Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

[Mr_Terrific]

snip

I tend to trust those studies more than say, ubisoft, when they claim to have a 95% piracy rate.

So yeah I will trust studies more than anyone who goes "Well durr, Pirates pirate cause they is cheepos!" Unless they have some unbiased studies of their own to back it up.

The thing is, the studies you linked were not unbiased. A study was taken in what is widely recognized as the piracy capitol of the world, and that is somehow more credible than an actual developer? They gave very little details on the people involved and one of those studies clearly states that apathy was the key reason why the non p2p subjects spent less on entertainment.

Now, I generally steer clear of Ubi, particularly on the PC side, thanks to their terrible ports and the worst DRM this side of Blizzard. Because of those two reasons...well, a third being that most of Ubi's interviews are given by PR assholes that blame everything on PC, I simply ignore those titles whenever they pop up or buy them on consoles. Not pirates. They show their disapproval by pirating UBi's games which does no good whatsoever and because of UBi's bullshit, I fully believe them when they say that they're up to a 95% piracy rate.

I'm sure theirs plenty of "good" pirates out their that have "legitimate" reasons for taking whatever they want, but you also have to understand that most people will pirate simply because, a) they can, and b) they're just assholes like that...

 

[redknightalex]

Sounded more like a rail against the Vita than against Sony. This was the first episode that I had no strong feelings towards, and probably won't sway my desire to buy a Vita because I already have a backlog of games I don't even own a console for, so the point of this one was lost to me.

The one thing I did take to were the mentions of firmware and Apple. I don't understand why people will complain for hours about firmware updates when, every time I turn on my slight-old gaming rig, I have an update to preform and every month I check for the latest drivers on three different components. That's what I call updating. Also, PS Plus takes away the need to cut-out time for firmware updates as it happens in my sleep, if you have it. I believe that console gamers need to get away from the idea of instant playing and catch-up to the machine that's surpassed you: the PC.

As for Apple, I really hate that company. I own their products, yes (call me a hypocrite, fine), but I hate the amount of DRM I have to put up with and the number of times I need to throw in my password. I'd prefer to have a company that is a littler slower out of the gate (as Sony has historical been with consoles) to one that gets near overnight popularity but puts a homing device implant in your brain.

Would I like to turn on location services? Um...no.

 

[TWEWER]

You have to feel sorry for the game devs that get their shit pirated because of Sony's weak service and devices.

 

[orangeapples]

Somehow this is still relevant...


I like Sony, they make good hardware. I have a PS3, a PSP, and a Sony bluray player. Their main problem is that they don't understand people. Sony has it in their head that everyone in the world is trying to cheat Sony out of money by becoming a pirate/hacker. Most people don't want to pirate and aren't going to bother trying if there is a simple service for it. Thanks to youtube and iTunes, I don't know anyone who still pirates music.

Nobody cares if hackers crack the 3DS. That is because the 3DS does what it is supposed to. Does it have good software? thanks to the 99.99% DS compatibility, yeah. Will/has it be/been cracked? probably yeah, but what are they going to make it do? play Super Mario Bros.?

Everyone wants to know when the Vita gets cracked because it doesn't have support from developers, it doesn't have support from consumers and it doesn't have support from Sony. Sony have made the device as user unfriendly as possible and hackers simply promote the Vita from practically useless to pretty good.

 

[irishda]

Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Cracks: Come with all pirated images these days. Copy and paste.

Fake servers: Actually can't comment on this one due to ignorance.

Disk image files: Open Daemon tools > "Mount image" > Select file

Emulators: Open emulator > "Open ROM" > Select file

Are you seriously telling me that's harder than Games for Windows! Live, Ubisoft's DRM, Securom or motherfucking Origin?

And for the record, no, I don't pirate. I crack/image/emulate games I own. Like playing Ocarina of Time on my phone, or Vampire: Bloodlines when I don't want to lug around 3CDs every time I want to install it.

Transferring a PS1 ROM onto my phone by downloading it then copying and pasting sounds a hell of a lot easier than the Vita method.

EDIT: Oh, and the reason it "shouldn't take this long" is because other people can do the same thing faster and more efficiently.

Uninstalls? Downloads? Updates? I've had a lot of them on a lot of different platforms. Never once have I expected them to be on some sort of standard timeframe. "ALL INSTALLS OF EVERYTHING SHOULD BE 4 MINUTES! NO MORE!" It seems rather unrealistic doesn't it?

Not to mention difficulty is a matter of relativity. Let's break down my latest install, Diablo 3.

Buy game > Download > Install > Play

As opposed to this time I acquired Rome: Total War

Search for a file I hope doesn't have a massive, crippling virus on it > Download game > Install > Download Daemon Tools > Install > Figured out what I was using it for > Play

 

[irishda]

Couple of things. First, the assumption that piracy is a matter of service over money is a crock of shit, because pirating something is a lot harder than just buying it. Even with DRM/Always-online requirements. Cracks, fake servers, disc image files, emulators, etc. Hell, sometimes you'll spend more time trying to get the game to work than actually playing it.

Piracy has been shown to be a service problem.

East Europe and Russia used to have the highest piracy rates, when Steam opened its doors to them, those rates dropped dramatically.

I used to be a pirate, then when I embraced Steam and GOG and Impulse and iTunes (god I miss the old Impulse ) I quit cold turkey, because they offered me better service than I could get from Demonoid and Piratebay.

And I have to say, compared to how things used to be, pirating was much easier, just download, install and move a file from one folder to another and bam working game, if you spent more time trying to get games running than playing them as a pirate, that says more about a persons mental capacity than it does about the process.

Now I can just click a few times and install the game and play it legally with no issue, which I much prefer doing than pirating.

So no, piracy being a service problem is not a crock of shit, you just obviously dont know what you are talking about.

Of course. Only the most difficult games are pirated because they're so complicated and inconvenient. Hell, let's just look at Torrentfreak's lists of the most pirated games in 2011.

PC: Crysis 2
Modern Warfare 3
Battlefield 3
FIFA 12
Portal 2

Are you fucking serious? Yeah, number 1 is something that carried DRM. But the next four are hardly known for draconian DRM. Hell, Portal 2 is the fifth most downloaded game. Portal 2. Why didn't it's availability on Steam keep the pirates from downloading it???? Could it possibly be because no matter how convenient something is, a lot of people are assholes that just want free stuff? That many pirates aren't high minded consumers protesting corporate sell-out video game companies? Nope. Can't be. I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Epona]

I am playing Super Mario World on my PSP because Nintendo hasn't made it available to modern handhelds.

It's a service issue.

 

[chiefohara]

Not a mad fan of the endorsing piracy thing,

But to be frank thats the extreme you have to go to do get these people to sit up and take notice.

Kudos to you Jim, a legend as always

"Captcha: I love you" not quite so true Jim, but i would buy you a pint

 

[NightHawk21]

Immortal but you're contradicting yourself. Take a look at this:

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. 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.

Here's where it get interesting. Replace trucks with Video Game Consoles and you get this:

No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce Video Game Consoles for instance, they just can't sell Video Game Consoles under each other's brand names. Both companies are able to produce the Video Game Consoles 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 we assume that both companies refer to say Sony and Microsoft you can see why your argument doesn't hold any water.

You further go on to say

brand names are themselves technically monopolies, but small, barely noticable ones

This argument too doesn't hold water as a brand name simply identifies the maker of said product. If we think about brands as the names of the company, I'm sure that you could see why you can't pose as another. It would be as if I made something and said that you made it. Not a problem in and of itself, but it becomes problematic when or if I start proclaiming or making things that cast you in a negative light. Going back to the companies, could you imagine if brands weren't protected and Microsoft releases the PS4 and makes it overheat on purpose to smear SONY, or vice-versa. So in short, brands are not monopolies there are identifiers of the maker of a product and are and should be protected.

Now lets take a look at your last argument:

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.

See this ties in nicely with my previous point about brand control. No one else can produce a PS3 because is essentially Sony's take on the truck. Some company can produce a similar product with "tweaks" (as per your car analogy), but they can't produce Sony's truck. Now if this company wants to make a ConsoleX 360-3 then more power to them, they just can't produce PS3, or any SONY product and call it that. I would like to bring up a quote you said again here since I think you put it nicely:

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.

So you can see that even you agree that because Sony and Microsoft "can and do sell the same exact product" (bar a few tweeks mentioned earlier) "they do not have a monopoly on said product".

So that's it for now. I hope the long nature of the post didn't scare you away, I tried to keep it pretty concise and organized. I still think that you don't quite understand what a monopoly is and the difference between a monopoly and brand exclusivity, but I'm hoping that the post above might be of some help in clarifying that.

 

[daxterx2005]

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.

Aye, it doesn't matter how "gr8 duh grafixx r"
Its about the games.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Arguing over the definition of a monopoly is a trivial pursuit.

One may say they don't have a clue. I understand your frustration.

And thank god for Tombi. Truer words have never been said.

 

[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.

Back then people created new things because very rich people or groups paid them to, they did make them for money. The big difference between then and now is how easy it is to make an exact copy of something.

Really... apparently you don't know said people got paid a pittance, if they weren't just threatened or otherwise into making things for their clients for free. Artists and inventors were some of the poorest people on the planet for centuries, many weren't even recognized for their work for decades or even CENTURIES. They NEVER did it for money.

 

[LazyAza]

I really hope Sony get's their shit together with the PS4 but knowing them theirs probably still going to be a mountain of bullshit to overcome in order to use the damn thing to its fullest for us and developers. Thankfully from what I've learned they actually have engineers and designers from US/UK helping them with the ps4 so there is a strong chance they might finally release a device that isn't a giant pain in the ass to use.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Jim, are you advocating piracy? That is against the escapist rules.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Immortal but you're contradicting yourself. Take a look at this:

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. 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.

Here's where it get interesting. Replace trucks with Video Game Consoles and you get this:

No, they don't have a monopoly because both companies can produce Video Game Consoles for instance, they just can't sell Video Game Consoles under each other's brand names. Both companies are able to produce the Video Game Consoles 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 we assume that both companies refer to say Sony and Microsoft you can see why your argument doesn't hold any water.

You further go on to say

brand names are themselves technically monopolies, but small, barely noticable ones

This argument too doesn't hold water as a brand name simply identifies the maker of said product. If we think about brands as the names of the company, I'm sure that you could see why you can't pose as another. It would be as if I made something and said that you made it. Not a problem in and of itself, but it becomes problematic when or if I start proclaiming or making things that cast you in a negative light. Going back to the companies, could you imagine if brands weren't protected and Microsoft releases the PS4 and makes it overheat on purpose to smear SONY, or vice-versa. So in short, brands are not monopolies there are identifiers of the maker of a product and are and should be protected.

Now lets take a look at your last argument:

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.

See this ties in nicely with my previous point about brand control. No one else can produce a PS3 because is essentially Sony's take on the truck. Some company can produce a similar product with "tweaks" (as per your car analogy), but they can't produce Sony's truck. Now if this company wants to make a ConsoleX 360-3 then more power to them, they just can't produce PS3, or any SONY product and call it that. I would like to bring up a quote you said again here since I think you put it nicely:

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.

So you can see that even you agree that because Sony and Microsoft "can and do sell the same exact product" (bar a few tweeks mentioned earlier) "they do not have a monopoly on said product".

So that's it for now. I hope the long nature of the post didn't scare you away, I tried to keep it pretty concise and organized. I still think that you don't quite understand what a monopoly is and the difference between a monopoly and brand exclusivity, but I'm hoping that the post above might be of some help in clarifying that.

The problem with your claim I contradict myself is that I don't, Sony has a monopoly on the PS3 and any games that run on it. Nobody is able, at least without extensive modding only a select few people know how to do properly without breaking the console in the process, and even then the console often ends up a buggy mess, and which is also illegal to do, to play a PS3 exclusive game in a Xbox 360 or a Wii, they simply wouldn't function, at all, and even in the off chance they did they probably wouldn't respond to a different controller input. Even the games that aren't exclusives aren't capable of running on each console platform because that PS3 game disc have protections on it that prevent that from being possible. Sony doesn't provide patches and customer service for any games that aren't on their platform either but they don't have a monopoly on services for that because it's legal for modders to create and distribute patches of their own as well as provide assistance to PS3 customers.

Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft have a monopoly on their respective consoles and all games exclusive to them because they don't sell the exact same product, even though both use similar technology and they operate in the same industry. For another analogy, it would be as if there are only 2 DVD player manufacturers that exist (for whatever reason, just go with it) and one manufacturers' DVD player was because of IP law only capable of playing say, half the DVDs on the planet and the other was only capable of playing the other half, and no other DVD manufacturer was ever able to make a DVD player that played either side's DVDs until the patent was up or with permission from the patent holders, then they'd each have a monopoly on the DVDs on each side and the product itself, despite the fact that they both provide a means of playing DVDs, they don't provide a means of playing ALL DVDs nor will they allow anyone else including each other to provide that DVD players that provide the ability to play either set of DVDs or both but them.

To answer the truck analogy, Ford and Toyota don't have a monopoly on trucks because each and every truck is capable hauling the same amount of stuff in the back more or less as another truck and more or less able to drive for the same distance too. One might be more or less effective at hauling than the other company's truck, but they still can, which is the companies personal tweeks I referred to earlier. They both provide a product with the same capabilities, the only difference is one is better or worse at providing that capability than the other.

Now, if a Ford truck was only able (for whatever reason) to haul say water (for example) while the Toyota truck was only able to haul wood and they would not permit anyone including each other to make trucks that have the capablity to haul water or wood or wood without their permission, THEN they'd have a monopoly.

 

[ThatGuy]

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.

How can a company have a monopoly on its own products? Does Apple have a monopoly on the iPhone as well?

You're saying Sony should allow other companies to produce and sell their systems. Why would they do that? There is no obligation for them to license their original IPs for cloning. Also, that would probably be worse for the consumer, since you'd have to do background research to find out which "type" of PS3/Vita you want to buy, which manufacturers make the best quality hardware, which ones offer warranties, which ones offer the best price, etc.

The products that Sony has made are proprietary hardware and software that they developed themselves. In the case of MiniDisc (another proprietary Sony tech), Sony licensed the tech to other manufacturers. That's why you could buy differently-branded MiniDisc players. But in the case of PS3/Vita, Sony has no incentive (or obligation) to license the tech. That doesn't mean they have a monopoly on it, though.

 

[-|-]

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!!!

Actually it was against the point you made. But whatever - go ahead and use word meanings that aren't universally understood. Invent your whole language. Go on. DO IT!!!