Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

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.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
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 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
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 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
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.