Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

[Lord_Gremlin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

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.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Findlebob]

Can someone please explain the action man to me?

 

[immortalfrieza]

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

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

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

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

 

[kajinking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.