Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Sony's Begging For Piracy

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

Watch Video
 

contla

New member
Jan 17, 2012
21
0
0
It upsets me that a company that once ruled the market now makes such childish mistakes.And for no good reason they have proven that they can do it right .PS+ is a good service that gives a reason to give them money, yet they still get it wrong with a new product.
 

Rainboq

New member
Nov 19, 2009
16,620
0
0
To put it simply, Sony needs to start firing the people in charge of user experience and such. They're either the ***** of the people in charge of combating piracy (who also deserve to get sacked) or the higher ups who want people to jump through a bunch of hoops so their satisfied that they've gotten your money.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
I loved the PS2, they did a great job with that. The PSP sucked, bored me to death and i sold that 4 months after i bought it. But they seem to be getting worse and worse as a company. As jim said, make something awesome and we will buy it......except that Sony thinks we should be lucky we get whatever crap they bring out. The whole "something is better than nothing" mentality. Same with the PS3, they brought it out for £500 (i think) and just expected people to buy it regardless of cost and the crappy game line up. Maybe they have become complacent as a company?
 

TheScottishFella

The Know-it all Detective
Nov 9, 2009
613
0
0
AC10 said:
Well, I guess I'll hold off getting a Vita for now.
It's not a bad device and the library of games isn't bad, the biggest problem is the frequency of releases unfortunately.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
Here is the thing, there is not a single Vita game I want, and to be quite honest there probably never will be. I am however a HUGE fan of the PS1 and it's library of games, and watching the first half of this video enraged me... Good job Sony, had you given the USA the same consideration you gave the rest of the world, I would have bought your handheld and used it as a portable PS1. But apparently you don't even want me to do that. Well, **** you! I am glad I bought a 3DS XL instead. I don't even care that I already had a 3DS, that's how crappy your product is.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
It's sad that fear of piracy practically kills a lot of the usability most of us hoped for in these systems. You can't copy installed PSone games and minis to a PSP anymore either, which, since the ideal is to be able to play on the big screen then take the game with you, it'd be nice to be able to do so without prior planning and extra memory cards. I've heard that sony's fee structure for hosting digital content is based on bandwitdh used, so I hope this isn't a cash grab.

I understand the need for some hoops to jump through, but it's put me off a lot of digital buying. Just the fact I can't save PS3 games to something external kills my interest as I don't see my game collection as disposable, and don't want to re-download 6 gigs of something if I get the urge to replay it. I might have bought a vita just on the promise of ditching my UMDs, but no passport feature. I won't let my 3DS off the hook either as it ties digital content to that exact 3DS so content is lost if it's damaged beyond repair (a great idea for something that's meant to leave the safety of the home). And the both really need to work on content and pricing.
 

Kitsune Hunter

What a beautiful Duwang!
Dec 18, 2011
1,072
0
0
I might buy the Vita, only for the PS1 games and that mainly depends if the Spyro and Crash Bandicoot games are on it
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
I really wish the Vita was worth owning -_- It looks so good on paper, but so shit in reality because of how it all works.

Get your shit together Sony, you're letting gamers everywhere down.

You made the PS2 for fucks sake.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
Kitsune Hunter said:
I might buy the Vita, only for the PS1 games and that mainly depends if the Spyro and Crash Bandicoot games are on it
Crash 1-3 are on PSN, Spyro is not, at least not in the EU, some certification bullshit.

Reminds me: SONY Y NO PSN CASTLEVANIA:SotN IN EU!?

¬_¬ 4. fucking. years. after. the US.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
Sony is not alone in this market, Ubisoft has been paving the way in screwing the legit paying player in a bid to protect their IP at all cost even when it goes way beyond ruining the experience of the player.

The issue is not that they are trying to protect their Ips it is the fact that they are not the only ones who do this, it's just that other companies manage to place secure anti copy protection systems on their IPs but do it without making the customer jump through hoops to then use their software.

With MS taking a real push at cross platform integration (XBox games on PC with Win 8) with their own cloud service in the next generation Sony has to get it's head out of it's backside and step up other wise they will lose customers simply because they won't be willing to put up with the nonsense.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
Didn't we already talk about this? Maybe we need to say it again in order for it to sink in.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
Aug 9, 2020
2,315
1
3
Country
United States
Yes! This is the crap that is killing my love of Sony. Why? Why do they keep doing these dumb things?! Do they even work?!

Thank God for Tomba!, and thank Tomba! for you Jim.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
SonOfVoorhees said:
I loved the PS2, they did a great job with that. The PSP sucked, bored me to death and i sold that 4 months after i bought it. But they seem to be getting worse and worse as a company. As jim said, make something awesome and we will buy it......except that Sony thinks we should be lucky we get whatever crap they bring out. The whole "something is better than nothing" mentality. Same with the PS3, they brought it out for £500 (i think) and just expected people to buy it regardless of cost and the crappy game line up. Maybe they have become complacent as a company?
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

The reason that Sony and companies like it provides such crappy service is because they know that the only way you can legally obtain the games and systems they copyrighted is to get it through their authorized distribution channels, so they know that they can screw their customers as much as they want, charge ridiculously high prices, and have godawful service and the only option that their customers have if they still want their products is to just shut up and deal with it.

This is why piracy is actually a GOOD thing, they help stop the competitive chokehold that Sony and other similar companies have on the industry, which is more or less what Jim was saying. Whether you actually support piracy or not nobody could argue this point.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.
 

OniaPL

New member
Nov 9, 2010
1,057
0
0
Call we crazy, but I think there's been already enough talk about piracy and the way company policies cause piracy in Jimquisition. I didn't find anything "new" in this episode.
 

CrazyCapnMorgan

Is not insane, just crazy >:)
Jan 5, 2011
2,742
0
0
Jim plays Grandia?!?! Respect +abunch.

One of the main reasons I bought my PS3 was for the older games on the PSN, many of them RPGs. I've never considered getting the Vita simply because of the lack of games I liked on it. It's a nice device, but the only games I play nowadays on a handheld device are Pokemon.

And yes, Toomba is a hell of a game. Hope you enjoy it like I did, Jim!
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
Another good question is where the hell are the PS2 Classics? I understand that they want to package them together on disc in "HD collections" to mark them up, but wouldn't it be fairly easy to release an emulated version of the ROM at virtually no cost individually at a higher price than it would be on disc? Hell, I'd buy Silent Hill 2 right this second if I could get the original retail release for download, rather than the shoddy HD port. Throw 3 and 4 on there while you're at it. I know that's probably in Konami's court, but still. It would be easy.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Oh Jimmy I am a sony fan boy, and i'm not offended one bit.

Why? I never bought the vita or what ever it's called lol. I bought the ps 1 much later for much less for a handful of games. I had fun.

This thing looked expensive, didn't have that much and honestly i just wasn't ready to move on.

This subject didn't need a crusade sir. But hay good luck, I always love your projects.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
zelda2fanboy said:
It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.
Nintendo have their own amount of BS too, tbh.

On topic: I don't get why the US got only 9 PS1 titles or so, it doesn't make any sense, but at least they are rolling more out as we go on.
 

Lord_Gremlin

New member
Apr 10, 2009
744
0
0
Jim. We in Eastern Europe has it way, way worse. Sony just shit all over PAL territories in general. Come to think about it, a lot of my PS3 and Vita games are imported US or Asian versions, because EU version is either censored or does not exist.
I really don't like the idea of piracy. When I hate some company too much I just don't buy or use their products at all (Microsoft)... But really when I think about it it's obnoxious that I have to import PS Vita games from another country because SCEE just don't give a shit. Digital downloads my ass!
Sony must merge SCEE, SCEA and all other departments. This really is the only way.

Oh and let's not forget the region locked DLC. Service problem? The only way one can get DLC for Asian games that never came out in EU is either format your vita to play them, create a fake account in Asian country and add funds to it or wait till somebody crack the vita and pirate the DLC.

P.S. I may normally be considered a Sony fanboy but I agree with Jim completely and also must add that all employees of SCEE deserve to feed on feces in Hell for eternity.
 

Timnoldzim

New member
May 19, 2012
52
0
0
It's frankly baffling how many idiotic mistakes Sony has been making. As someone who only owns Nintendo and Sony systems, I must say I'm envious of Microsoft fans- the House of Gates isn't immune to being a big dumb corporation, lord no, but it has its sh*t together.
 

Azuaron

New member
Mar 17, 2010
621
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
 

Bvenged

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,203
0
0
That was one epic intro there. Absolutely brilliant!
There were some classy PS1 games back in the day, I surprised they haven't just ported the who library - they're only a gig or so each.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
Sony could take a lesson from Valve with Steam. I know the rules of the site, but lets just say that when I was a poor, unemployed teenager I used to acquire the few comp games (namely an RTS here or there) in less than legal ways. Now that I've pretty much converted to the Church of Steam, it is literally not worth my time to pirate a game and play around trying to get it to work, than to dish out a few bucks, get the game nicely integrated into my library with achievements and constant updates. There is a reason why my PS3 has been essentially off for a year now, and is only occasionally turned on to play a DVD.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

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

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
I'm sorry, what? A company gets to control how their own products are made and sold? This is also somehow wrong?
 
Jan 22, 2011
450
0
0
UdderedAvenger said:
zelda2fanboy said:
It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.
Nintendo have their own amount of BS too, tbh.

On topic: I don't get why the US got only 9 PS1 titles or so, it doesn't make any sense, but at least they are rolling more out as we go on.

why do you think post people have a modded wii or psp?? They know that Sony or Nintendo can not deliver on their promises so we turn to methods that are convenient in our favor.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Just one more reason my pc is being used as a gaming device (via good old games and steam) while my ps3 makes a pretty nice blu-ray player.
 

Arqus_Zed

New member
Aug 12, 2009
1,181
0
0
Hell yeah, Tomba!

I sure hope Sony can get its shit together, they've been letting me down for quite a few years now.
Then again, Nintendo has been doing that to me since the N64 (and Microsoft has been doing that to me forever).
 

VonKlaw

New member
Jan 30, 2012
386
0
0
Hmmm, slightly off topic but was Tomba on one of the PS1 demo discs? If so I may have just found an excuse to get a PSVita..
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

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

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

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

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

OT

Jim, right on the nail. Keep it up and keep hammering those idiotic bastards.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Gatx said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
I'm sorry, what? A company gets to control how their own products are made and sold? This is also somehow wrong?
It's wrong when they and only they are permitted to make and sell a product. Monopolies cause companies to have no motivation whatsoever to provide fair prices for their product, to provide a very well functioning product, or to provide adequate customer service or to even provide customer service at all. Only when actual competition exists to companies have any reason to NOT charge ridiculously exorbitant prices and to make sure their product actually works.

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

kajinking

New member
Aug 12, 2009
896
0
0
NightHawk21 said:
Sony could take a lesson from Valve with Steam. I know the rules of the site, but lets just say that when I was a poor, unemployed teenager I used to acquire the few comp games (namely an RTS here or there) in less than legal ways. Now that I've pretty much converted to the Church of Steam, it is literally not worth my time to pirate a game and play around trying to get it to work, than to dish out a few bucks, get the game nicely integrated into my library with achievements and constant updates. There is a reason why my PS3 has been essentially off for a year now, and is only occasionally turned on to play a DVD.
Trust me you're not alone, I pirated a ton of stuff when I was younger and didn't have a job but after getting some work and finally getting into Steam I haven't pirated anything since. I still remember the moment I saw Deus Ex: HR, wanted it, and just booted up Steam and bought the damn thing without even considering torrenting it. Since then I've bought all the games I torrented (minus Duke Nukem Forever) off steam and haven't been on Pirate Bay since. Just why would I even consider messing around with crack file placement, fake server files, and mounting fake disk files when I can spend less money than I use to go out to eat, push a button, and watch Youtube videos until it's done? It's pretty much gotten me to be a PC only game with my 360 gathering dust for two years and my Xbox gold account canceled.
 

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Gatx said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
I'm sorry, what? A company gets to control how their own products are made and sold? This is also somehow wrong?
It's wrong when they and only they are permitted to make and sell a product. Monopolies cause companies to have no motivation whatsoever to provide fair prices for their product, to provide a very well functioning product, or to provide adequate customer service or to even provide customer service at all. Only when actual competition exists to companies have any reason to NOT charge ridiculously exorbitant prices and to make sure their product actually works.

In short, Sony and similar companies have a license to screw their customers over as much as they like and nobody can do anything about it.
You understand Sony has competition in the form of Microsoft and Nintendo right? If people don't like Sony's service with the PS3 or Vita they go buy a 360, a Wii, or a 3DS.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Sony you NEED to copy the late night anime business model.

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

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


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







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

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.
1. The market in question is called "video game platforms", in which there are currently 6* notable participants:
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Windows**, Android and Apple**. So at best we have an oligopol, but really, there's a healthy dose of competition going.
Control of their own platform does not constitute a monopoly.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Noun used for the matter. Irrelevant.

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

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

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
I like how if any of us make a post advocating piracy, it's grounds for banning, but the staff can release one and its all good

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

DrunkOnEstus

In the name of Harman...
May 11, 2012
1,712
0
0
On another note, if they're interested in selling me PSP games that I already own on UMD, they really need to fix the pricing scheme of that store. There isn't a logical reason in the world that Locoroco is 30 bucks while its sequel is 7. The first 3 Persona games cost 70 BUCKS. I got P3P for Vita when it was on sale for 10, so obviously they're aware of the prices and can/do change them.

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

nyysjan

New member
Mar 12, 2010
231
0
0
Until game publishers, not just Sony, start selling games that are as easy, or easier, to instal and play than the pirates, piracy will remain a major problem.
I don't pirate, but then i don't play that much either, and i have left games unbought because of DRM (Diablo 3 being an example), but i can't make myself really feel too bad for the game companies when they practically beg people to not buy their stuff.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

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

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

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

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

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

Nintendo and Microsoft provide a similar service with their own technologies therefore Sony as much as I hate those cheeky anti consumer bastards do not have a monopoly.
I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

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

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

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

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

MisterShine

Him Diamond
Mar 9, 2010
1,133
0
0
Every episode of the Jimquisition I says to myself I says:

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

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

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.
And this is, per definition, NOT a monopoly. Note this (bolding by me):

immortalfrieza said:
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
Sony you NEED to copy the late night anime business model.

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

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


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


Now that I've written it, I've realized the cinema to DVD system is a better fit :|
An even better similarity that would be, if they would release the digital versions for entirely free, just like anime is aired for free on TV.

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

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

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Whoracle said:
immortalfrieza said:
True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.
And this is, per definition, NOT a monopoly. Note this (bolding by me):

immortalfrieza said:
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.
You just bolded the difference between Sony and Ford. The Ford Focus is a product, not a market, where one sells products.

The PS Vita is a market.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Entitled said:
Whoracle said:
immortalfrieza said:
True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.
And this is, per definition, NOT a monopoly. Note this (bolding by me):

immortalfrieza said:
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.
You just bolded the difference between Sony and Ford. The Ford Focus is a product, not a market, where one sells products.

The PS Vita is a market.
THANK YOU!!! Somebody here actually GETS it! Was that concept really so hard to figure out?
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.
Yes, they do have a monopoly within the bounds of their particular hardware/software cul-de-sac. But that's generally considered acceptable because they had to create that cul-de-sac from scratch and allowing the monopoly is society's way of protecting the investment that creation cost. Patents/Copyrights keep other people from simply copying their work without effort.

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

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

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Gatx said:
immortalfrieza said:
Gatx said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
I'm sorry, what? A company gets to control how their own products are made and sold? This is also somehow wrong?
It's wrong when they and only they are permitted to make and sell a product. Monopolies cause companies to have no motivation whatsoever to provide fair prices for their product, to provide a very well functioning product, or to provide adequate customer service or to even provide customer service at all. Only when actual competition exists to companies have any reason to NOT charge ridiculously exorbitant prices and to make sure their product actually works.

In short, Sony and similar companies have a license to screw their customers over as much as they like and nobody can do anything about it.
You understand Sony has competition in the form of Microsoft and Nintendo right? If people don't like Sony's service with the PS3 or Vita they go buy a 360, a Wii, or a 3DS.
Whoracle said:
immortalfrieza said:
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.
1. The market in question is called "video game platforms", in which there are currently 6* notable participants:
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Windows**, Android and Apple**. So at best we have an oligopol, but really, there's a healthy dose of competition going.
Control of their own platform does not constitute a monopoly.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Noun used for the matter. Irrelevant.

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

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

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

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

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

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

Nintendo and Microsoft provide a similar service with their own technologies therefore Sony as much as I hate those cheeky anti consumer bastards do not have a monopoly.
I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

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

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

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

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

Sergey Sund

New member
May 20, 2012
88
0
0
I want to know what he was googling for when he found those pictures of little boys in camouflage ....
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
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
 
Mar 9, 2010
2,722
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone is telling you that you're wrong and you're insisting that the dictionary definition you provided is argument enough to make you right.

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

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

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
Entitled said:
Whoracle said:
[...]
Or, to go with another gruesome car analogy: Go manufacture a Ford Focus, see how fast Ford'll get your behind, and then try to defend yourself with "but it's a monopoly!" in court. Same thing, really.
You just bolded the difference between Sony and Ford. The Ford Focus is a product, not a market, where one sells products.

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

immortalfrieza said:
[...]
If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.[...]
This is exactly the same. He wants other companies to be able to manufacture PS3s and Vitas, not only access to the vita platform. Which is the same as manufacturing the whole car.

Your turn :)

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

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

Azuaron

New member
Mar 17, 2010
621
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

Which is what I said, maybe not in those exact words but I did say it. So yes, Sony and similar companies are in fact monopolies because nobody else is allowed to produce and distribute any system or game that they created and still possess the rights and patents to.
Perhaps you are confused on the definition of "commodity" or "service", then. If Sony controlled all the videogame platforms, then they would have a monopoly. But they don't; they control the Playstation platforms. Since they have substantial competition (Microsoft, Ninentendo, PC), they are not a monopoly. Saying they have a monopoly on Playstation games is like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
I face this arguement more times than I can stomach. I can't justifiably talk about how much more my PS3 can do vs an Xbox 360 simply due to the plain and simple fact that I have to do 3x the work, or have to wait considerably longer to get additional content for my games. I used to love Sony and can honestly say that my PSP got tons of my love. I truly miss those days. My PSP was my center of entertainment. It could store my movies, music, pictures, and had plenty of games I loved to play, and with the PSN market releasing PS1 titles that worked for both that I could even transfer save data between, I was in paradise. That was then, though. Back then, the work was fine because it was really the only portable device that could do all this and not be overly complicated for the average user. We have androids and iOS now, though. My phone can actually do everything my PSP could, do it faster, uses memory that is a standard memory unit for all devices these days, and can also provide all of the services that are available to me on my computer. I can stream movies, pay bills, and play high end games right from my phone. I had the whole thing set up to do all of this within a day. However, I've had my PS3 for years and haven't even bothered to set up many of it's other functions just because it's too much time to waste on a simple convenience or service that I can already get from something else in my house.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Mr.Tea said:
immortalfrieza said:
mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.
And who decided that the "gaming platform" is the category?

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

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

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

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

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Veylon said:
immortalfrieza said:
If other companies besides Sony were allowed to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and the rest then then there would in fact be competition and Sony would NOT have a monopoly, but nobody else is allowed to. Just because companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are also able to produce consoles that are able to play video games DOES NOT mean that Sony does not have a monopoly, because they do not possess the copyrights and patents allowing them to produce and sell the PS3, Vita, and so on.

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.
Yes, they do have a monopoly within the bounds of their particular hardware/software cul-de-sac. But that's generally considered acceptable because they had to create that cul-de-sac from scratch and allowing the monopoly is society's way of protecting the investment that creation cost. Patents/Copyrights keep other people from simply copying their work without effort.
Veylon said:
If that monopoly did not exist, you'd have knockoff cheaper Logitech, Panasonic, etc. PS3 consoles. Which sounds fine this time around, except that who would develop the next console with the threat of anyone and everyone being able to drop in and undercut them?
That would better than the alterative, which is what we have now. As it stands companies like Sony can charge far more than their products than they cost to produce and provide awful service because they have no competition for their product itself.

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

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

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Entitled said:
Mr.Tea said:
immortalfrieza said:
mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.
And who decided that the "gaming platform" is the category?

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

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

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

But consoles are one of those cases, where the "it's just a product in an even larger market" excuse is obviously abused: The PS 3, the Vita, the 360, the Wii, are all miniature economies on their own, with a large number of products being sold on them, competiting with each other, and the trademarked console hardwares are giving total control to individual companies over entire types of gaming. Entire input methods, technological abilities, and even GENRES OF AN ART FORM, are exclusively ruled by the company that first copyrighted their production method.
*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* Bravo! ANOTHER person who actually gets the point! Thanks, I was starting to think that trying to get people to understand my point and basically that of this very Jimquistion episode was an exercise in futility.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Mr.Tea said:
immortalfrieza said:
mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.
I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?
I JUST put the meaning of "monopoly" as it applies to markets around the world IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony does not fit into it? Sorry, couldn't resist.

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

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

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

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
Entitled said:
And who decided that the "gaming platform" is the category?
The one who thinks that companies could be sued, or, as he put it, "someone goes to jail" for monopoly practises, i.e. immortalfrieza. Also, common ground has it like this: If your frame of reference is so narrow that stepping outside it is ridiculously easy, then you need to talk about the broader picture. Yes, Sony has a monopoly on sony-created products. That is innately so. If it hadn't, the products wouldn't be sony-created. Sony also has a monopoly on licensing of their products. But, and here comes the broader picture: Thexy compete with other companies that have equal products.
After a bit of thinking I think I know where your "error" in reasoning is: You look only on the consumer part of the market. But there's another side to this: The content producers. Developers and publishers get to choose which platform they develop for. Neither Sony nor Microsoft nor anybody else browbeats them into developing for their ecosystems. If all the Devs left Sony in the dust when the PS4 gets released, Sony might be the only ones allowed to produce their console, but it wouldn't do them any good.

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

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

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

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

But consoles are one of those cases, where the "it's just a product in an even larger market" is obviously abused: The PS 3, the Vita, the 360, the Wii, are all miniature economies on their own, with a large number of products being sold on them, competiting with each other, and the trademarked console hardwares are giving total control to individual companies over entire types of gaming. Entire input methods, technological abilities, and even GENRES OF AN ART FORM, are exclusively ruled by the company that first copyrighted their production method.
Once again: When did (for sake of example, goes for every company really) Sony abuse its market power to force devs to only develop A WHOLE GENRE OF AN ART FORM (whichever genre you meant by this) to develop it solely for their ecosystem? If they did get an exclusive genre for themselves, they did it with the exact opposite of a monopoly: They offered the devs of said genre enough of an incentive that they CHOSE to develop for Sony. More of an incentive than their competitors. Sony chose the limits of their platform(s), and the devs embraced said limits, because the incentives were there. They could just as easily have chosen the 360, PC, or Sinclair ZX Spectrum. But they didn't.

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

Huh, turned quite into a rant.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Tombi!

Fuck yeah!

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

On an unrelated note.

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

[sub]Not a joke, seriously, you look like you've lost a few pounds.[/sub]
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
SonOfVoorhees said:
I loved the PS2, they did a great job with that. The PSP sucked, bored me to death and i sold that 4 months after i bought it. But they seem to be getting worse and worse as a company. As jim said, make something awesome and we will buy it......except that Sony thinks we should be lucky we get whatever crap they bring out. The whole "something is better than nothing" mentality. Same with the PS3, they brought it out for £500 (i think) and just expected people to buy it regardless of cost and the crappy game line up. Maybe they have become complacent as a company?
Let's not forget they then (did the same thing Jim's talking about) sandbagged the ps3 with crappy firmware updates that took value away from the machine more than add value to it. My experience with the psp & ps3 is the main reason I don't own a Vita and the reason I probably wont buy a ps4...definitely not at launch.
It really is too bad because they do make great machines that just get the worst support...like the opposite of support...what do you call that?
 

Kroxile

New member
Oct 14, 2010
543
0
0
daxterx2005 said:
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.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Entitled said:
Where you draw the line between a particular product, and a larger "product group", is ultimately a subjective thing.
Taking our increasingly screwed up litigious habits to the extreme, sure. But we're not there yet.

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

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

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

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

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man :D

[sub]Not a joke, seriously, you look like you've lost a few pounds.[/sub]
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.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
Azuaron said:
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.
That's not what "monopoly" means...
Copied from Dictionary.com


mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

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

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

3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.

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

5.
a company or group that has such control.

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

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

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

Nintendo and Microsoft provide a similar service with their own technologies therefore Sony as much as I hate those cheeky anti consumer bastards do not have a monopoly.
I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

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

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

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

True, Sony does not have a monopoly on the video game industry itself, but I was never talking about that, they DO have a monopoly on the products that they have created.
Don't angry or uppity with me bub, just because you[i/] don't have a clue what you are saying.

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

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

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

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

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

In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies, but they rarely provide market power. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.
I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.

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

Good day sir.

Captcha take umbrage

How ironic
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
I don't think you understand what a monopoly is Immortal. Lets use cars cause you might see why your argument doesn't make sense. Toyota (or any other car company) doesn't have the rights to develop a car and brand it a Ford and sell it as such, they can only make Toyotas. They can make many different kinds of Toyotas but they can never make a Ford. Now just because Toyota cannot make a Ford, and vice-versa, does not mean that Ford has a monopoly. For Ford or Toyota to have a monopoly they would have to be the only country producing cars.

Going back to your definition, and your understanding of monopoly it could be argued that because Sony has a monopoly, being the only one able to produce playstation items, both Microsoft and Nintendo also have monopolies. As you see this doesn't make sense, because you have 3 competitors (something which doesn't exist in a monopoly) each with a monopoly, which goes against the very definition of a monopoly. For sony to have a monopoly they would have to be the only producer of video games and video game consoles on the market; ie. Microsoft, Nintendo, and many other companies could not exist.

I've hope I made myself clear. If I haven't let me know. I've already come up with a much better and simpler explanation using apples :)
 

5-0

New member
Apr 6, 2010
549
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.
That was amazing :D
And since you're here: OMG I LOVE YOUR SHOW AND I'M YOUR BIGGEST FAN. Ahem.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.
Maybe arguing about the specific term did go too far, but the idea behind it is interesting; that maybe our entire modern system of gaming platforms as "products that competete each other", could be seen as another man's "megacorporations directly owning whole virtual economies", and it's just a series of historical accidents that things ended up like this, instead of every console being a little free market on it's own.
 

CrazyCapnMorgan

Is not insane, just crazy >:)
Jan 5, 2011
2,742
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.
Especially when history has shown that whenever an entity has a monopoly on anything, it will eventually either be destroyed from within, or by the demand of the people.

I think Jean from LUNAR 2: Eternal Blue said it best before her fight with Lunn: "Power grows when spread amongst the many and perishes when hoarded by a few."
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Mr.Tea said:
immortalfrieza said:
Mr.Tea said:
immortalfrieza said:
mo·nop·o·ly
   [muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
In this case, the commodity or service is "Gaming Platform", not the PS3 or the Vita.

Sony does not have a monopoly because they are not the only company that makes and distributes gaming platforms; they have competition from Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple and any number of PC makers.
I JUST put the definition for monopoly IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony and companies like it (which includes Microsoft and Nintendo) have a monopoly?

[Rageout Avoidance Mode Activated]

Ok, I'll try to stay civil and avoid trying to scream at you all caps. In return, can you PLEASE at least try to pay attention to what I'm saying?
I JUST put the meaning of "monopoly" as it applies to markets around the world IN FRONT OF YOU and you still can't tell how Sony does not fit into it? Sorry, couldn't resist.

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

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

You can say that ownership of patents, licenses, trademarks, etc. is bad and is the problem with modern business, and I'd be inclined to agree with you to a point, but use the right terms: Sony runs a closed platform on which they enforce too many licensing rules and it's holding back gaming.
Say that and it's your valid opinion.
No, if I say patents and so on are bad would be my opinion (and I do) but saying that they have a monopoly on producing and selling the PS3 (for instance) because of those things is an factual statement.


Mr.Tea said:
Say 'Sony has a monopoly" and it's just factually wrong and people will try to correct you.
I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct. The only reason anyone would try to correct me is because they fail to read what I actually wrote and think that I meant that Sony has a monopoly on the gaming industry itself, which for the tenth time was NEVER MY ARGUMENT!!!

Sony has a monopoly upon their product, nobody aside from them can make a PS3 in any form (even if the knockoffs don't actually play PS3 games) legally, that makes it a monopoly. Copyright and patent law supporting it doesn't matter, it wouldn't matter if they weren't abusing their licensing rights or anything, under the actual definition of a monopoly it is in fact a monopoly.

For an analogy, hypothetically, say for instance there are only 2 snack companies in existance, Doritos chips and Pop Secret Popcorn, and lets say each owns the patent to chips and popcorn respectively. As a result, nobody but them can make any sort of chips or popcorn EVER legally until the respective patents expire. This would mean that no company could ever be made that would have either chips or popcorn, they'd have to make an entirely new product that was different from either. Lays or any other chip wouldn't be able to exist, because it's a chip and Doritos' patent means they can't be made, same for any popcorn company. Sure, neither company would have a monopoly on the snack industry itself, but if the customers want chips or popcorn they have no choice but to pay whatever amount of money Doritos and Pop Secret want them to, and for whatever quality that those companies decide to provide, they have no other choice, since nobody else is allowed to make chips or popcorn to compete with them. It's the same situation with the PS3 and it's exclusive games that Sony still has the copyright and patents to, which they probably always will since Sony will probably keep renewing those copyrights and patents even if they never use them again, just for the sake of keeping their monopoly.
 

Calibanbutcher

New member
Nov 29, 2009
1,691
0
0
contla said:
It upsets me that a company that once ruled the market now makes such childish mistakes.And for no good reason they have proven that they can do it right .PS+ is a good service that gives a reason to give them money, yet they still get it wrong with a new product.
I really like your avatar.
Just wanted to say that.
On topic.
Meh, don't have a Vita, still enjoying my PS2 way to much to care.
 

-|-

New member
Aug 28, 2010
292
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.
Not it isn't. You might define monopoly that way, but it is meaningless to do so. No reasonable person thinks that sony has a monopoly cos microsoft and nintendo.

By your ridiculous definition literally everything is a monopoly apart from the most generic of products.
 

Duol

New member
Aug 18, 2008
84
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
What you are describing is not a monopoly according to economics. Simply because you are the only one who can produce something does not mean you have a 'monopoly' over something. Your' dictionary definition may make it seem that way, but open an econ textbook and simply by the quantity of information on a monopoly it will become quite obvious that a dictionary definition is not sufficient to determine what a monopoly actually is.

While you may say that you are not talking about 'the gaming market' that is the only context in which to talk about monopolies and dominant positions etc. If you're not talking about that then you're not talking about monopolies.
 

Mr_Terrific

New member
Oct 29, 2011
163
0
0
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?
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Mr_Terrific said:
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.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
NightHawk21 said:
immortalfrieza said:
I don't think you understand what a monopoly is Immortal. Lets use cars cause you might see why your argument doesn't make sense. Toyota (or any other car company) doesn't have the rights to develop a car and brand it a Ford and sell it as such, they can only make Toyotas. They can make many different kinds of Toyotas but they can never make a Ford. Now just because Toyota cannot make a Ford, and vice-versa, does not mean that Ford has a monopoly. For Ford or Toyota to have a monopoly they would have to be the only country producing cars.
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 (brand names are themselves technically monopolies, but small, barely noticable ones). 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. Now, if Toyota had a patent on trucks and Ford had a patent on SUVs, with which each could only make and sell trucks and SUVs respectively, THEN each would have a monopoly, not on the car industry itself, but on a particular type of vehicle.
NightHawk21 said:
Going back to your definition, and your understanding of monopoly it could be argued that because Sony has a monopoly, being the only one able to produce playstation items, both Microsoft and Nintendo also have monopolies. As you see this doesn't make sense, because you have 3 competitors (something which doesn't exist in a monopoly) each with a monopoly, which goes against the very definition of a monopoly. For sony to have a monopoly they would have to be the only producer of video games and video game consoles on the market; ie. Microsoft, Nintendo, and many other companies could not exist.
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.
 

Raioken18

New member
Dec 18, 2009
336
0
0
Yeah... I'm a PC gamer...

There are a lot of problems with PC gaming that are along similar lines to Sony's current problems.

But compare Sony to a digital distribution company, Steam. Now steam is considered by many to be an absolute bastard due to the strict user only purchases is doing things in a way that while considered a bit unethical, are a great way to defer pirates.

You get occasional sales, easy access to old games, tons of indie games, easy access to new games and minimal updates. It's like once every month or so, and everything is managed for you!

It allows you to easily back up games and install them on other computers, but the system is set up that it discourages you from even sharing games with friends, and nobody cares because it's cheap and convenient.

They don't need to beat physical sales by much and the lower cost of digital distribution allows them to easily cover it.

But the best thing, you can get any game you want in minutes, and they have an insanely bad way of going about it but are also popular as hell. Sony... you could learn a thing or two from Steam.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
-|- said:
immortalfrieza said:
I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.
Not it isn't. You might define monopoly that way, but it is meaningless to do so. No reasonable person thinks that sony has a monopoly cos microsoft and nintendo.

By your ridiculous definition literally everything is a monopoly apart from the most generic of products.
Again, yet another person confusing what I said to mean Sony has a monopoly on the entire gaming industy when I said nothing of the sort.

PLEASE everybody, actually read and understand what I wrote before coming up with an argument against what I wrote, since apparently a ridiculous number of people continue to argue against a point I NEVER ACTUALLY MADE!!!
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
I have the Tomba music stuck in my head now. Thank you Jim :D

Shame for the Vita as it does look like a very good handheld device. It saddens me how Sony of this generation has treated it's customers, little things that should be easy to do take forever to be updated. We didn't get a multiple delete file option on the PS3 for six years for god's sake. Do you know how many Pro Evolution Soccer option files I had to manual delete before that firmware update sony? Each took some 40 minutes to delete, it would have been faster to just reset the entire ps3.
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
Before I saw this video
"I wish I had some games for my vita"

After video
"They added ps1 games? Hey Grandia and rayman 1 and 2 are here!"

Thank god for Jim. If he didn't complain, the $20 I put on psn to get Dawnguard might never have been used
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
jklinders said:
I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.
Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

jklinders said:
I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...
I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Sony never said 100 games at launch, Jim. You did. In fact, I followed it. They said 100 games, you added the "at launch" thing, then reported it as fact, with people subsequently following you. Sony offered the Ps1 classics they could on the store at first, and people realized there was a workaround you could do at home.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Jimothy Sterling said:
Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.
Thanks Jim, that joke brightened my mood, this discussion with people that just ignore what I'm saying was starting to piss me off. I'm getting out of here for a while before my anger starts taking over, I start incoherently ranting to them in all caps, and have the moderators come down on me. I hope that you get the point I was trying to make though, it was pretty much an explaination for why you're seeing what you're seeing with the Vita that you discussed in this video.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Vita's biggest mistakes are as follows:

1. Dungeon Hunter Alliance. I own this game for PS3, I bought it for $14 USD or so (maybe on sale or something) but it wasn't that expensive. Then comes the Vita version, the same EXACT fucking game btw, for $39.99 USD and NO COMPATIBILITY FOR THE PSN DOWNLOADED VERSION.
What. The. Fucking. Fuck?

2. PS1 Rollout: EU got more games with the 1.8 release (according to Sony) than the US. Why? And why not just roll out the ENTIRE library at once thats already on the PSN? If I remote play my PS3, every PS1 game I have on there works, including booting up my old black disc games.
So... What is the fucking problem Sony? Are you afraid of money?

Ok, the Vita 3rd party support has sucked. So make some FUCKING BADASS GAMES and blow away the 3rd party developers like you've done in the past (God of War, inFamous for two examples, and yes I know who made them, but they're EXCLUSIVES TO PS2/3 and helped sell me big time on the system). Also why not put Playstation Home on there?
And just drop the 3g wireless support. Thats a disaster and a waste of money, time and development cost. You can't use it for jack shit, so don't even bother with it PLEASE.
 

MysticToast

New member
Jul 28, 2010
628
0
0
amaranth_dru said:
Vita's biggest mistakes are as follows:

1. Dungeon Hunter Alliance. I own this game for PS3, I bought it for $14 USD or so (maybe on sale or something) but it wasn't that expensive. Then comes the Vita version, the same EXACT fucking game btw, for $39.99 USD and NO COMPATIBILITY FOR THE PSN DOWNLOADED VERSION.
What. The. Fucking. Fuck?

2. PS1 Rollout: EU got more games with the 1.8 release (according to Sony) than the US. Why? And why not just roll out the ENTIRE library at once thats already on the PSN? If I remote play my PS3, every PS1 game I have on there works, including booting up my old black disc games.
So... What is the fucking problem Sony? Are you afraid of money?

Ok, the Vita 3rd party support has sucked. So make some FUCKING BADASS GAMES and blow away the 3rd party developers like you've done in the past (God of War, inFamous for two examples, and yes I know who made them, but they're EXCLUSIVES TO PS2/3 and helped sell me big time on the system). Also why not put Playstation Home on there?
And just drop the 3g wireless support. Thats a disaster and a waste of money, time and development cost. You can't use it for jack shit, so don't even bother with it PLEASE.
This is pretty much exactly my view on the Vita. I love my Vita so much and it has so much potential, but Sony seems to be afraid of it for some reason.

Sony really needs to get their act together because at this rate, they will lose the next console generation for sure.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
This is the reason why, in the U.S. at least, monopolies are supposed to be illegal. However, due to copyright and patent law nobody but Sony is able to produce and distribute the PS3, Vita and it's games, which is a monopoly, but I never hear anybody being arrested for it.

The reason that Sony and companies like it provides such crappy service is because they know that the only way you can legally obtain the games and systems they copyrighted is to get it through their authorized distribution channels, so they know that they can screw their customers as much as they want, charge ridiculously high prices, and have godawful service and the only option that their customers have if they still want their products is to just shut up and deal with it.

This is why piracy is actually a GOOD thing, they help stop the competitive chokehold that Sony and other similar companies have on the industry, which is more or less what Jim was saying. Whether you actually support piracy or not nobody could argue this point.
I believe that a never ending monopoly is illegal in the US but temporary monopolies are legal in the form copyrights. If the lobbying for extended copyright lifetimes ever end (special fuck you to Disney) then eventually the hardware and software will enter the public domain and other people will be able to provide the products. The only thing I can really say that's on the corporate side is that it takes much longer for new products that are sold at a loss to become profitable and cover the cost of creation, the very reason that copyrights were made to begin with. I'd still say it's their own fault for creating something that lacks sufficient demand for people to buy it at a price that the company would profit from.

I'm not sure if that applies to services though.

jklinders said:
NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.
A copyright is a legal temporary monopoly on a product. To clarify, a copyright is the governments acknowledgment and protection that a person or company has the exclusive right to be the sole provider of that specific product for a limited time.

Minus the "from the beginning of time" part, yes, those people have or had monopolies. It's perfectly legal under the terms of copyright.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Mr.Tea said:
Say 'Sony has a monopoly" and it's just factually wrong and people will try to correct you.
I don't know why they would try to correct me for saying that, because that is in fact correct.

Sony has a monopoly upon their product, nobody aside from them can make a PS3 in any form (even if the knockoffs don't actually play PS3 games) legally, that makes it a monopoly.
For the last time, that's not what a monopoly is.
"A PS3 in any form" is an Xbox, a Wii, an Ouya, a PC, etc.
The PS3 name is their trademark, and the technology that makes the PS3 a PS3 is theirs alone. Yes, that might be a bad thing and you can say trademarks/copyrights/patents make each company into metaphorical monopolies, but it's not what the actual economic term "monopoly" means.

But I see you're just going to keep arguing that fucking word, even though I mostly agree on how closed platforms can be bad for gaming... So don't quote me again. Good day.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.
Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

jklinders said:
I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...
I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.
So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.



Have your last word.
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting people and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.
 

Spud of Doom

New member
Feb 24, 2011
349
0
0
HNNNG I nostalgia'd so hard when the Grandia theme started playing at the beginning. That was my favourite game on the PS1 as a child.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.
Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

jklinders said:
I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...
I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.
So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.



Have your last word.
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.
You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.
 

DanDeFool

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
0
So over the Steam sale, I bought maybe about 15 PC games. I can install all of them to any (or even EVERY) PC I own, and they all work (assuming I meet the system specs).

It would take me weeks of dealing with unreliable torrent sites, risking infecting my computer with all manner of viruses and malware, struggling to get cracks working, and risking lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment to do the same illegally.

Since I can afford games, I don't want or need to put up with all the nonsense piracy entails. The only time it becomes necessary is when I can't get a game I want any other way. If Sony had the same service quality and depth of offerings as Steam, I'd buy their shit in a heartbeat. You'd think a company that sells hardware at a loss and makes all their money off software sales would have their primary fucking revenue steam as clean and efficient as Steam's is AT LAUNCH. That they're still getting their act together at this point is disgraceful.

Since he didn't say it this time, I will. Thank God for Jim.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
jklinders said:
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.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p
 

DanDeFool

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
0
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.
Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

jklinders said:
I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...
I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.
So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.



Have your last word.
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.
You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.
jklinders is right, of course. Monopolies can only be had over an entire industry; IP protection hardly applies here.

You could make the argument that Sony consolidating so many IPs under their banner, making it easier for them to subject people interested in those IPs to anti-consumer business practices is similar to monopolizing an industry, but Sony hasn't gone far enough for it to count yet.

Not that it isn't still shitty for the end users, but there's a pretty substantial difference between businesspractices that are stupid and harmful, and those that are actually illegal.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
DanDeFool said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
immortalfrieza said:
jklinders said:
I placed in bold the part that is relevant. There are viable substitutes out there to Sony's over priced shit. And yes it is overpriced as idiots willingly part with good money for their shit in the presence of alternative products and services. If Sony's garbage is so very important to you that you must have it then it is your choice to pay their inflated prices. But don't cry monopoly to me when there are literally dozens of alternatives to Sony products that are cheaper and provide a similar service.
Nope, there are no alternatives, (legal ones anyway) that was my entire point from the beginning. If I want a any system or game that Sony has the exculsive copyrights to, I must get it through Sony's distribution channels, pirate it or get an illegal knockoff, or not get it at all, there are no other companies that can produce and distribute that same game or system legally, which is what makes it a monopoly. In fact, the entire point of this Jimquistion episode is the fact that pirates provide a better, hassle free, and much more wallet friendly service for the PS1 classics than Sony itself does.

jklinders said:
I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...
I'll just stop you right there, because nothing I've ever wrote in this thread ever stated the above, I never even implied that, which if people that are quoting me actually read what I wrote instead of just reading a couple sentences out of context and then prematurely started complaining about them they'd know.
So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

NOT A MONOPOLY. Unless every movie studio, game publisher, book publisher, poetry publisher from the beginning of time has had a monopoly. You are watering the term down so much with this catchall definition that you are rendering it meaningless. This is why you are wrong and why Sony has not been successfully sued.

Monopolies apply to industries not specific products or intellectual property. Nothing in you definition you posted covers that.

You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident.



Have your last word.
"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth. That's my entire point! Why can't you... Damn it... I'm getting out before I start swearing and insulting you and end up banned. In fact, that's probably what you're trying to invoke since you can't get the incredibly obvious point I've been making.

However, I will say one more thing. I am no troll, I'm making a legitimate point. "You can't have gotten it this wrong by accident."

I could say the same. Just because you aren't willing to admit that you are wrong and I am right doesn't make me wrong.
Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

I don't want to live in a world where creativity is stifled by a lack of reward for hard sweat and work. IP is the only barrier we have to keep ideas flowing as without some mechanism to protect your ideas you are naked to having others steal (copy) your work without putting any effort into it.

It is a very imperfect system. I challenge you to find a better one in this very imperfect world.

I'll be waiting for you to come up with the better way. I don't think I will live to see it though.

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.
You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.
jklinders is right, of course. Monopolies can only be had over an entire industry; IP protection hardly applies here.

You could make the argument that Sony consolidating so many IPs under their banner, making it easier for them to subject people interested in those IPs to anti-consumer business practices is similar to monopolizing an industry, but Sony hasn't gone far enough for it to count yet.

Not that it isn't still shitty for the end users, but there's a pretty substantial difference between businesspractices that are stupid and harmful, and those that are actually illegal.
Thank you. I was beginning to think in the fog of cold medication and a nasty head cold I was the one who was deluded.

I've never argued that Sony were not a pack of smashed assholes but we are not compelled to deal with them for our video game entertainment. So they have no monopoly, they just own some desirable IPs. And not even a majority of those.
 

DanDeFool

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
0
jklinders said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p
And there probably were forms of IP protection before 1710. I doubt any renaissance artists could have copied other artists works and claimed they were their own original works without someone eventually doing something about it.

The ease with which different types of creative works can be copied and (more importantly) distributed makes it more important for IP law to be codified and enforced, but I figure the concept of "intellectual property" has been around since ancient times.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
jklinders said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
Restricted travel and lack of reproduction techniques were their own security measures. The Printing press and later digital tech makes your argument such as it is invalid. :p
Then their security measures were leakier than a Ubisoft DRM, because they copied each other's shit all the time.

 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man :D

[sub]Not a joke, seriously, you look like you've lost a few pounds.[/sub]
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?

 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
 

Kyr Knightbane

New member
Jan 3, 2012
427
0
0
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
 

Nalgas D. Lemur

New member
Nov 20, 2009
1,318
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
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.
 

Gitty101

New member
Jan 22, 2010
960
0
0
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

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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- said:
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- said:
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.
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
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.
 

Mr_Terrific

New member
Oct 29, 2011
163
0
0
Entitled said:
Mr_Terrific said:
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....
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
zelda2fanboy said:
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?
 

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Mr_Terrific said:
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.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Darknacht said:
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
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.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
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)
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
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.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
irishda said:
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.
 

Mr_Terrific

New member
Oct 29, 2011
163
0
0
FelixG said:
Mr_Terrific said:
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...
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
irishda said:
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.
 

redknightalex

Elusive Paragon
Aug 31, 2012
266
0
0
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.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
(Sorry double post)

Mr_Terrific said:
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! ^.^
 

TWEWER

New member
Feb 8, 2009
121
0
0
You have to feel sorry for the game devs that get their shit pirated because of Sony's weak service and devices.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
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.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Freezy_Breezy said:
irishda said:
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
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
FelixG said:
irishda said:
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.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
I am playing Super Mario World on my PSP because Nintendo hasn't made it available to modern handhelds.

It's a service issue.
 

chiefohara

New member
Sep 4, 2009
985
0
0
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
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
Immortal but you're contradicting yourself. Take a look at this:
immortalfrieza said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
Kroxile said:
daxterx2005 said:
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.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
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.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Darknacht said:
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
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.
 

LazyAza

New member
May 28, 2008
716
0
0
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.
 

Evil Smurf

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
Jim, are you advocating piracy? That is against the escapist rules.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal but you're contradicting yourself. Take a look at this:
immortalfrieza said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

ThatGuy

New member
Dec 19, 2011
38
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
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.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I'm more pissed at how they basically abandoned the Xperia play.

That thing would be completely useless if it wasn't for emulators.
 

-|-

New member
Aug 28, 2010
292
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
-|- said:
By your ridiculous definition literally everything is a monopoly apart from the most generic of products.
Again, yet another person confusing what I said to mean Sony has a monopoly on the entire gaming industy when I said nothing of the sort.

PLEASE everybody, actually read and understand what I wrote before coming up with an argument against what I wrote, since apparently a ridiculous number of people continue to argue against a point I NEVER ACTUALLY MADE!!!
Actually it was against the point you made. But whatever - go ahead and use word meanings that aren't universally understood. Invent your whole language. Go on. DO IT!!!
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
ThatGuy said:
How can a company have a monopoly on its own products? Does Apple have a monopoly on the iPhone as well?
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.
ThatGuy said:
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.
That would be BETTER for the industry, not worse! It would mean that Sony and companies like it would have to ensure that their products function better and have better prices than the knockoffs their competition is producing, and their competition would have try to do the same, in order to draw customers to prefer their version over anothers, or whoever didn't make enough profits would either have to abort production and switch to producing a more profitable product or close it's doors, whichever came first. It would mean better quality and cheaper prices across the board for the entire video game industry. Sure, it would be more of a pain for the consumer, but no less so than any other industry (the video game industry is the only industry to my knowledge that has this kind of monopoly on it's IPs, or rather the only one that exploits this monopoly for all it's worth.)
ThatGuy said:
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.
It's a monopoly because the only ones that can legally make and sell a console capable of playing a PS3 game are Sony, ONLY Sony. I can't play, say, Infamous on any other platform except the PS3 and nobody will ever be able to make a console that is also capable of playing the PS3 exclusive except those with Sony's permission until the patents dry up, which they probably never will. THAT is a monopoly.
 

ThatGuy

New member
Dec 19, 2011
38
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
... 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.

...

It's a monopoly because the only ones that can legally make and sell a console capable of playing a PS3 game are Sony, ONLY Sony. I can't play, say, Infamous on any other platform except the PS3 and nobody will ever be able to make a console that is also capable of playing the PS3 exclusive except those with Sony's permission until the patents dry up, which they probably never will. THAT is a monopoly.
iPhone is the only phone capable of running Apple apps (some of which are exclusives, and some of which are also available on Android). PS3 is the only device capable of playing PS3 games (some of which are exclusives, and some of which are also available on other gaming platforms). But according to your definition, PS3 is a monopoly, and iPhone isn't. These two examples are actually analogous. Think about it: Apple is the only company that can legally make and sell a phone capable of running Apple software, just like Sony is the only company that can legally make and sell a system capable of running PS3 games. Whether or not the software/games are multiplatform is a separate issue.
 

hedges1001

New member
Mar 17, 2010
94
0
0
i'll be honest i didn't think the ps1 => vita debacle was that big a problem you had to go through the same shit with the psp so i guess you can chalk that up to getting a 6 month old piece of tech to work with a 6 year old piece of tech.

yeah the proprietary cards suck, i admit that but when you look at how piracy on psp started out (using save glitches in games like GTA LCS) you can see why, the prices are complete BS though 60 quid ($90) for a 16gb stick .... fuck off.

finally the vitas release problem isnt the release quality, its the frequency. if they had spaced some of their launch line up over this year we wouldn't be bitching as much.

peace out bitches i'm off to play grandia on my week old vita
 

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
ThatGuy said:
How can a company have a monopoly on its own products? Does Apple have a monopoly on the iPhone as well?
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 sorry, I had to jump back on this again. You acknowledge that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the iPhone because other companies make things that are similar to iPhones. By that logic Sony doesn't have a monopoly on the PS3 because the Xbox 360 is basically the same thing. Sure there's "exclusives" but there are also apps available only on the iPhone that aren't available for the Android.

Now I GUESS the going by your strict definition Sony DOES have a monopoly on the "Vita" and any game for it because the 3DS is at a lower tier technologically so you can't have ports. However it really is only a problem if you exclusively bought Sony products. The Vita doesn't exist in a vacuum, even though its so different, people do have the option to by a 3DS, and Sony can learn from Nintendo's success, which is more or less the same as if other people were allowed to make knock-off Vitas with better service.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
I have always hated Sony for their shitty customer experience. They just shuffle their feet until you get impatient and give up. Truly, one can feel the Japanese spirit in every Sony product due to their attitude.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Entitled said:
jklinders said:
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.
Because as anyone who knows art can tell you, Micheallangelo never painted for money - every single thing he did, he did for the love of painting. Yes, painting was his love, his one true love, and he made the Sistine Chapel for that one reason.

Note: In case you can't tell from the sarcasm, Michealngelo hated painting and only did the Sistine Chapel because they paid him to.

The list of starving artists who made art purely because of a yearning to, who lived before 1900, begins and ends with Vincent Van Goh. Before him, they didn't build them to a level of quality because of passion - they did it because in the old days, people who were displeased would fucking kill the artist who displeased them.

Here's a hint - if any of your statements fit into to "things are worse today" idea, they're wrong.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
ThatGuy said:
How can a company have a monopoly on its own products? Does Apple have a monopoly on the iPhone as well?
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.
ThatGuy said:
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.
That would be BETTER for the industry, not worse! It would mean that Sony and companies like it would have to ensure that their products function better and have better prices than the knockoffs their competition is producing, and their competition would have try to do the same, in order to draw customers to prefer their version over anothers, or whoever didn't make enough profits would either have to abort production and switch to producing a more profitable product or close it's doors, whichever came first. It would mean better quality and cheaper prices across the board for the entire video game industry. Sure, it would be more of a pain for the consumer, but no less so than any other industry (the video game industry is the only industry to my knowledge that has this kind of monopoly on it's IPs, or rather the only one that exploits this monopoly for all it's worth.)
ThatGuy said:
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.
It's a monopoly because the only ones that can legally make and sell a console capable of playing a PS3 game are Sony, ONLY Sony. I can't play, say, Infamous on any other platform except the PS3 and nobody will ever be able to make a console that is also capable of playing the PS3 exclusive except those with Sony's permission until the patents dry up, which they probably never will. THAT is a monopoly.
You don't have a solitary fucking clue how the industry works, do you? You know no history, no economics, and nothing beyond "corporation=bad".

They tried that. That was the 3DO. No-one fucking wanted it, or wanted to make games for it. Then they tried it again, with the CD-i. No-one wanted it, or wanted to make games with it.

And since you have no concept of pattern recognition, by now you will say that the failures of those devices was unrelated to your idea of making them produced by a number of different companies. Not realising that the reason Sony have so many great games, is so they can attract people to their hardware.

Its very, very simple. If Sony were not makiung their console, Uncharted, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, LittleBigPlantet, Ratchet and Clank, Journey, God of War and The Unfinished Swan would not exist.
 
Sep 13, 2009
1,589
0
0
*Does best to ignore ImmortalFrieza's butchering of the concept of a monopoly*

Well, that's the closest I'm going to come to completely ignoring it.

As for the video, I really cannot agree with what Jim is saying about having to offer a better service than a pirate for them to stop. Namely because you just aren't going to be able to do that. Even if it comes down to having to put in credit card information and click an extra button to confirm your purchase, piracy will always have at least as good of a service in terms of software. Reason being? They can just copy whatever software the developer's using. And when it comes down to it I'm sure that a lot of people are going to look at their wallets and say "Well I could pay $60 for this game or I can spend it on something that I can't get for free and have both."
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
NightHawk21 said:
Sony could take a lesson from Valve with Steam. I know the rules of the site, but lets just say that when I was a poor, unemployed teenager I used to acquire the few comp games (namely an RTS here or there) in less than legal ways. Now that I've pretty much converted to the Church of Steam, it is literally not worth my time to pirate a game and play around trying to get it to work, than to dish out a few bucks, get the game nicely integrated into my library with achievements and constant updates. There is a reason why my PS3 has been essentially off for a year now, and is only occasionally turned on to play a DVD.
Same story here minus the PS3 (The only console I can afford is a gamecube! ). If steam managed to turn the Russian game market with the HIGHEST piracy levels in the world into their largest market in Europe you know they are doing at least one thing right!
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Foolproof said:
ThatGuy said:
How can a company have a monopoly on its own products? Does Apple have a monopoly on the iPhone as well?
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 agreed with you until here, but he does have a point, the App Store, and generally the exclusive content, makes Apple into as much of a monopoly as Sony and the rest.

Foolproof said:
The list of starving artists who made art purely because of a yearning to, who lived before 1900, begins and ends with Vincent Van Goh.
then the historical times sucked significantly more than our days, because about half of the art I spent my time with in the recent years were created by people who worked on them for years, only to release them for free.

And much of the other half were copyrighted out of technical necesity to make the distribution of physical copies easier for anyone who wants one, but the artists made it clear that they don't particuarly mind piracy either, or een support it.

The remaining ones were copyrighted by publishers, and their artists worked for a salary. The only difference between that and the old patrony is, that, as Jim once said, copyright is "about already rich men getting richer" by allowing them to own what their workers created.
 

Zeckt

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,085
0
0
Starting off with the Grandia intro music? Jim, I think I love you.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Entitled said:
Foolproof said:
ThatGuy said:
How can a company have a monopoly on its own products? Does Apple have a monopoly on the iPhone as well?
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 agreed with you until here, but he does have a point, the App Store, and generally the exclusive content, makes Apple into as much of a monopoly as Sony and the rest.

Foolproof said:
The list of starving artists who made art purely because of a yearning to, who lived before 1900, begins and ends with Vincent Van Goh.
then the historical times sucked significantly more than our days, because about half of the art I spent my time with in the recent years were created by people who worked on them for years, only to release them for free.

And much of the other half were copyrighted out of technical necesity to make the distribution of physical copies easier for anyone who wants one, but the artists made it clear that they don't particuarly mind piracy either, or een support it.

The remaining ones were copyrighted by publishers, and their artists worked for a salary. The only difference between that and the old patrony is, that, as Jim once said, copyright is "about already rich men getting richer" by allowing them to own what their workers created.
Who owns the Sistine Chapel and makes money off people coming to see it, the Catholic Church or Michealangelo's bloodline descendants? Who owns the Mona Lisa, The Republic of France or Da Vinci's bloodline descendants?

Already rich men getting richer is not copyright, that's every form of a system of an economy I can think of, except maybe communism. Do you think the feudal system was not about rich land owners doing very little for the peasantry and yet getting richer?
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Crono1973 said:
zelda2fanboy said:
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?
That's because the wii virtual console was made for the Wii. And the 3DS has its own virtual console where you can get NES, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour and Game Gear games for the system. And on your 3DS you can play any game you bought on the DsiWare shop with a simple system transfer and play any DS game out there. And all you need to do to transfer your DSiWare games to your 3DS is go into the menu, select system transfer and wait for the two systems to transfer data.

OT: Yep, Sony's kind of digging its own grave with the Vita. They didn't learn from the PSP, and are making the exact same mistakes again. One being making a handheld that's basically a portable console which drives up the price to ridiculous levels instead of keeping the hardware a bit less than consoles and keeping the price down. Another being forcing users to use there way of getting games, exactly like the PSP's UMD system. With the 3DS if I want to play a DS game I can just pop in the DS game into the slot at the top and play it. On the Vita if I want to play a PSP game I have to buy it again (or transfer it, which is still quite a lot), download it then install it. And considering the price of Sony's SD cards I probably wouldn't have an SD card that can fit most of my PSP games on there, so then I just can't play the games without deleting a load of other shit.
 

BlueKenja

New member
Jul 4, 2011
61
0
0
So I think in the last 5 pages no-one has asked the most important question.
Where can I find that picture of the muscular young man in his underwear?
 

SoopaSte123

New member
Jul 1, 2010
464
0
0
An intelligent opinion as always, but the main thing I took away from this video is that I want to play Tomba again...
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
ToastiestZombie said:
Crono1973 said:
zelda2fanboy said:
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?
That's because the wii virtual console was made for the Wii. And the 3DS has its own virtual console where you can get NES, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour and Game Gear games for the system. And on your 3DS you can play any game you bought on the DsiWare shop with a simple system transfer and play any DS game out there. And all you need to do to transfer your DSiWare games to your 3DS is go into the menu, select system transfer and wait for the two systems to transfer data.
Nintendo designed the Wii and 3DS VC's to be exclusive. You COULD play your downloaded SNES games on your 3DS and maybe you could have on DS but Nintendo designed it in a way where you couldn't do that. Certain NES games can be played on both but you have to buy them one time for every system you want to play them on (like Super Mario Bros). If you have two Wii's and two 3DS's and you want to play SMB on all 4 of them, you need to buy it 4 times. That's pretty shitty considering that if I buy a PS1 classic, I can play it on 2 handhelds and 2 PS3's without any sort of system transfer. Stop making excuses for Nintendo.

Yeah, Sony is fucking up but they still aren't as restrictive as Nintendo.
 

Zeren

New member
Aug 6, 2011
394
0
0
We get in trouble for talking about piracy, but he gets to make a video about it? Yea that's fair.
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Crono1973 said:
ToastiestZombie said:
Crono1973 said:
zelda2fanboy said:
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?
That's because the wii virtual console was made for the Wii. And the 3DS has its own virtual console where you can get NES, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour and Game Gear games for the system. And on your 3DS you can play any game you bought on the DsiWare shop with a simple system transfer and play any DS game out there. And all you need to do to transfer your DSiWare games to your 3DS is go into the menu, select system transfer and wait for the two systems to transfer data.
Nintendo designed the Wii and 3DS VC's to be exclusive. You COULD play your downloaded SNES games on your 3DS and maybe you could have on DS but Nintendo designed it in a way where you couldn't do that. Certain NES games can be played on both but you have to buy them one time for every system you want to play them on (like Super Mario Bros). If you have two Wii's and two 3DS's and you want to play SMB on all 4 of them, you need to buy it 4 times. That's pretty shitty considering that if I buy a PS1 classic, I can play it on 2 handhelds and 2 PS3's without any sort of system transfer. Stop making excuses for Nintendo.

Yeah, Sony is fucking up but they still aren't as restrictive as Nintendo.
Yes, I admit that sucks. But that doesn't make them as restrictive as Sony. Like I said, there is no way to play PSP games on your PS Vita other than buying them again on the Vita, since the Vita doesn't support UMDs. And with the 3DS you can actually just do a simple system transfer for ALL your games, including NES games and eShop games. Seriously, you're saying Sony isn't as restrictive as Nintendo when Sony literally forces you to buy their SD cards which cost way too much just to play games on the Vita because they didn't pack one in like Nintendo does with the 3DS. And like I said, you can't play UMD games on the Vita, making you either transfer any games you downloaded onto your PSP (which if you didn't get the Go would have been very little) or buy them all again. With the 3DS you can play any DS game you want without hassle.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Zeren said:
We get in trouble for talking about piracy, but he gets to make a video about it? Yea that's fair.
Better that someone on this site gets to talk about it than no one. After all, it's an important issue and it needs to be discussed, not ignored.
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Zeren said:
We get in trouble for talking about piracy, but he gets to make a video about it? Yea that's fair.
Not talking about piracy, you get in trouble for saying "You should all pirate, I pirate too and it's awesome!". Which Jim wasn't doing, he was saying that it's Sony's own fault that so many people want to pirate Vita games. It's a pretty wide spread opinion that piracy is mostly a service problem, not the fault of anyone really but the publisher doing shitty things they shouldn't be doing.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Like I said, there is no way to play PSP games on your PS Vita other than buying them again on the Vita, since the Vita doesn't support UMDs.
Well, you can play your digitally bought PSP games on your Vita. Not including a UMD drive is something that needed to happen. How many generations should they have kept it for, it was a failure.

On the flip side, you can play your DS games on your 3DS but your downloaded DSi games can only be played if you transfer them (remove them from one system). You could have a downloaded game both on your PSP and Vita. To me, that is important considering we are moving towards downloads instead of physical copies.

Seriously, you're saying Sony isn't as restrictive as Nintendo when Sony literally forces you to buy their SD cards which cost way too much just to play games on the Vita because they didn't pack one in like Nintendo does with the 3DS
Proprietary memory cards =/= the restrictions in this discussion. Sure, it would have been better if Sony had gone with SD cards but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about account restrictions and you can't get worse than Nintendo who has no accounts.

And like I said, you can't play UMD games on the Vita, making you either transfer any games you downloaded onto your PSP (which if you didn't get the Go would have been very little) or buy them all again.
Well, I have the PSP 3000 and I downloaded as many games as I could because I didn't want to deal with UMD's. Turns out, I chose the correct course. Those who bought UMD's for games that were available on PSN are no worse off than those who couldn't use their N64 carts in a Gamecube. You didn't expect Sony to stick with a failed format forever did you?

With the 3DS you can play any DS game you want without hassle.
Not downloaded ones, you must remove them from one system to make them work on a new one and you can't even just re-download them from the shop. You have to waste time with the stupid transfer Pikmin tool that takes way too long for such small files. What takes that tool 20 minutes would take your PC 20 seconds.
 

T-004

New member
Mar 26, 2008
111
0
0
I cracked my PSP some time ago, purely because I have a pretty decent collection of PS1 games gathering dust and figured portability was the way to go.

After all, why should I go on to PSN and run that gauntlet only to pay again for a game I already own!?! Especially when I have to ability to make that game compatible with my PSP myself! So it's not costing them any time or money to provide this to me (and thats when they even have the game I want to play <_<).

Sony really started dropping the ball when the PSP came out. They had a golden opportunity to do something special, but ruined it by just not supporting it in the same way they had the PS1 & 2.

The Vita appears to be much the same and quite frankly it's only a matter of time before some resourceful bugger cracks it wide open and then the choice will belong to the consumer. But also I hope the option possibly to put games you own on the PS1/PS2 onto the system, then I think we'll see an increase in sales of the Vita.
 

Joriss

New member
Dec 27, 2011
71
0
0
Damn, I would actually enjoy this show if Jim's voice wasn't so damn annoying...
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Y'know, if I had to pay an equal $ price for every thing I've pirated, I'd still pirate it because of the vastly superior distribution and user interface. That's just depressing.
 

Tharwen

Ep. VI: Return of the turret
May 7, 2009
9,145
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man :D

[sub]Not a joke, seriously, you look like you've lost a few pounds.[/sub]
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?

Maybe this one:

 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
"To combat piracy, your mission is clear -- provide a better service than pirates."

Too damn right, and come on, these are 10 year old games, how much exactly are Sony charging for them, along with the hour of your life you're losing to make them work?

I've got a stack of old PC games, and when they show up on a sale, on Steam, or GOG, or greenmangaming, I'll BUY them AGAIN, purely for the convenience of having them easily playable, and backed up on a service, ready to download again when I need them.

I mean, two quid to have Deus Ex when I want it? It's just not worth the effort of clicking thru to the bay. (Which btw, has been blocked by many ISPs in the UK now, causing people here exactly zero percent more trouble in accessing it. Part of me wishes politicians would do the tiniest bit of research before jumping on a bandwagon, and maybe they could have demanded an EFFECTIVE block, tho I admit my own ignorance in not knowing if it's even possible.)

Also, on my first point, Apply are knocking out games for 69p, just how many of the 100 PS1 games in Europe are 'classics' and how many are generic nonsense? I'm sure 10% are worth a few bucks each even now, but I'm a little cynical as to them being hand selected, thinking perhaps many were chosen as easy to get.

In short, as ever, make stuff easy to get, easy to use, and available to all, and we'll throw our damned money at you.

Lock it behind walls, spiked pits and deadly traps, and damn, we're not Indiana Jones, we just ain't gonna bother...
 

Madman123456

New member
Feb 11, 2011
590
0
0
I'm amazed once more and i continue to wonder. We have a "Pandora" and a "wiz" and i continue to wonder why anyone would even bother with this or that new Device.

Some People just havn't been screwed over enough.

Mobile gaming today looks a bit like this:

Smartphones: Easy to install, download and buy and then you can fumble around with the touchscreen. You carry that thing around already, might as well get some Games.

Maybe you'll buy a Nintendo DS. Maybe even a 3DS, assuming the thing wont make your Eyes explode and you really want to blow some extra money for a gimmick.

Sony's portable Stuff? Well, they want to sell you Games you've already bought. Maybe. Eventually you may or may not be able to buy those games. If they got around to make a Port,
Oh well no one cares to read this again; you saw the Episode and know how much of a Hassle this is.

Go buy a Pandora and play ome Games there. I wouldn't take a PSvita if someone gave it to me as a Present.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
HE'S PLAYING GRANDIA!! BEST EPISODE EVER!!

*ahem*

Okay, now to watch the rest now that I've composed myself again.

Yeah, I agree. Sony is pretty shit when it comes to customer service and then they sit around and wonder why they get pirated from. And hacked. And why nobody wants to spend $100 on a class 4 special Vita memory card when regular class 4 micro SD cards are $20. I also never pay attention to games coming out on the Playstation Store because Sony fucks around with releasing them. Some weeks they release in the mid afternoon. Some weeks they release very late in the evening. Some weeks they release on fucking Monday?! You never know when the hell they're going to put content out. So I just gave up on paying attention to new Playstation Store releases because I'd had enough of wanting a game and becoming more and more frustrated as Tuesday went on because they had apparently decided that this time would be an "update at 9PM" day and honestly, fuck that. Pick a time and update at it consistently. I never have this problem on my 360 or PC because Microsoft promptly updates DLC early Tuesday morning before I get up and games early Wednesday morning before I get up. Steam also has a set time where they update everything so there's no waiting around wondering "Is it up yet? Is it up yet?" all day (also, hurray for pre-downloading the game before launch). But Sony? NOOOO, they want to make it as hard as possible for me to buy a brand new downloadable title or DLC that I want. Fuck you, Sony. Quiet honestly, if they didn't have piles and piles of great exclusives I want to play, I would have tossed my PS3 out on its ass a long time ago. Sony just doesn't fucking get it at a- HOLY SHIT NOW HE'S PLAYING TOMBA THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO ON THE INTERNET!!

Also, speaking of Grandia and Tomba, I still have my PS1 copies on disc. I can pop them into my PS3 right now and play them. But if I want to play on PSP, I have to buy them again? Da fuq? Same crap as UMD games for PSP. They don't care if you have the disc already, if you want a digital copy for your PSP go (hahahaha) or your Vita, you have to buy it again. But they can manage to come up with this Cross Buy program where if you buy a PS3 game that has a Vita port, you get the Vita port free? How about you Cross Buy my PS1 and PSP games too? Oh wait, here comes the piracy excuse. Thanks for reminding us about piracy Sony, because that's exactly how people are going to get their PS1 and PSP games without paying for them a second time.

Hannibal942 said:
Can someone please tell me what that music was in the beginning?

Also, you should go buy and play Grandia. Fuck that Final Fantasy 7 shit, Grandia is the best RPG on PS1 by FAR.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, a lot of the problem comes down to believe it or not, nationalism and racism. Now before anyone goes "OMG, Therumancer is going on an irrelevent rant" stop and think about something Jim himself mentioned. North America received 9 titles, Japan received 290 titles. The reason for is not just bigotry against the US, though that generally does enter into it, but also because they know the Japanese market will lap up anything they are handed by Sony. 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.

Demanding better products and services of Sony, just has them pull back into other markets, focusing on Japan where they kind of walk on water, or dealing with the European market that happily slurps up what they have handed, due to having been neglected in the past. It's easier for Sony to release an inferior produt and these crappy controls and systems to their home market (which is substantial for this) and Europe, than to deal with the standards of Americans in a market where they have more competition.

It's really a difficult kind of problem to deal with, though I do think that as a result of pulling back from the US market Sony has ultimatly been shooting itself in the foot and getting worse and worse, to the point where it's going to run out of options on the video gaming front due to the corner it's painting itself into. By retreating into markets that are less critical of them and their products, they are leaving themselves less options when competing products eventually break in, and really there are plans to try and break the racial and national barrier of Japan in the next generation, or at least try to according to some things I've read. I expect Microsoft's next gen gaming materials to be backed by an unprecedented wave of overseas advertising, of course that may or may not work because I don't think the motivating factor in the market is one that can be influanced by advertising since it's motivated by some darker cultural aspects.

A lot of people won't like what I'm saying, or agree with me, but in the end I don't think Jim's suggestion about piracy would work, as we're dealing with a company that increasingly seems to be pulling up stakes in the US Market, which is bad for gamers, as Sony still has it's moments of genius, but kind of understandable. I honestly don't think Sony plans to even try and compete with a lot of these more conveinent services, at least not for the forseeable future.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
So, points of interest:

1) Service and Convenience vs Legal-Technical Arm Tweaking
Needs no further evaluation. Sony went directly onto my shitlist the moment they started acting like they owned your PS3 (in all but legal title), and forced users to downgrade their systems or be locked out of future games.

I don't care how minor a loss that may look to someone; that's a ridiculous premise and a dangerous one at that. I don't know who at Sony is running their paranoid looney parade, but it's hardcore anti-piracy shit like this that lead to the major PSN breach last year.

Which is a pity, because the Vita is, at least in terms of gaming power, a GREAT potential system. But it's the managerial bullshit, and half-hearted offerings that's pissing off their customers.

2) It's not "monopoly".
Monopoly deals in market control. Absolute market control, specifically.
The correct word some of this topic is looking for is "proprietary": A form of product control, and NOT market control.
Products and markets are related, but different. Simple as.
(Though companies with monopolies might employ propriety in order to maintain their monopoly)

Sony is in a pluralist market currently, which disqualifies them as a monopoly. Perhaps not oligopoly though. Microsoft and Nintendo compete against them, and one could feasibly make a case for Nintendo not really competing against Sony as directly as they used to.

Therumancer said:
Demanding better products and services of Sony, just has them pull back into other markets, focusing on Japan where they kind of walk on water, or dealing with the European market that happily slurps up what they have handed, due to having been neglected in the past. It's easier for Sony to release an inferior produt and these crappy controls and systems to their home market (which is substantial for this) and Europe, than to deal with the standards of Americans in a market where they have more competition.
That's the most insightful thing I've read in this topic, and if they are pulling back HARD to their domestics, then we're looking at a dangerous parallel between Sony and the other shrinking Japanese game publishers.

Nintendo was doing the same thing with their smaller franchises (read: not-Mario/Zelda/Pokemon), citing translation/localization costs when that isn't much of a bar for entry (both 3DS games I was looking forward to later this year: Pushed back to 2013. So once again my 3DS becomes an oversized MP3 player.)
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
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.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
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 said:
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
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
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
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
The first 2 sentences of the wikipedia article that you linked to alone prove me correct.

"A monopoly (from Greek monos ìüíïò (alone or single) + polein ðùëå&#8150;í (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.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Nurb said:
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.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
NightHawk21 said:
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 said:
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
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

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
jklinders said:
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.
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
"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 ***** 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!".