Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza:
Nope, because there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

I'm really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.

Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):

immortalfrieza:
They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Never mind

NightHawk21:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza:
Nope, because there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

I'm really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.

Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.

NightHawk21:

Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):

immortalfrieza:
They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions. If they were legally capable of the exact same functions, then there would be no monopoly on Sony or anybody's part.

Immortal most of that reply didn't make sense and its restating the same thing I refuted in my first post. Let get something start, something that if you want to try to convince me otherwise needs to be addressed.

Firstly what you are saying is a monopoly is NOT a monopoly. It is not even close to a monopoly, and to call it a monopoly is wrong based on the very definition of the word.

Secondly, I am getting the impression that you are blinded by some sort of Sony hate, because identical or even worse practices by other companies you are dismissing (like the Apple examples which are completely false and biased). If this is the case that's fine. I'm not claiming you have to love Sony, but to discount any other non-sony evidence is not doing your arguments any favours.

Now going back to your arguments

immortalfrieza:

NightHawk21:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza:
Nope, because there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

I'm really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.

Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.

To start, no one can make an iPhone like product, and the last company who apple claimed to have tried, namely Samsung (whose phones are not really all that similar and run the Android OS I believe) was sued internationally and had their phones banned. Then we get to this sentence sentence:

immortalfrieza:
If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.

This sentence doesn't make any sense, and I no idea what you are trying to say. What I can say is that if the product are in direct competetion (both being smart phones for example) regardless of any exclusive software on each, this is again NOT A MONOPOLY (the main thing you are wrong about).

immortalfrieza:

NightHawk21:

Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):

immortalfrieza:
They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions.

No, no that would never work. Hardware aside (because neither of the three have identical hardware), the software that runs that hardware is completely different. Its the same reason I can't buy a Windows disc and expect to run flawlessly in a Mac OS. This is not a monopoly and has nothing to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with how the system handles the information on the disc.

Here's what you have to understand. In a competitive market a monopoly only happens when the object is the only available product of its kind with NO similar products. Yes the 360 and the wii are different products and they have some different functions, but at their core they are similar products who do one thing and as such are competing, and because they are competing, and this is tricky so hold on to your seat, none of their parent companies has a monopoly. They have copyright protection over the names of their products and any hardware they have developed, which they may license but are under no legal obligation to do so, and I doubt in fact that any company has approached to buy the license anyways.

I don't know how else to explain that you are wrong and have a misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Read the wikipedia page (I've linked it for you) and I suppose I could recommend you make a conscious effort to educate yourself about what a monopoly is and why what you are saying is false. Here is a sentence I think you really need to consider:
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."
You'll noticed I bolded "viable substitute goods", which is the main error in your misundertanding of what a monopoly is. In fact if anything I would say that not only are there viable goods, but based off sales, their are superior goods on the market that are in direct competition.

Wiki URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

NightHawk21:
Immortal most of that reply didn't make sense and its restating the same thing I refuted in my first post. Let get something start, something that if you want to try to convince me otherwise needs to be addressed.

Firstly what you are saying is a monopoly is NOT a monopoly. It is not even close to a monopoly, and to call it a monopoly is wrong based on the very definition of the word.

Secondly, I am getting the impression that you are blinded by some sort of Sony hate, because identical or even worse practices by other companies you are dismissing (like the Apple examples which are completely false and biased). If this is the case that's fine. I'm not claiming you have to love Sony, but to discount any other non-sony evidence is not doing your arguments any favours.

Now going back to your arguments

immortalfrieza:

NightHawk21:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

I'm really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.

Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.

To start, no one can make an iPhone like product, and the last company who apple claimed to have tried, namely Samsung (whose phones are not really all that similar and run the Android OS I believe) was sued internationally and had their phones banned. Then we get to this sentence sentence:

immortalfrieza:
If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.

This sentence doesn't make any sense, and I no idea what you are trying to say. What I can say is that if the product are in direct competetion (both being smart phones for example) regardless of any exclusive software on each, this is again NOT A MONOPOLY (the main thing you are wrong about).

immortalfrieza:

NightHawk21:

Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):

Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions.

No, no that would never work. Hardware aside (because neither of the three have identical hardware), the software that runs that hardware is completely different. Its the same reason I can't buy a Windows disc and expect to run flawlessly in a Mac OS. This is not a monopoly and has nothing to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with how the system handles the information on the disc.

Here's what you have to understand. In a competitive market a monopoly only happens when the object is the only available product of its kind with NO similar products. Yes the 360 and the wii are different products and they have some different functions, but at their core they are similar products who do one thing and as such are competing, and because they are competing, and this is tricky so hold on to your seat, none of their parent companies has a monopoly. They have copyright protection over the names of their products and any hardware they have developed, which they may license but are under no legal obligation to do so, and I doubt in fact that any company has approached to buy the license anyways.

I don't know how else to explain that you are wrong and have a misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Read the wikipedia page (I've linked it for you) and I suppose I could recommend you make a conscious effort to educate yourself about what a monopoly is and why what you are saying is false. Here is a sentence I think you really need to consider:
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."
You'll noticed I bolded "viable substitute goods", which is the main error in your misundertanding of what a monopoly is. In fact if anything I would say that not only are there viable goods, but based off sales, their are superior goods on the market that are in direct competition.

Wiki URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

The first 2 sentences of the wikipedia article that you linked to alone prove me correct.

"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. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."

The commodity or service that I am referring to in this thread is the capability to run PS3 games, (which as I have been saying all along that capability is a commodity in itself) and the enterprise which is the only supplier of that commodity for which I have been using the PS3 as an example is Sony. Sony has a monopoly because it is the only enterprise legally allowed to make the PS3 or any other console capable of running PS3 games. A "viable substitute good" would be another console legally made and sold by someone else besides Sony that is capable of playing PS3 games.

I'm using Sony and the PS3 as my example because both because that's the company under scrutiny in this Jimquistion episode and it's easier than trying to argue my point with all 3 major video game companies and their consoles at once, but yes, it does apply to Nintendo and Microsoft, it is not hatedom for Sony on my part, they have the same monopoly on their products as well, and it's just as bad with them as it is with Sony.

Oh, and I have to keep reiterating my point over and over because you and others seem to believe that I have been saying that Sony has is "the only supplier of a particular commodity" (translation: Sony has a monopoly over all video games) in the entire video game industy, which I have never said in this thread in any way, shape, or form. All of you guys keep arguing against a point I never actually made, and I keep restating the point I have always made in this thread from the very beginning in the hopes that some of you will actually see and start arguing against or in favor of the point I actually have been making.

Nurb:
I think the games industry is the only one that gets away with treating paying customers like utter shit, and people eagerly defending the shitty treatment they get for fear they might get even shittier.

Well, yes and no. A good part of the problem is simply that the gaming industry has been patient in sticking with it's changes. Most of the consumers who complain about the practices are older folks who have been gaming for decades in many cases, and know better. A lot of the people defending what's going on do so out of ignorance, never having done things any other way. Consider that 5 or 6 years is enough time for a 12 year old to grow into a 17 or 18 year old with their own money to spend, and if they have been gaming using money from part time jobs or more likely having their parents buy games from them, they see nothing wrong with the business model because it's how things have always been, they are used to digital.

A big part of the problem is that gamers want to game, and with the youth outnumbering the "old" guard (and not being known for it's patience) your dealing with people who don't really want to be educated because accepting the truth and putting their foot down would ultimatly mean not getting the latest game(s) they want to play. Some kid with a part time job wants that $60 toy to play with, and like most kids and young adults doesn't care if it's the right thing or good for them in the long run, especially when the issues go beyond the product itself.

The game industry bided it's time to create a situation where sensible customers are actually a minority. What's more it's cleverly worked to do things like blur the distinction between serious gamers and casuals. To the gaming industry a "serious" gamer is anyone they can sell a product to by calling them one. The industry gets away with recycling shooters and such for the same basic reason Zynga hit gold with their repetitive "Ville" series, casual products aimed at the lowest common denominator, it's just that shooters are aimed at a differant face of that, people who can consider themselves hardcore if people tell them these are serious games despite the fact that a 9 year old can learn to play them with a degree of skill (and which contributes to all of the little kids infesting XBL servers, the "M" rating doesn't mean the game is actually designed so it takes a mature player). As a result the gaming industry has created a crop of players it can routinely manipulate and harvest, who are also used to all the scams. For a lot of kids and young adults going without the next "Madden" or "Call Of Duty" is an anathema, and why should they be upset over the quality if it's always been repetitive, and why should they care about not controlling the property when they never did, or feel slighted about paying for tons of DLC at inflated prices, when as far as they can see games always worked that way.

The beast being dealt with is a bit harder to deal with than Jim and others give it credit for, and there are reasons why there is so much infighting between gamers, like it or not customers who will not demand more because they don't even see the problem are as big a part of the equasion as the game industry itself.

NightHawk21:
Immortal most of that reply didn't make sense and its restating the same thing I refuted in my first post. Let get something start, something that if you want to try to convince me otherwise needs to be addressed.

Firstly what you are saying is a monopoly is NOT a monopoly. It is not even close to a monopoly, and to call it a monopoly is wrong based on the very definition of the word.

Secondly, I am getting the impression that you are blinded by some sort of Sony hate, because identical or even worse practices by other companies you are dismissing (like the Apple examples which are completely false and biased). If this is the case that's fine. I'm not claiming you have to love Sony, but to discount any other non-sony evidence is not doing your arguments any favours.

Now going back to your arguments

immortalfrieza:

NightHawk21:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

I'm really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.

Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.

To start, no one can make an iPhone like product, and the last company who apple claimed to have tried, namely Samsung (whose phones are not really all that similar and run the Android OS I believe) was sued internationally and had their phones banned. Then we get to this sentence sentence:

immortalfrieza:
If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.

This sentence doesn't make any sense, and I no idea what you are trying to say. What I can say is that if the product are in direct competetion (both being smart phones for example) regardless of any exclusive software on each, this is again NOT A MONOPOLY (the main thing you are wrong about).

immortalfrieza:

NightHawk21:

Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):

Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions.

No, no that would never work. Hardware aside (because neither of the three have identical hardware), the software that runs that hardware is completely different. Its the same reason I can't buy a Windows disc and expect to run flawlessly in a Mac OS. This is not a monopoly and has nothing to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with how the system handles the information on the disc.

Here's what you have to understand. In a competitive market a monopoly only happens when the object is the only available product of its kind with NO similar products. Yes the 360 and the wii are different products and they have some different functions, but at their core they are similar products who do one thing and as such are competing, and because they are competing, and this is tricky so hold on to your seat, none of their parent companies has a monopoly. They have copyright protection over the names of their products and any hardware they have developed, which they may license but are under no legal obligation to do so, and I doubt in fact that any company has approached to buy the license anyways.

I don't know how else to explain that you are wrong and have a misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Read the wikipedia page (I've linked it for you) and I suppose I could recommend you make a conscious effort to educate yourself about what a monopoly is and why what you are saying is false. Here is a sentence I think you really need to consider:
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."
You'll noticed I bolded "viable substitute goods", which is the main error in your misundertanding of what a monopoly is. In fact if anything I would say that not only are there viable goods, but based off sales, their are superior goods on the market that are in direct competition.

Wiki URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Don't bother.

He's really talking about intellectual property rights and freedom to pirate and is using a deliberate misunderstanding of the term monopoly to hide it from the mods. His selective reading and cherry picking of ideas and facts will not allow him a different understanding.

jklinders:
snip

Don't bother.

He's really talking about intellectual property rights and freedom to pirate and is using a deliberate misunderstanding of the term monopoly to hide it from the mods. His selective reading and cherry picking of ideas and facts will not allow him a different understanding.[/quote]

Ya I give up. He's either ignorant or he's acting ignorant on purpose. Either way I give up. If he wants to be wrong I'll let him. Shit if it'll make him feel better he can chalk this up as a personal win for himself if he wants, I just don't care anymore.

"I love my Vita, and I want it to do well."

This is the basic attitude that I think allows companies to think they can just get away with doing whatever the fuck, to whomever the fuck, whenever the fuck they want without any repercussions or loss, because geeks and nerds will hang on to something and struggle in vain to try to make the purchase somehow seem like a justified or worthy action, no matter how much observable reality proves otherwise. If something is shit, don't buy it. If you already own it because you took the gamble upon it and it turns out to be shit or have shitty service such to render it unusable, then just dump it and move on to something else that works better. Don't keep hanging on in some vain hope that the situation will magically change just because you will it to be so. Just take it on the cheek as a loss and move on to something else. It's not worth the continued waste of time, effort, and blood-pressure pills trying to make a piece-of-shit be anything other than a piece-of-shit (I realize the hardware itself is not a piece-of-shit, but hardware without software and a proper ecosystem of services is nothing but an expensive, fancy door-stop or paperweight). If a company is not going to take an interest in their own product to ensure its success, there is absolutely no reason for you, as a consumer, to bend yourself over the railing. Write it off and move on. If a company continuously puts out shitty products and provides shitty service, don't waste energy bitching about them, just stop buying from them. You're not hurting anyone but yourself to do otherwise, and no one is going to have sympathy for blind idiocy.

Honestly, until the gaming market finally learns to actually punish companies providing poor service and poor products with no sales, this kind of thing will only continue or get worse. As I continue to say, companies hear and understand only two sounds (ever!), the creek of your wallet opening and the slap of your wallet closing. All other sounds are just noise to be ignored. You can bitch until you are blue-in-the-face and die of asphyxiation; however, if you keep throwing your money at these companies, they have no real reason to change one iota to appease you. It's not until the money flow stops that they finally go "Oh SHIT! We need to treat our customers better!".

Therumancer:
Better products aren't really an issue, because the Japanese will buy Japanese products and from Sony before they purchuse better products from other markets as a matter of national and racial pride. Very similar to how people tell you to buy American in the US, except they actually do it.

Hey, that's not fair. It's not our fault all the corporations outsourced everything to China and Mexico. How can Americans buy American when their choices are "Made in China" or not buying anything at all?

Nurb:
I think the games industry is the only one that gets away with treating paying customers like utter shit, and people eagerly defending the shitty treatment they get for fear they might get even shittier.

Which is actually why they do get treated even shittier: Company pulls something shitty, people surprisingly defend it, company tries something even shittier next time, people surprisingly defend THAT too...

Well, if you can call "if you don't like it don't buy it" a defense. I think everyone who uses that should be put in a dark room and beaten, myself. Buy it or not buy it, we still have every right to complain about it if it's shit.

It just baffles my why a company would not release older games that people love on their handehelds, it just seems like free money to me.

I'm....kinda amused that he singled out Tomba for attention myself. I own a copy of the game from my PS1 days. I was always *very* annoyed that it was one of the 'American List of 15' for the PS2...

(for the youngsters who don't know what I'm talking about: When the PS2 was released in Japan, there was a list of 15 PS1 games that didn't work on it for various reasons, mostly related to not adhering properly to the API and calling hardware directly, which broke when that hardware was moved around under the PS2 backwards compatibility as compared to the original hardware. When the PS2 came out in the US, there was a *different* List of 15, and Tomba was one of the games on it. It would load up the title screen and the eyecatch animation video, but when you tried to actually *play*, it locked up.)

immortalfrieza:
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!!

Congratulations. You have written the stupidest thing I have read in... I don't even know how long.

By your definition there, if I write a book, I have a monopoly over my book... in that nobody else can write my book and "compete" with my book (the specific words I used in the exact order I used them in).

Don't misunderstand (though I'm 100% sure you will), I get what you're desperately trying to say... but you're still absolutely wrong in calling BRANDS or INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES monopolies.

People who make products using another company's brand are called counterfeiters, not competitors... unless you think counterfeiting is a legitimate practice?

OuroborosChoked:

immortalfrieza:
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!!

Congratulations. You have written the stupidest thing I have read in... I don't even know how long.

By your definition there, if I write a book, I have a monopoly over my book... in that nobody else can write my book and "compete" with my book (the specific words I used in the exact order I used them in).

Don't misunderstand (though I'm 100% sure you will), I get what you're desperately trying to say... but you're still absolutely wrong in calling BRANDS or INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES monopolies.

People who make products using another company's brand are called counterfeiters, not competitors... unless you think counterfeiting is a legitimate practice?

Call it whatever you want, as long as you get the basic point I've been making I don't really care WHAT you want to call it.

mjc0961:

Therumancer:
Better products aren't really an issue, because the Japanese will buy Japanese products and from Sony before they purchuse better products from other markets as a matter of national and racial pride. Very similar to how people tell you to buy American in the US, except they actually do it.

Hey, that's not fair. It's not our fault all the corporations outsourced everything to China and Mexico. How can Americans buy American when their choices are "Made in China" or not buying anything at all?

Nurb:
I think the games industry is the only one that gets away with treating paying customers like utter shit, and people eagerly defending the shitty treatment they get for fear they might get even shittier.

Which is actually why they do get treated even shittier: Company pulls something shitty, people surprisingly defend it, company tries something even shittier next time, people surprisingly defend THAT too...

Well, if you can call "if you don't like it don't buy it" a defense. I think everyone who uses that should be put in a dark room and beaten, myself. Buy it or not buy it, we still have every right to complain about it if it's shit.

Not to mention that those so called wallet voters are such a tiny blip on any video game companies profit margins when compared to the blind fanboys and casuals that it never accomplishes anything to vote with their wallets anyway.

NightHawk21:

jklinders:
snip

Don't bother.

He's really talking about intellectual property rights and freedom to pirate and is using a deliberate misunderstanding of the term monopoly to hide it from the mods. His selective reading and cherry picking of ideas and facts will not allow him a different understanding.

NightHawk21:

Ya I give up. He's either ignorant or he's acting ignorant on purpose. Either way I give up. If he wants to be wrong I'll let him. Shit if it'll make him feel better he can chalk this up as a personal win for himself if he wants, I just don't care anymore.

"Either way I give up. If he wants to be wrong I'll let him." I can say the same. You all have been arguing over the definition of the word monopoly, a tiny, insignificant detail that nobody should even notice much less care about, instead of the actual point I was making by using that word.

You all can call this a victory for yourselves since you got me completely sidetracked from the point I was originally making when I first posted on this thread with that meanless and pointless arguing over what is and what isn't a monopoly.

All of this talk about monopoly makes me want to play the board game.

immortalfrieza:

OuroborosChoked:

immortalfrieza:
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!!

Congratulations. You have written the stupidest thing I have read in... I don't even know how long.

By your definition there, if I write a book, I have a monopoly over my book... in that nobody else can write my book and "compete" with my book (the specific words I used in the exact order I used them in).

Don't misunderstand (though I'm 100% sure you will), I get what you're desperately trying to say... but you're still absolutely wrong in calling BRANDS or INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES monopolies.

People who make products using another company's brand are called counterfeiters, not competitors... unless you think counterfeiting is a legitimate practice?

Call it whatever you want, as long as you get the basic point I've been making I don't really care WHAT you want to call it.

I'd love to call it Intellectual Property.

What you're suggesting actually exists in practice in some parts of the world. In China (where I currently live), knockoffs abound. There is total freedom of choice to buy a Sony-manufactured PSP, or a multitude of others made by local Chinese companies. A mind-boggling amount of replicas are out there. In reality, the consumer only has a binary decision: the "real" one, or a "fake" one. Not sure how this scenario would play out in the US, but in China, I don't see too many people walking around with knockoffs -- unless you're counting designer handbags.

ThatGuy:

immortalfrieza:

OuroborosChoked:

Congratulations. You have written the stupidest thing I have read in... I don't even know how long.

By your definition there, if I write a book, I have a monopoly over my book... in that nobody else can write my book and "compete" with my book (the specific words I used in the exact order I used them in).

Don't misunderstand (though I'm 100% sure you will), I get what you're desperately trying to say... but you're still absolutely wrong in calling BRANDS or INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES monopolies.

People who make products using another company's brand are called counterfeiters, not competitors... unless you think counterfeiting is a legitimate practice?

Call it whatever you want, as long as you get the basic point I've been making I don't really care WHAT you want to call it.

I'd love to call it Intellectual Property.

What you're suggesting actually exists in practice in some parts of the world. In China (where I currently live), knockoffs abound. There is total freedom of choice to buy a Sony-manufactured PSP, or a multitude of others made by local Chinese companies. A mind-boggling amount of replicas are out there. In reality, the consumer only has a binary decision: the "real" one, or a "fake" one. Not sure how this scenario would play out in the US, but in China, I don't see too many people walking around with knockoffs -- unless you're counting designer handbags.

If those knockoffs weren't in some way preferable to the Sony manufactured ones then those knockoffs wouldn't even exist, the people that make those various knockoffs would go out of business. The reason that competition like those knockoffs provide even if it's poor competition is that it gives a company an incentive to sell their product as cheap as they can make it and as well functioning as it is possible for them to make, in order to make sure the knockoffs aren't the ones getting all the sales.

immortalfrieza:

If those knockoffs weren't in some way preferable to the Sony manufactured ones then those knockoffs wouldn't even exist, the people that make those various knockoffs would go out of business. The reason that competition like those knockoffs provide even if it's poor competition is that it gives a company an incentive to sell their product as cheap as they can make it and as well functioning as it is possible for them to make, in order to make sure the knockoffs aren't the ones getting all the sales.

I see your point. I guess we're really talking about two different things: licensed copies, and counterfeit copies. Counterfeit copies basically only exist for people who can't afford the real thing, and for people who are tricked into thinking it's the real thing.

The way I read it, you're taking Google's side in the whole "open vs. closed" debate with Apple. One side offers a reliably predictable user experience (iPhone), and the other lets the market decide who has the best product (Android).

poor sony its become the fat, sick walrus seperated from the herd and is being slowly picked off by the sleak mega apple beast

ThatGuy:

immortalfrieza:

If those knockoffs weren't in some way preferable to the Sony manufactured ones then those knockoffs wouldn't even exist, the people that make those various knockoffs would go out of business. The reason that competition like those knockoffs provide even if it's poor competition is that it gives a company an incentive to sell their product as cheap as they can make it and as well functioning as it is possible for them to make, in order to make sure the knockoffs aren't the ones getting all the sales.

I see your point. I guess we're really talking about two different things: licensed copies, and counterfeit copies. Counterfeit copies basically only exist for people who can't afford the real thing, and for people who are tricked into thinking it's the real thing.

The way I read it, you're taking Google's side in the whole "open vs. closed" debate with Apple. One side offers a reliably predictable user experience (iPhone), and the other lets the market decide who has the best product (Android).

I've been talking about how licensed (read:legal) copies of the Sony products have only one legal source they can be produced and sold from at the very start of this before I ended up distracted by that "IPs are monopolies!" "No they're not!" nonsense.

If I want to play PS Vita games and the only place I can legally get a system that runs PS Vita games is someplace endorsed by Sony, what motivation does Sony really have to make sure that it's product is of a price that is reasonable to me and it even functions all that well? The only place I can get a PSV is from them, so they can overcharge me for a piece of tech that barely works and provide me poor if any customer service, and the only thing I can do about it is just not get a PSV at all. My choices shouldn't be limited to "suck to up and deal with it" or "shut up and get the hell out."

And this is a industry wide problem.

EA:"you don't like the fact that ME3 has locked away on-disc DLC and having to pay for it? Well, I don't see anybody else making a version of ME3 with that on-disc DLC unlocked for free who isn't behind bars, and nobody ever will, so deal with it or sit down and shut up!"

Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft: "You don't like how much our systems/games cost? Well boo hoo! If you want it and don't want to get arrested just shut up and give us your money!"

Just about everybody: "You're pissed that we make you pay out the nose for crappy products and services? What's that? You're going to boycott our products? HA! We both know you'll cave and buy it anyway in the end, and even if you don't, fine, we'll just sell it to any of these millions of idiots that are happy just to have our products regardless of what they have to go through to get it. Also, don't bother complaining to us, we'll just stick our fingers in our ears and go LALALALALALA!!! So you can just f*** off."

It may not be technically a monopoly, (and I still maintain that it is, but let's drop that) but I don't know what else you would call this kind of situation.

immortalfrieza:

Just about everybody: "You're pissed that we make you pay out the nose for crappy products and services? What's that? You're going to boycott our products? HA! We both know you'll cave and buy it anyway in the end, and even if you don't, fine, we'll just sell it to any of these millions of idiots that are happy just to have our products regardless of what they have to go through to get it. Also, don't bother complaining to us, we'll just stick our fingers in our ears and go LALALALALALA!!! So you can just f*** off."

Finally, we're on the same page. Every time I walk into McDonald's I think "why the hell can't I order a Whopper here; that shit is tastier than a Big Mac!"

Didn't Jim already do a video on companies needing to provide a better service than the pirates? Oh well, I never tire of hearing it. Good work, Jim.

As I really like gaming as a fun solo and social pastime activity (amongst others), I generally do not condone piracy.

However, very generally put, when I am confronted with invasive or nonsensical DRM or 'installation activation' or other artificial limitations, I have little inhibitions to buy the game I want and then install it without the DRM components... yeah, that's PC only, sadly.

On consoles, I've wasted plenty of money on games that plain sucked - that could have been my fault for not researching beforehand.

The limitations of the Sony consumerist microcosm in particular are a massive escapist turn-off, though.

I do not own a Vita, I no longer own a PSP. But what is going on with the retro gaming offering on PS3/PSN/SEN is just really, really poor. About three quarters of our physically available, disc-based collection we can't play on our last 60GB retro-compatible PS3... because of regional lockout. Those that do work look really, really poor. PSX and PS2 emulators on PC are mind-blowingly shiny and... perfect, in direct comparison. That's sad.

Pretty much all the digital-only retro titles we bought all over the world (depending on locale at any given time) were huge disappointments, and we cannot get rid of them. They just sit in our accounts, annoying us. Not just because of the sloppy and half-hearted implementation/presentation, but - depending on locale and Playstation Store used - we've repeatedly felt cheated with a sort of sleight-of-hand scam. Never buy games in non-English speaking Playstation Stores and expect to get the original title you wanted. It's cool for a spontaneous group giggle the first time around, but it gets really old and sad and frustrating after that. Squashed graphics (no thoughts about proper 4:3->16:9 ratio handling), total lack of scanline emulation and localized versions of games you once loved are a quick path to a blackened heart and a wallet sewn shut.

mjc0961:

Therumancer:
Better products aren't really an issue, because the Japanese will buy Japanese products and from Sony before they purchuse better products from other markets as a matter of national and racial pride. Very similar to how people tell you to buy American in the US, except they actually do it.

Hey, that's not fair. It's not our fault all the corporations outsourced everything to China and Mexico. How can Americans buy American when their choices are "Made in China" or not buying anything at all?

Nurb:
I think the games industry is the only one that gets away with treating paying customers like utter shit, and people eagerly defending the shitty treatment they get for fear they might get even shittier.

Which is actually why they do get treated even shittier: Company pulls something shitty, people surprisingly defend it, company tries something even shittier next time, people surprisingly defend THAT too...

Well, if you can call "if you don't like it don't buy it" a defense. I think everyone who uses that should be put in a dark room and beaten, myself. Buy it or not buy it, we still have every right to complain about it if it's shit.

Actually, I tend to disagree, most things in the US are made in Mexico and China, this is true, but there ARE American-made equivilents to most products, they are just harder to find because they are taking a beating due to cheaper goods. Things like fair pay, workers rights, medical insurance, etc... all raise the price. American business takes a beating largely because the working conditions in other countries allow for the cheaper manufacture of products.

This is getting into a major tangent, but the point here is that I stand by my original statements. Also as it applies to this discussion, a big part of the issue when it comes to companies like Sony is that since they can rely on Japan to buy Japanese unlike most other markets, they always have a strong market for things like video games to retreat into, which very much affects their business strategy and how much they are willing to try and actually compete with other products. Of course a big part of the "problem" is also racism and nationalism those kinds of sentiments fuel a kind of economic behavior that more tolerant nations like the USA (that tend to actually believe other nations are if anything more tolerant than we are) can't get their head around. Japan's wierd combination of worship and utter hate for the USA means that guesses of what they are going to do based on what they should do kind of irrelevent, since it's not entirely rational, both in how they choose to export, and what products they support domestically.

ive always been a supporter of sony, but jim is absolutely right, the suck towards their customers.

If Jim Sterling were a user on the Escapist he'd be banned for promoting piracy.

But since he's sponsored, he has the ability to ability to say what other users here want to but can't.

So thank God for Jim.

I've actually just got PS+ for the second time, today... And I have to say, the downloading takes for-fucking-ever! And I agree with the 'download and install' bullcrap. I believe it's easier to "Open" and then "Install" as many of us do when downloading a new piece of software from the internet. So, instead of having to download the game, then separately telling my PS3 to install it, why not just do Open+Install?

I'm too much of a Old School PS fan to call PS bad~ I've always preferred their (quite badly placed) services to other consoles in the games industry. (Not to say my PC doesn't make me moist by it's endless mods and juicy discounted from Steam). Though honestly don't understand my PSP to my PS3. I will admit, Sony take the piss when it comes to downloading, installing and etc. because I think in their minds someone might've suggested putting a "Custom how-to-download" area in the settings, but sadly they believe that 5 year-olds are going to be playing more CoD than teenagers and alternatively gave-up. That was a long sentence and probably was confusing... My point is: Sony piss me off with how they set everything up! And before Xbox gamers say that the 360 is better, IT'S NOT. I sold my Xbox. Maybe it's my hipster-instincts but I love my PS3. But it's like my love for Apple MAC's. I'll love them for their actual-manageable use of Abode Suite but I wouldn't turn around and throw my PC because my PC is my gaming and doing-everything-the-fuck-else slut!

I feel like I've gone off topic... Rant over, I've already made a tit of myself for talking about things I understand from a far too biased POV.

EstrogenicMuscle:
If Jim Sterling were a user on the Escapist he'd be banned for promoting piracy.

But since he's sponsored, he has the ability to ability to say what other users here want to but can't.

So thank God for Jim.

Just watch now, as everyone who says "I agree! :D" gets slowly banned.

Sad part is . . . I work with a guy who will just funnel all his money into Sony's gullet regardless. He'll tell me how bad he wants a Vita and I'll ask "Why," genuinely intrigued, and he'll just kind of go "I dunno. I like Playstation . . . stuff." He's not a dumb guy or anything, he just. Doesn't seem to comprehend that some things matter a little more than brand names. He seems to do the same thing with sports teams, too. Maybe it's a side-effect of being raised to love Team A irrespective of how much they suck and how many dogs their left forwarderback has raped.

Also. I had an argument a couple weeks ago with a friend that is kind of tangentially related. I find it astoundingly stupid that Nintendo isn't doing more with WiiWare, DSiWare and, most notably, the virtual console. By that I mean that . . . there are fucktons of games on old systems that they could be releasing for download that they just . . . aren't.

This originally stemmed from a discussion about the games they gave out to 3DS early adopters, but it extends to other GBA, GB, DS, etc. games as well. Case in point: Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones is really hard to get a copy of and tends to sell for the next-to-brand-new-retail price, but they just gave it away to the early adopters. Okay, cool. They wanted to incentivize sale before the price drop and reward people who paid for the full package. They said they wouldn't release those games later. Fine. Whatever. But what about other games that weren't on it, like, say, Pokemon Emerald?

Every time I go to a store with used GB(A) games and they have a years-old, used, out-of-box copy of Pokemon, it sells for 20-40 fucking dollars. And Nintendo isn't cashing on that why? Why do I see Sonic Labyrinth and Kirby's Block Ball, but no Pokemon Yellow? When the fuck did Qix become more in-demand than Super Mario Bros. 3?

Why is gaming on my Windows Phone 7 easier than the Vita? A dedicated system SHOULD be easier, not harder.

Oh well, I don't have much time for portable games anymore anyway. But Sony is really digging their own grave with their terrible, terrible software.

I own an xbox 360, but my sister and several friends have PS3s and I tell you that if everything is working right cross-platform games look and feel exactly the same but if there is any problem, update or use of the store the xbox 360 massively destroys the PS3. Everything is fast and easy and I've never had a big issue.

So Jim, I heard you like Grandia. :D

Jimothy Sterling:
Sony's Begging For Piracy

To combat piracy, your mission is clear -- provide a better service than pirates.

Watch Video

I know this entirely isn't the point of your video, but I love my Vita too, and am saddened by what seems to be a massive lack of games. I would really appreciate some recommendations to look in to or, as the case may be, avoid.

geizr:

"I love my Vita, and I want it to do well."

This is the basic attitude that I think allows companies to think they can just get away with doing whatever the fuck, to whomever the fuck, whenever the fuck they want without any repercussions or loss, because geeks and nerds will hang on to something and struggle in vain to try to make the purchase somehow seem like a justified or worthy action, no matter how much observable reality proves otherwise. If something is shit, don't buy it. If you already own it because you took the gamble upon it and it turns out to be shit or have shitty service such to render it unusable, then just dump it and move on to something else that works better. Don't keep hanging on in some vain hope that the situation will magically change just because you will it to be so. Just take it on the cheek as a loss and move on to something else. It's not worth the continued waste of time, effort, and blood-pressure pills trying to make a piece-of-shit be anything other than a piece-of-shit (I realize the hardware itself is not a piece-of-shit, but hardware without software and a proper ecosystem of services is nothing but an expensive, fancy door-stop or paperweight). If a company is not going to take an interest in their own product to ensure its success, there is absolutely no reason for you, as a consumer, to bend yourself over the railing. Write it off and move on. If a company continuously puts out shitty products and provides shitty service, don't waste energy bitching about them, just stop buying from them. You're not hurting anyone but yourself to do otherwise, and no one is going to have sympathy for blind idiocy.

Honestly, until the gaming market finally learns to actually punish companies providing poor service and poor products with no sales, this kind of thing will only continue or get worse. As I continue to say, companies hear and understand only two sounds (ever!), the creek of your wallet opening and the slap of your wallet closing. All other sounds are just noise to be ignored. You can bitch until you are blue-in-the-face and die of asphyxiation; however, if you keep throwing your money at these companies, they have no real reason to change one iota to appease you. It's not until the money flow stops that they finally go "Oh SHIT! We need to treat our customers better!".

Not buying it won't necessarily make them treat customers better. As has been seen many times, if something doesn't do well, the scapegoat is usually something external, like piracy or used games. No company is going to turn to the shareholders and say "Yup, it's our fault for treating the customers like shit."

 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