Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

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 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
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 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
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 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
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.
 

immortalfrieza

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

immortalfrieza

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

Elite Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
41
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