Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,055
85
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
2,055
85
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.
 

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
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
2,055
85
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.