Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

[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!!!

 

[immortalfrieza]

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

Nope, because there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

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.

That would be BETTER for the industry, not worse! It would mean that Sony and companies like it would have to ensure that their products function better and have better prices than the knockoffs their competition is producing, and their competition would have try to do the same, in order to draw customers to prefer their version over anothers, or whoever didn't make enough profits would either have to abort production and switch to producing a more profitable product or close it's doors, whichever came first. It would mean better quality and cheaper prices across the board for the entire video game industry. Sure, it would be more of a pain for the consumer, but no less so than any other industry (the video game industry is the only industry to my knowledge that has this kind of monopoly on it's IPs, or rather the only one that exploits this monopoly for all it's worth.)

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.

It's a monopoly because the only ones that can legally make and sell a console capable of playing a PS3 game are Sony, ONLY Sony. I can't play, say, Infamous on any other platform except the PS3 and nobody will ever be able to make a console that is also capable of playing the PS3 exclusive except those with Sony's permission until the patents dry up, which they probably never will. THAT is a monopoly.

 

[ThatGuy]

... there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

...

It's a monopoly because the only ones that can legally make and sell a console capable of playing a PS3 game are Sony, ONLY Sony. I can't play, say, Infamous on any other platform except the PS3 and nobody will ever be able to make a console that is also capable of playing the PS3 exclusive except those with Sony's permission until the patents dry up, which they probably never will. THAT is a monopoly.

iPhone is the only phone capable of running Apple apps (some of which are exclusives, and some of which are also available on Android). PS3 is the only device capable of playing PS3 games (some of which are exclusives, and some of which are also available on other gaming platforms). But according to your definition, PS3 is a monopoly, and iPhone isn't. These two examples are actually analogous. Think about it: Apple is the only company that can legally make and sell a phone capable of running Apple software, just like Sony is the only company that can legally make and sell a system capable of running PS3 games. Whether or not the software/games are multiplatform is a separate issue.

 

[hedges1001]

i'll be honest i didn't think the ps1 => vita debacle was that big a problem you had to go through the same shit with the psp so i guess you can chalk that up to getting a 6 month old piece of tech to work with a 6 year old piece of tech.

yeah the proprietary cards suck, i admit that but when you look at how piracy on psp started out (using save glitches in games like GTA LCS) you can see why, the prices are complete BS though 60 quid ($90) for a 16gb stick .... fuck off.

finally the vitas release problem isnt the release quality, its the frequency. if they had spaced some of their launch line up over this year we wouldn't be bitching as much.

peace out bitches i'm off to play grandia on my week old vita

 

[Gatx]

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

Nope, because there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

I'm sorry, I had to jump back on this again. You acknowledge that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the iPhone because other companies make things that are similar to iPhones. By that logic Sony doesn't have a monopoly on the PS3 because the Xbox 360 is basically the same thing. Sure there's "exclusives" but there are also apps available only on the iPhone that aren't available for the Android.

Now I GUESS the going by your strict definition Sony DOES have a monopoly on the "Vita" and any game for it because the 3DS is at a lower tier technologically so you can't have ports. However it really is only a problem if you exclusively bought Sony products. The Vita doesn't exist in a vacuum, even though its so different, people do have the option to by a 3DS, and Sony can learn from Nintendo's success, which is more or less the same as if other people were allowed to make knock-off Vitas with better service.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

I have always hated Sony for their shitty customer experience. They just shuffle their feet until you get impatient and give up. Truly, one can feel the Japanese spirit in every Sony product due to their attitude.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*Does best to ignore ImmortalFrieza's butchering of the concept of a monopoly*

Well, that's the closest I'm going to come to completely ignoring it.

As for the video, I really cannot agree with what Jim is saying about having to offer a better service than a pirate for them to stop. Namely because you just aren't going to be able to do that. Even if it comes down to having to put in credit card information and click an extra button to confirm your purchase, piracy will always have at least as good of a service in terms of software. Reason being? They can just copy whatever software the developer's using. And when it comes down to it I'm sure that a lot of people are going to look at their wallets and say "Well I could pay $60 for this game or I can spend it on something that I can't get for free and have both."

 

[Entitled]

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

Nope, because there are products that provide the same functions as the iPhone out there, thus Apple does not have a monopoly on the iPhone product. They have a monopoly on the iPhone brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an iPhone, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.

I agreed with you until here, but he does have a point, the App Store, and generally the exclusive content, makes Apple into as much of a monopoly as Sony and the rest.

The list of starving artists who made art purely because of a yearning to, who lived before 1900, begins and ends with Vincent Van Goh.

then the historical times sucked significantly more than our days, because about half of the art I spent my time with in the recent years were created by people who worked on them for years, only to release them for free.

And much of the other half were copyrighted out of technical necesity to make the distribution of physical copies easier for anyone who wants one, but the artists made it clear that they don't particuarly mind piracy either, or een support it.

The remaining ones were copyrighted by publishers, and their artists worked for a salary. The only difference between that and the old patrony is, that, as Jim once said, copyright is "about already rich men getting richer" by allowing them to own what their workers created.

 

[Zeckt]

Starting off with the Grandia intro music? Jim, I think I love you.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.

LOL, no!

Nintendo ties your games to hardware and they still don't have an account system to manage your purchases. You can now play some of your PS1 classics on your Vita along with your PSP and PS3. How many Wii Virtual Console games can be played on your DS or 3DS?

That's because the wii virtual console was made for the Wii. And the 3DS has its own virtual console where you can get NES, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour and Game Gear games for the system. And on your 3DS you can play any game you bought on the DsiWare shop with a simple system transfer and play any DS game out there. And all you need to do to transfer your DSiWare games to your 3DS is go into the menu, select system transfer and wait for the two systems to transfer data.

OT: Yep, Sony's kind of digging its own grave with the Vita. They didn't learn from the PSP, and are making the exact same mistakes again. One being making a handheld that's basically a portable console which drives up the price to ridiculous levels instead of keeping the hardware a bit less than consoles and keeping the price down. Another being forcing users to use there way of getting games, exactly like the PSP's UMD system. With the 3DS if I want to play a DS game I can just pop in the DS game into the slot at the top and play it. On the Vita if I want to play a PSP game I have to buy it again (or transfer it, which is still quite a lot), download it then install it. And considering the price of Sony's SD cards I probably wouldn't have an SD card that can fit most of my PSP games on there, so then I just can't play the games without deleting a load of other shit.

 

[BlueKenja]

So I think in the last 5 pages no-one has asked the most important question.
Where can I find that picture of the muscular young man in his underwear?

 

[SoopaSte123]

An intelligent opinion as always, but the main thing I took away from this video is that I want to play Tomba again...

 

[Epona]

It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.

LOL, no!

Nintendo ties your games to hardware and they still don't have an account system to manage your purchases. You can now play some of your PS1 classics on your Vita along with your PSP and PS3. How many Wii Virtual Console games can be played on your DS or 3DS?

That's because the wii virtual console was made for the Wii. And the 3DS has its own virtual console where you can get NES, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour and Game Gear games for the system. And on your 3DS you can play any game you bought on the DsiWare shop with a simple system transfer and play any DS game out there. And all you need to do to transfer your DSiWare games to your 3DS is go into the menu, select system transfer and wait for the two systems to transfer data.

Nintendo designed the Wii and 3DS VC's to be exclusive. You COULD play your downloaded SNES games on your 3DS and maybe you could have on DS but Nintendo designed it in a way where you couldn't do that. Certain NES games can be played on both but you have to buy them one time for every system you want to play them on (like Super Mario Bros). If you have two Wii's and two 3DS's and you want to play SMB on all 4 of them, you need to buy it 4 times. That's pretty shitty considering that if I buy a PS1 classic, I can play it on 2 handhelds and 2 PS3's without any sort of system transfer. Stop making excuses for Nintendo.

Yeah, Sony is fucking up but they still aren't as restrictive as Nintendo.

 

[Zeren]

We get in trouble for talking about piracy, but he gets to make a video about it? Yea that's fair.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

It's pretty bad when Nintendo is more consumer friendly and has more easily accessible content. Nintendo.

LOL, no!

Nintendo ties your games to hardware and they still don't have an account system to manage your purchases. You can now play some of your PS1 classics on your Vita along with your PSP and PS3. How many Wii Virtual Console games can be played on your DS or 3DS?

That's because the wii virtual console was made for the Wii. And the 3DS has its own virtual console where you can get NES, Gameboy, Gameboy Colour and Game Gear games for the system. And on your 3DS you can play any game you bought on the DsiWare shop with a simple system transfer and play any DS game out there. And all you need to do to transfer your DSiWare games to your 3DS is go into the menu, select system transfer and wait for the two systems to transfer data.

Nintendo designed the Wii and 3DS VC's to be exclusive. You COULD play your downloaded SNES games on your 3DS and maybe you could have on DS but Nintendo designed it in a way where you couldn't do that. Certain NES games can be played on both but you have to buy them one time for every system you want to play them on (like Super Mario Bros). If you have two Wii's and two 3DS's and you want to play SMB on all 4 of them, you need to buy it 4 times. That's pretty shitty considering that if I buy a PS1 classic, I can play it on 2 handhelds and 2 PS3's without any sort of system transfer. Stop making excuses for Nintendo.

Yeah, Sony is fucking up but they still aren't as restrictive as Nintendo.

Yes, I admit that sucks. But that doesn't make them as restrictive as Sony. Like I said, there is no way to play PSP games on your PS Vita other than buying them again on the Vita, since the Vita doesn't support UMDs. And with the 3DS you can actually just do a simple system transfer for ALL your games, including NES games and eShop games. Seriously, you're saying Sony isn't as restrictive as Nintendo when Sony literally forces you to buy their SD cards which cost way too much just to play games on the Vita because they didn't pack one in like Nintendo does with the 3DS. And like I said, you can't play UMD games on the Vita, making you either transfer any games you downloaded onto your PSP (which if you didn't get the Go would have been very little) or buy them all again. With the 3DS you can play any DS game you want without hassle.

 

[Epona]

We get in trouble for talking about piracy, but he gets to make a video about it? Yea that's fair.

Better that someone on this site gets to talk about it than no one. After all, it's an important issue and it needs to be discussed, not ignored.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

We get in trouble for talking about piracy, but he gets to make a video about it? Yea that's fair.

Not talking about piracy, you get in trouble for saying "You should all pirate, I pirate too and it's awesome!". Which Jim wasn't doing, he was saying that it's Sony's own fault that so many people want to pirate Vita games. It's a pretty wide spread opinion that piracy is mostly a service problem, not the fault of anyone really but the publisher doing shitty things they shouldn't be doing.