to meet demand was quite a bit different as well. Please understand that while government allowed monopolies under copyright and patent laws can stop new ideas based on a copyrighted creation from being implemented until the original creation or idea enters into the public domain...

Which is a moot point since many things STILL have not entered the public domain despite it very creator being dead for decades. Copyright and patent extenstions allow the companies to keep a monopoly on their IPs for pretty much as long as their company exists, even if they no longer produce that IP anymore. Something like the PS3 could be legally unproducable by anybody but the holder for potentially decades or centuries. Sony for example still owns the rights to the PS1 system despite the PS1 being made almost 2 decades ago and they have not even produced new games for it for years now.

-Dragmire-:

The drive to create and provide something taking much time, effort and money would be severely crippled without a guarantee that someone else couldn't take your product or idea and sell it as their own. The law's intent was for the benefit of society while maintaining an incentive for people to make new things.

No, they'd have more incentive than just money to make new things and they'd have a reason to make their product's quality as high as they can possibly get it while also selling it for close to the bare minimum profit for the production costs.

So does the fact that he says that Sony deserves Pirates mean he's going to get a warning or suspension from the forum moderators?

Because that's what anyone seems to get whenever they say anything about piracy other than that it is the work of the devil's children.

Entitled:

Mr_Terrific:
Didn't watch the whole thing due to all the usual Sony bitching but, are we encouraging piracy now? It's all good as long as it's not the Humble Indie bundle, right?

Wouldn't it do more good to encourage your your viewers to simply sell off their Vitas or not buy one to begin with, instead of adding yet another excuse to the seemingly endless list of reasons why pirates don't pay for things?

Correction. Pirates pay for things.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/05/file-sharers-are-content-industrys-largest-customers/

For more things than most other people. They just do it when and how they want to.

'Cause a pirate is free.

So a pro piracy site reports on a vague study amongst a bunch of pirates...well, can't even call them that considering how it's legal to download media off the net like games,movies, in Switzerland....and that's your source? No numbers, no info on the alleged group that probably doesn't buy a ton of music/games anyway. Nothing but the word of people that take shit off the internet. Totally believable survey. Thanks Switzerland.

The next link is from a study in Norway that polled 1,900 people out of millions and millions of pirates. At least SOME numbers were given in this round of bullshit. This same article later points to another study from an unlisted number of subjects stating that soon after illegally downloading music, they bought music. What it does not state is if the music being illegally downloaded is the very same music being pirated..for example. You pirate the Beetles and buy the Stones. Someone is still getting screwed. Either way, the study only tells the story pro pirates want heard. This link also hints at another flaw with this survey. Wayyy at the bottom it says that people that are into pirating something they're interested in are more than likely to make a purchase than those that ARE DISINTERESTED in buying anything at all. So basically, these pirates were polled against people that don't buy shit anyway because they're not interested.

The most telling is your third link that clearly states that pirates pirate because things costs too much..particularly the part about video games. Normal people don't pay for things that cost too much but unlike pirates, normal don't take those things anyway. It also told me that Switzerland is the pirating capitol of the world, which makes your first link even more ridiculous.

The notion that pirates buy more things they're interested in than those that are disinterested in the same things tell me nothing. Poll a bunch of dishonest people and expect the truth...sure dude.

I'm sure you have a link in there somewhere that says that waiting for sales on full price items hurts the industry more that just downloading them for free....

zelda2fanboy:
It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.

LOL, no!

Nintendo ties your games to hardware and they still don't have an account system to manage your purchases. You can now play some of your PS1 classics on your Vita along with your PSP and PS3. How many Wii Virtual Console games can be played on your DS or 3DS?

immortalfrieza:

Entitled:

jklinders:
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

Back then people created new things because very rich people or groups paid them to, they did make them for money. The big difference between then and now is how easy it is to make an exact copy of something.

Mr_Terrific:
snip

I tend to trust those studies more than say, ubisoft, when they claim to have a 95% piracy rate.

So yeah I will trust studies more than anyone who goes "Well durr, Pirates pirate cause they is cheepos!" Unless they have some unbiased studies of their own to back it up.

Wow and I thought updating my firewall and virus programs took long. They take 20 minutes or even 30 depending on how long it's been since I didn't have them but for Sony to make it where it takes over an hour to just remove a game's memory off the device?

Whenever I download a game onto my Xbox 360, it takes 10 minutes. Deleting a game and everything else including DLC and saved slots only takes a minute. I would probably go crazy since PSP or Sony in general has it's devices take over an hour to do simple things. And I am a pretty patient person so that's saying something.

Darknacht:

immortalfrieza:

Entitled:

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

Back then people created new things because very rich people or groups paid them to, they did make them for money. The big difference between then and now is how easy it is to make an exact copy of something.

Indeed.

Patrons of the arts are almost impossible to find these days. Artists are supposed to stand on their own merits. Ironically enough it's harder than ever to do that given how easy and portable copying technology has gotten.

Ahh, the Jimquisition: saying what every other gamer on a power trip on the internet is saying.

Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Second, I feel like there's a massive disconnect between the way some people use their gaming systems and the way I use it. I have a PC and a PS3 to be clear. I don't have a Vita (or any handheld, because if I'm away from my house I'm not interested in playing a video game), but if I did, I very much doubt I would ever feel the need to have a game on both my PS3 and handheld. Even in the most hardcore, gotta-play-a-game-every-waking-moment mind set, I just can't see myself playing a game on one system only to play the same game (but on a completely different save file) on a handheld. Thoughts of "it shouldn't take this long to do x" just doesn't resonate with me because unless it's taking half an hour to boot up, I could give less of a shit. This is taking some time to download? Guess I'll go cook dinner while I wait. I can't help but feel like Jim's playing into Louis C.K's "Everything is amazing and no one's happy" bit.

Finally, sweet idea, Jim. Let's pirate the shit out of more games and put more companies putting out original products out of business because we're busy trying to make a stand on arbitrary shit like whether or not we feel a firmware update is necessary. Or that we have to guess which games work on Vita through the PS3, (because I'm sure everyone has at least 50 games or so saved to their PS3)

I love that my fucking phone can play more PS1 games than the Vita. And N64. And SNES. And GBA. And SCUMM.

And soon, DS games. I love technology. Thank God for Android.

irishda:
Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Cracks: Come with all pirated images these days. Copy and paste.

Fake servers: Actually can't comment on this one due to ignorance.

Disk image files: Open Daemon tools > "Mount image" > Select file

Emulators: Open emulator > "Open ROM" > Select file

Are you seriously telling me that's harder than Games for Windows! Live, Ubisoft's DRM, Securom or motherfucking Origin?

And for the record, no, I don't pirate. I crack/image/emulate games I own. Like playing Ocarina of Time on my phone, or Vampire: Bloodlines when I don't want to lug around 3CDs every time I want to install it.

Transferring a PS1 ROM onto my phone by downloading it then copying and pasting sounds a hell of a lot easier than the Vita method.

EDIT: Oh, and the reason it "shouldn't take this long" is because other people can do the same thing faster and more efficiently.

FelixG:

Mr_Terrific:
snip

I tend to trust those studies more than say, ubisoft, when they claim to have a 95% piracy rate.

So yeah I will trust studies more than anyone who goes "Well durr, Pirates pirate cause they is cheepos!" Unless they have some unbiased studies of their own to back it up.

The thing is, the studies you linked were not unbiased. A study was taken in what is widely recognized as the piracy capitol of the world, and that is somehow more credible than an actual developer? They gave very little details on the people involved and one of those studies clearly states that apathy was the key reason why the non p2p subjects spent less on entertainment.

Now, I generally steer clear of Ubi, particularly on the PC side, thanks to their terrible ports and the worst DRM this side of Blizzard. Because of those two reasons...well, a third being that most of Ubi's interviews are given by PR assholes that blame everything on PC, I simply ignore those titles whenever they pop up or buy them on consoles. Not pirates. They show their disapproval by pirating UBi's games which does no good whatsoever and because of UBi's bullshit, I fully believe them when they say that they're up to a 95% piracy rate.

I'm sure theirs plenty of "good" pirates out their that have "legitimate" reasons for taking whatever they want, but you also have to understand that most people will pirate simply because, a) they can, and b) they're just assholes like that...

irishda:

Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Piracy has been shown to be a service problem.

East Europe and Russia used to have the highest piracy rates, when Steam opened its doors to them, those rates dropped dramatically.

I used to be a pirate, then when I embraced Steam and GOG and Impulse and iTunes (god I miss the old Impulse :( ) I quit cold turkey, because they offered me better service than I could get from Demonoid and Piratebay.

And I have to say, compared to how things used to be, pirating was much easier, just download, install and move a file from one folder to another and bam working game, if you spent more time trying to get games running than playing them as a pirate, that says more about a persons mental capacity than it does about the process.

Now I can just click a few times and install the game and play it legally with no issue, which I much prefer doing than pirating.

So no, piracy being a service problem is not a crock of shit, you just obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Sounded more like a rail against the Vita than against Sony. This was the first episode that I had no strong feelings towards, and probably won't sway my desire to buy a Vita because I already have a backlog of games I don't even own a console for, so the point of this one was lost to me.

The one thing I did take to were the mentions of firmware and Apple. I don't understand why people will complain for hours about firmware updates when, every time I turn on my slight-old gaming rig, I have an update to preform and every month I check for the latest drivers on three different components. That's what I call updating. Also, PS Plus takes away the need to cut-out time for firmware updates as it happens in my sleep, if you have it. I believe that console gamers need to get away from the idea of instant playing and catch-up to the machine that's surpassed you: the PC.

As for Apple, I really hate that company. I own their products, yes (call me a hypocrite, fine), but I hate the amount of DRM I have to put up with and the number of times I need to throw in my password. I'd prefer to have a company that is a littler slower out of the gate (as Sony has historical been with consoles) to one that gets near overnight popularity but puts a homing device implant in your brain.

Would I like to turn on location services? Um...no.

(Sorry double post)

Mr_Terrific:
Snip

Firstly, you are quite pleasant to talk to, thank you for that ^.^

Also I didnt link those studies, that was someone else, but I firmly stand by the one from Switzerland, because back in my heady days on the high seas, I did in fact spend more money on stuff than most of my friends, anecdotal evidence, but it was true for me, so I tend not to doubt the studies veracity.

I generally steer clear of Ubi games as well, though there are some I will buy because they are of good quality (Future Fighter, Anno for example) but one thing to consider. Most console gamers dont have the same fortitude as you. Take a look at some of the recent Bethesda/Skyrim articles, you will see a number of console people proclaiming how they will only buy Bethesda products used from now on. PC gamers closest analog to that would be Piracy. In both cases the player is saying "This game is not good enough for the developers and publishers to be payed for it." And they will spend their money elsewhere.

I am not saying that there arent assholes out there who will just take whatever they can, because there are, I know some, and they are generally scummy, but I like to believe the majority are like I was, just waiting for better service from various medias.

I hope you enjoy reading my post as much as I enjoyed reading yours! ^.^

You have to feel sorry for the game devs that get their shit pirated because of Sony's weak service and devices.

Somehow this is still relevant...

I like Sony, they make good hardware. I have a PS3, a PSP, and a Sony bluray player. Their main problem is that they don't understand people. Sony has it in their head that everyone in the world is trying to cheat Sony out of money by becoming a pirate/hacker. Most people don't want to pirate and aren't going to bother trying if there is a simple service for it. Thanks to youtube and iTunes, I don't know anyone who still pirates music.

Nobody cares if hackers crack the 3DS. That is because the 3DS does what it is supposed to. Does it have good software? thanks to the 99.99% DS compatibility, yeah. Will/has it be/been cracked? probably yeah, but what are they going to make it do? play Super Mario Bros.?

Everyone wants to know when the Vita gets cracked because it doesn't have support from developers, it doesn't have support from consumers and it doesn't have support from Sony. Sony have made the device as user unfriendly as possible and hackers simply promote the Vita from practically useless to pretty good.

Freezy_Breezy:

irishda:
Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Cracks: Come with all pirated images these days. Copy and paste.

Fake servers: Actually can't comment on this one due to ignorance.

Disk image files: Open Daemon tools > "Mount image" > Select file

Emulators: Open emulator > "Open ROM" > Select file

Are you seriously telling me that's harder than Games for Windows! Live, Ubisoft's DRM, Securom or motherfucking Origin?

And for the record, no, I don't pirate. I crack/image/emulate games I own. Like playing Ocarina of Time on my phone, or Vampire: Bloodlines when I don't want to lug around 3CDs every time I want to install it.

Transferring a PS1 ROM onto my phone by downloading it then copying and pasting sounds a hell of a lot easier than the Vita method.

EDIT: Oh, and the reason it "shouldn't take this long" is because other people can do the same thing faster and more efficiently.

Uninstalls? Downloads? Updates? I've had a lot of them on a lot of different platforms. Never once have I expected them to be on some sort of standard timeframe. "ALL INSTALLS OF EVERYTHING SHOULD BE 4 MINUTES! NO MORE!" It seems rather unrealistic doesn't it?

Not to mention difficulty is a matter of relativity. Let's break down my latest install, Diablo 3.

Buy game > Download > Install > Play

As opposed to this time I acquired Rome: Total War

Search for a file I hope doesn't have a massive, crippling virus on it > Download game > Install > Download Daemon Tools > Install > Figured out what I was using it for > Play

FelixG:

irishda:

Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Piracy has been shown to be a service problem.

East Europe and Russia used to have the highest piracy rates, when Steam opened its doors to them, those rates dropped dramatically.

I used to be a pirate, then when I embraced Steam and GOG and Impulse and iTunes (god I miss the old Impulse :( ) I quit cold turkey, because they offered me better service than I could get from Demonoid and Piratebay.

And I have to say, compared to how things used to be, pirating was much easier, just download, install and move a file from one folder to another and bam working game, if you spent more time trying to get games running than playing them as a pirate, that says more about a persons mental capacity than it does about the process.

Now I can just click a few times and install the game and play it legally with no issue, which I much prefer doing than pirating.

So no, piracy being a service problem is not a crock of shit, you just obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Of course. Only the most difficult games are pirated because they're so complicated and inconvenient. Hell, let's just look at Torrentfreak's lists of the most pirated games in 2011.

PC: Crysis 2
Modern Warfare 3
Battlefield 3
FIFA 12
Portal 2

Are you fucking serious? Yeah, number 1 is something that carried DRM. But the next four are hardly known for draconian DRM. Hell, Portal 2 is the fifth most downloaded game. Portal 2. Why didn't it's availability on Steam keep the pirates from downloading it???? Could it possibly be because no matter how convenient something is, a lot of people are assholes that just want free stuff? That many pirates aren't high minded consumers protesting corporate sell-out video game companies? Nope. Can't be. I don't know what I'm talking about.

I am playing Super Mario World on my PSP because Nintendo hasn't made it available to modern handhelds.

It's a service issue.

Not a mad fan of the endorsing piracy thing,

But to be frank thats the extreme you have to go to do get these people to sit up and take notice.

Kudos to you Jim, a legend as always

"Captcha: I love you" not quite so true Jim, but i would buy you a pint

Immortal but you're contradicting yourself. Take a look at this:

immortalfrieza:
No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce trucks for instance, they just can't sell trucks under each other's brand names. Both companies are able to produce the trucks with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product.

Here's where it get interesting. Replace trucks with Video Game Consoles and you get this:

immortalfrieza:
No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce Video Game Consoles for instance, they just can't sell Video Game Consoles under each other's brand names. Both companies are able to produce the Video Game Consoles with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product.

Now if we assume that both companies refer to say Sony and Microsoft you can see why your argument doesn't hold any water.

You further go on to say

immortalfrieza:
brand names are themselves technically monopolies, but small, barely noticable ones

This argument too doesn't hold water as a brand name simply identifies the maker of said product. If we think about brands as the names of the company, I'm sure that you could see why you can't pose as another. It would be as if I made something and said that you made it. Not a problem in and of itself, but it becomes problematic when or if I start proclaiming or making things that cast you in a negative light. Going back to the companies, could you imagine if brands weren't protected and Microsoft releases the PS4 and makes it overheat on purpose to smear SONY, or vice-versa. So in short, brands are not monopolies there are identifiers of the maker of a product and are and should be protected.

Now lets take a look at your last argument:

immortalfrieza:
No, in fact, I have never said that in this entire 3 page long discussion. I said Sony has a monopoly on the PS3, PS Vita and any games that were exclusively produced for it, and if customers want said products they would have no choice but to pay whatever price Sony wants them to and deal with the shoddiness of the products and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not like there's another company out there for consumers to buy from that is legally producing and selling PS3s for cheaper and functioning better, they can't because patent and copyright laws would have them arrested if they tried, THAT is a monopoly. I NEVER said that Sony had a monopoly over the gaming industry itself, just on their products.

See this ties in nicely with my previous point about brand control. No one else can produce a PS3 because is essentially Sony's take on the truck. Some company can produce a similar product with "tweaks" (as per your car analogy), but they can't produce Sony's truck. Now if this company wants to make a ConsoleX 360-3 then more power to them, they just can't produce PS3, or any SONY product and call it that. I would like to bring up a quote you said again here since I think you put it nicely:

immortalfrieza:
Both companies are able to produce the trucks with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product.

So you can see that even you agree that because Sony and Microsoft "can and do sell the same exact product" (bar a few tweeks mentioned earlier) "they do not have a monopoly on said product".

So that's it for now. I hope the long nature of the post didn't scare you away, I tried to keep it pretty concise and organized. I still think that you don't quite understand what a monopoly is and the difference between a monopoly and brand exclusivity, but I'm hoping that the post above might be of some help in clarifying that.

Kroxile:

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.

Aye, it doesn't matter how "gr8 duh grafixx r"
Its about the games.

Jimothy Sterling:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

One may say they don't have a clue. I understand your frustration.

And thank god for Tombi. Truer words have never been said.

Darknacht:

immortalfrieza:

Entitled:

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

Back then people created new things because very rich people or groups paid them to, they did make them for money. The big difference between then and now is how easy it is to make an exact copy of something.

Really... apparently you don't know said people got paid a pittance, if they weren't just threatened or otherwise into making things for their clients for free. Artists and inventors were some of the poorest people on the planet for centuries, many weren't even recognized for their work for decades or even CENTURIES. They NEVER did it for money.

I really hope Sony get's their shit together with the PS4 but knowing them theirs probably still going to be a mountain of bullshit to overcome in order to use the damn thing to its fullest for us and developers. Thankfully from what I've learned they actually have engineers and designers from US/UK helping them with the ps4 so there is a strong chance they might finally release a device that isn't a giant pain in the ass to use.

Jim, are you advocating piracy? That is against the escapist rules.

NightHawk21:
Immortal but you're contradicting yourself. Take a look at this:

immortalfrieza:
No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce trucks for instance, they just can't sell trucks under each other's brand names. Both companies are able to produce the trucks with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product.

Here's where it get interesting. Replace trucks with Video Game Consoles and you get this:

immortalfrieza:
No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce Video Game Consoles for instance, they just can't sell Video Game Consoles under each other's brand names. Both companies are able to produce the Video Game Consoles with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product.

Now if we assume that both companies refer to say Sony and Microsoft you can see why your argument doesn't hold any water.

You further go on to say

immortalfrieza:
brand names are themselves technically monopolies, but small, barely noticable ones

This argument too doesn't hold water as a brand name simply identifies the maker of said product. If we think about brands as the names of the company, I'm sure that you could see why you can't pose as another. It would be as if I made something and said that you made it. Not a problem in and of itself, but it becomes problematic when or if I start proclaiming or making things that cast you in a negative light. Going back to the companies, could you imagine if brands weren't protected and Microsoft releases the PS4 and makes it overheat on purpose to smear SONY, or vice-versa. So in short, brands are not monopolies there are identifiers of the maker of a product and are and should be protected.

Now lets take a look at your last argument:

immortalfrieza:
No, in fact, I have never said that in this entire 3 page long discussion. I said Sony has a monopoly on the PS3, PS Vita and any games that were exclusively produced for it, and if customers want said products they would have no choice but to pay whatever price Sony wants them to and deal with the shoddiness of the products and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not like there's another company out there for consumers to buy from that is legally producing and selling PS3s for cheaper and functioning better, they can't because patent and copyright laws would have them arrested if they tried, THAT is a monopoly. I NEVER said that Sony had a monopoly over the gaming industry itself, just on their products.

See this ties in nicely with my previous point about brand control. No one else can produce a PS3 because is essentially Sony's take on the truck. Some company can produce a similar product with "tweaks" (as per your car analogy), but they can't produce Sony's truck. Now if this company wants to make a ConsoleX 360-3 then more power to them, they just can't produce PS3, or any SONY product and call it that. I would like to bring up a quote you said again here since I think you put it nicely:

immortalfrieza:
Both companies are able to produce the trucks with their own personal tweeks and sell them for whatever price and at whatever quality they wish, but since both companies can and do sell the same exact product they do not have a monopoly on said product.

So you can see that even you agree that because Sony and Microsoft "can and do sell the same exact product" (bar a few tweeks mentioned earlier) "they do not have a monopoly on said product".

So that's it for now. I hope the long nature of the post didn't scare you away, I tried to keep it pretty concise and organized. I still think that you don't quite understand what a monopoly is and the difference between a monopoly and brand exclusivity, but I'm hoping that the post above might be of some help in clarifying that.

The problem with your claim I contradict myself is that I don't, Sony has a monopoly on the PS3 and any games that run on it. Nobody is able, at least without extensive modding only a select few people know how to do properly without breaking the console in the process, and even then the console often ends up a buggy mess, and which is also illegal to do, to play a PS3 exclusive game in a Xbox 360 or a Wii, they simply wouldn't function, at all, and even in the off chance they did they probably wouldn't respond to a different controller input. Even the games that aren't exclusives aren't capable of running on each console platform because that PS3 game disc have protections on it that prevent that from being possible. Sony doesn't provide patches and customer service for any games that aren't on their platform either but they don't have a monopoly on services for that because it's legal for modders to create and distribute patches of their own as well as provide assistance to PS3 customers.

Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft have a monopoly on their respective consoles and all games exclusive to them because they don't sell the exact same product, even though both use similar technology and they operate in the same industry. For another analogy, it would be as if there are only 2 DVD player manufacturers that exist (for whatever reason, just go with it) and one manufacturers' DVD player was because of IP law only capable of playing say, half the DVDs on the planet and the other was only capable of playing the other half, and no other DVD manufacturer was ever able to make a DVD player that played either side's DVDs until the patent was up or with permission from the patent holders, then they'd each have a monopoly on the DVDs on each side and the product itself, despite the fact that they both provide a means of playing DVDs, they don't provide a means of playing ALL DVDs nor will they allow anyone else including each other to provide that DVD players that provide the ability to play either set of DVDs or both but them.

To answer the truck analogy, Ford and Toyota don't have a monopoly on trucks because each and every truck is capable hauling the same amount of stuff in the back more or less as another truck and more or less able to drive for the same distance too. One might be more or less effective at hauling than the other company's truck, but they still can, which is the companies personal tweeks I referred to earlier. They both provide a product with the same capabilities, the only difference is one is better or worse at providing that capability than the other.

Now, if a Ford truck was only able (for whatever reason) to haul say water (for example) while the Toyota truck was only able to haul wood and they would not permit anyone including each other to make trucks that have the capablity to haul water or wood or wood without their permission, THEN they'd have a monopoly.

immortalfrieza:

No, in fact, I have never said that in this entire 3 page long discussion. I said Sony has a monopoly on the PS3, PS Vita and any games that were exclusively produced for it, and if customers want said products they would have no choice but to pay whatever price Sony wants them to and deal with the shoddiness of the products and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not like there's another company out there for consumers to buy from that is legally producing and selling PS3s for cheaper and functioning better, they can't because patent and copyright laws would have them arrested if they tried, THAT is a monopoly. I NEVER said that Sony had a monopoly over the gaming industry itself, just on their products.

How can a company have a monopoly on its own products? Does Apple have a monopoly on the iPhone as well?

You're saying Sony should allow other companies to produce and sell their systems. Why would they do that? There is no obligation for them to license their original IPs for cloning. Also, that would probably be worse for the consumer, since you'd have to do background research to find out which "type" of PS3/Vita you want to buy, which manufacturers make the best quality hardware, which ones offer warranties, which ones offer the best price, etc.

The products that Sony has made are proprietary hardware and software that they developed themselves. In the case of MiniDisc (another proprietary Sony tech), Sony licensed the tech to other manufacturers. That's why you could buy differently-branded MiniDisc players. But in the case of PS3/Vita, Sony has no incentive (or obligation) to license the tech. That doesn't mean they have a monopoly on it, though.

 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