Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

[immortalfrieza]

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]

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]

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-]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DanDeFool]

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.

I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...

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

So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

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

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

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

Have your last word.

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

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

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

Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

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

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

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

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.

You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.

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

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

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

 

[jklinders]

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.

I read what you wrote. Did you? Because you implied that Sony had a monopoly over the whole industry...

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

So you are in fact talking about intellectual property as opposed to providing a product or service.

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

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

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

Have your last word.

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

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

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

Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything. A lack of IP leaves anyone with original content naked to exploitation by the likes of Zynga. You know those industry parasites that rob everyone's ideas and copy them without giving any credit.

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

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

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

"Intellectual Property" is the SAME THING AS A MONOPOLY!!! Regardless of whatever semantics and technicalities you can come up with that's the truth.

You call it technicalities, I call it the difference between holding a monopoly on a service and having protection for your ideas which are also your livelihood. You are the only one here defining it this way. Maybe you should think about that...

Now I really am done.

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

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

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

Thank you. I was beginning to think in the fog of cold medication and a nasty head cold I was the one who was deluded.

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

 

[DanDeFool]

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.

And there probably were forms of IP protection before 1710. I doubt any renaissance artists could have copied other artists works and claimed they were their own original works without someone eventually doing something about it.

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

 

[Entitled]

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.

Then their security measures were leakier than a Ubisoft DRM, because they copied each other's shit all the time.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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

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

Maybe! The exercise bike seen in the "Thank God for Me" episode wasn't just for show. I've been on a "Red Dwarf's worth of pretend-biking per weekday" regimen for a few months.

Thanks for noticing whatever minuscule shred of fatty-fat-fat might have disappeared as a result.

Nevertheless, it seems to be working. Keep it up

Could you have stumbled across a a hidden exercise technique?

Are you motivated by this ancient hymn?

 

[-Dragmire-]

Without a concept of intellectual property there is no incentive to create anything.

And that's why mankind didn't create any worthwile art before 1710.

Exactly! Back then people made things because there was a need to be filled, or for the love of the craft, or simply out of curiousity, NOT for money, and when anybody produced anything they had to try and make and sell it cheaply and ensure it worked flawlessly. With the monopoly that is intellectual property? Nope. Now they just make it barely functional and sell it for as much as they possibly can get away with.

The cost of living and producing things at a scale large enough to meet demand was quite a bit different as well. Please understand that while government allowed monopolies under copyright and patent laws can stop new ideas based on a copyrighted creation from being implemented until the original creation or idea enters into the public domain, the law has very important uses. The drive to create and provide something taking much time, effort and money would be severely crippled without a guarantee that someone else couldn't take your product or idea and sell it as their own. The law's intent was for the benefit of society while maintaining an incentive for people to make new things.

The recent changes in the lifetime of copyright laws do not leave me with a very positive outlook for where copyright law is going though. Especially in cases where the creator is not the possessor of the copyright on their creation.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

The Vita is struggling and Sony should have done more homework and PR to different companies to garner more support IE Capcom for a new Resident Evil perhaps, even maybe a Devil May Cry game, Activision for a LAUNCH Call of Duty, and they should have pulled their shit together and produced a DECENT RPG at launch.
The only RPG that looks good besides Persona 4 (A fucking REMAKE, REALLY?) is Ragnarok Odyssey, and Japan got it long before the US. Which is a massive amount of horseshit. Sony needs to exercise a modicum of accessibility to all and not just Japan, however big their player/consumer base is, they also need to throw the US a few bones every now and then.
The Vita is a good machine, i love mine, it just has bugger all for titles right now. Even the announced titles are somewhat small, i realize its a launch year but still, for a new handheld that's supposed to compete with Nintendo's handheld, they're lagging in support, games and overall customer appreciation. Its just silly how they barely added PSX support. That should have been a major consideration when it was being developed. I just really hope it does better next year and they can get some more 3rd party support. That will help. It wont fix everything, but it should repair some of the larger holes in their sinking ship

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Are you motivated by this ancient hymn?

Darn you all to heck. Now after hearing that I have to go finish watching the rest of those. I only made it through half of the episodes before I had to give the box set back to my friend, and right now I'm in the middle of trying to fill in the episodes of Doctor Who I missed (which I have clearly failed to do in time for the new ones, but oh well). One of these days I'll get caught up on everything...maybe.

 

[Gitty101]

Hmmm, Tomba is out now you say Jim? I think I'm going to have to go and purchase that...

OT: Right as always. Thank God for Jim.