Jimquisition: Sony's Begging For Piracy

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
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.
Well, you can play your digitally bought PSP games on your Vita. Not including a UMD drive is something that needed to happen. How many generations should they have kept it for, it was a failure.

On the flip side, you can play your DS games on your 3DS but your downloaded DSi games can only be played if you transfer them (remove them from one system). You could have a downloaded game both on your PSP and Vita. To me, that is important considering we are moving towards downloads instead of physical copies.

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
Proprietary memory cards =/= the restrictions in this discussion. Sure, it would have been better if Sony had gone with SD cards but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about account restrictions and you can't get worse than Nintendo who has no accounts.

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.
Well, I have the PSP 3000 and I downloaded as many games as I could because I didn't want to deal with UMD's. Turns out, I chose the correct course. Those who bought UMD's for games that were available on PSN are no worse off than those who couldn't use their N64 carts in a Gamecube. You didn't expect Sony to stick with a failed format forever did you?

With the 3DS you can play any DS game you want without hassle.
Not downloaded ones, you must remove them from one system to make them work on a new one and you can't even just re-download them from the shop. You have to waste time with the stupid transfer Pikmin tool that takes way too long for such small files. What takes that tool 20 minutes would take your PC 20 seconds.
 

T-004

New member
Mar 26, 2008
111
0
0
I cracked my PSP some time ago, purely because I have a pretty decent collection of PS1 games gathering dust and figured portability was the way to go.

After all, why should I go on to PSN and run that gauntlet only to pay again for a game I already own!?! Especially when I have to ability to make that game compatible with my PSP myself! So it's not costing them any time or money to provide this to me (and thats when they even have the game I want to play <_<).

Sony really started dropping the ball when the PSP came out. They had a golden opportunity to do something special, but ruined it by just not supporting it in the same way they had the PS1 & 2.

The Vita appears to be much the same and quite frankly it's only a matter of time before some resourceful bugger cracks it wide open and then the choice will belong to the consumer. But also I hope the option possibly to put games you own on the PS1/PS2 onto the system, then I think we'll see an increase in sales of the Vita.
 

Joriss

New member
Dec 27, 2011
71
0
0
Damn, I would actually enjoy this show if Jim's voice wasn't so damn annoying...
 

Tharwen

Ep. VI: Return of the turret
May 7, 2009
9,145
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Hey Jim, have you lost weight? You're looking a lot better man :D

[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 :D

Could you have stumbled across a a hidden exercise technique?

Are you motivated by this ancient hymn?

Maybe this one:

 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
"To combat piracy, your mission is clear -- provide a better service than pirates."

Too damn right, and come on, these are 10 year old games, how much exactly are Sony charging for them, along with the hour of your life you're losing to make them work?

I've got a stack of old PC games, and when they show up on a sale, on Steam, or GOG, or greenmangaming, I'll BUY them AGAIN, purely for the convenience of having them easily playable, and backed up on a service, ready to download again when I need them.

I mean, two quid to have Deus Ex when I want it? It's just not worth the effort of clicking thru to the bay. (Which btw, has been blocked by many ISPs in the UK now, causing people here exactly zero percent more trouble in accessing it. Part of me wishes politicians would do the tiniest bit of research before jumping on a bandwagon, and maybe they could have demanded an EFFECTIVE block, tho I admit my own ignorance in not knowing if it's even possible.)

Also, on my first point, Apply are knocking out games for 69p, just how many of the 100 PS1 games in Europe are 'classics' and how many are generic nonsense? I'm sure 10% are worth a few bucks each even now, but I'm a little cynical as to them being hand selected, thinking perhaps many were chosen as easy to get.

In short, as ever, make stuff easy to get, easy to use, and available to all, and we'll throw our damned money at you.

Lock it behind walls, spiked pits and deadly traps, and damn, we're not Indiana Jones, we just ain't gonna bother...
 

Madman123456

New member
Feb 11, 2011
590
0
0
I'm amazed once more and i continue to wonder. We have a "Pandora" and a "wiz" and i continue to wonder why anyone would even bother with this or that new Device.

Some People just havn't been screwed over enough.

Mobile gaming today looks a bit like this:

Smartphones: Easy to install, download and buy and then you can fumble around with the touchscreen. You carry that thing around already, might as well get some Games.

Maybe you'll buy a Nintendo DS. Maybe even a 3DS, assuming the thing wont make your Eyes explode and you really want to blow some extra money for a gimmick.

Sony's portable Stuff? Well, they want to sell you Games you've already bought. Maybe. Eventually you may or may not be able to buy those games. If they got around to make a Port,
Oh well no one cares to read this again; you saw the Episode and know how much of a Hassle this is.

Go buy a Pandora and play ome Games there. I wouldn't take a PSvita if someone gave it to me as a Present.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
HE'S PLAYING GRANDIA!! BEST EPISODE EVER!!

*ahem*

Okay, now to watch the rest now that I've composed myself again.

Yeah, I agree. Sony is pretty shit when it comes to customer service and then they sit around and wonder why they get pirated from. And hacked. And why nobody wants to spend $100 on a class 4 special Vita memory card when regular class 4 micro SD cards are $20. I also never pay attention to games coming out on the Playstation Store because Sony fucks around with releasing them. Some weeks they release in the mid afternoon. Some weeks they release very late in the evening. Some weeks they release on fucking Monday?! You never know when the hell they're going to put content out. So I just gave up on paying attention to new Playstation Store releases because I'd had enough of wanting a game and becoming more and more frustrated as Tuesday went on because they had apparently decided that this time would be an "update at 9PM" day and honestly, fuck that. Pick a time and update at it consistently. I never have this problem on my 360 or PC because Microsoft promptly updates DLC early Tuesday morning before I get up and games early Wednesday morning before I get up. Steam also has a set time where they update everything so there's no waiting around wondering "Is it up yet? Is it up yet?" all day (also, hurray for pre-downloading the game before launch). But Sony? NOOOO, they want to make it as hard as possible for me to buy a brand new downloadable title or DLC that I want. Fuck you, Sony. Quiet honestly, if they didn't have piles and piles of great exclusives I want to play, I would have tossed my PS3 out on its ass a long time ago. Sony just doesn't fucking get it at a- HOLY SHIT NOW HE'S PLAYING TOMBA THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO ON THE INTERNET!!

Also, speaking of Grandia and Tomba, I still have my PS1 copies on disc. I can pop them into my PS3 right now and play them. But if I want to play on PSP, I have to buy them again? Da fuq? Same crap as UMD games for PSP. They don't care if you have the disc already, if you want a digital copy for your PSP go (hahahaha) or your Vita, you have to buy it again. But they can manage to come up with this Cross Buy program where if you buy a PS3 game that has a Vita port, you get the Vita port free? How about you Cross Buy my PS1 and PSP games too? Oh wait, here comes the piracy excuse. Thanks for reminding us about piracy Sony, because that's exactly how people are going to get their PS1 and PSP games without paying for them a second time.

Hannibal942 said:
Can someone please tell me what that music was in the beginning?

Also, you should go buy and play Grandia. Fuck that Final Fantasy 7 shit, Grandia is the best RPG on PS1 by FAR.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, a lot of the problem comes down to believe it or not, nationalism and racism. Now before anyone goes "OMG, Therumancer is going on an irrelevent rant" stop and think about something Jim himself mentioned. North America received 9 titles, Japan received 290 titles. The reason for is not just bigotry against the US, though that generally does enter into it, but also because they know the Japanese market will lap up anything they are handed by Sony. Better products aren't really an issue, because the Japanese will buy Japanese products and from Sony before they purchuse better products from other markets as a matter of national and racial pride. Very similar to how people tell you to buy American in the US, except they actually do it.

Demanding better products and services of Sony, just has them pull back into other markets, focusing on Japan where they kind of walk on water, or dealing with the European market that happily slurps up what they have handed, due to having been neglected in the past. It's easier for Sony to release an inferior produt and these crappy controls and systems to their home market (which is substantial for this) and Europe, than to deal with the standards of Americans in a market where they have more competition.

It's really a difficult kind of problem to deal with, though I do think that as a result of pulling back from the US market Sony has ultimatly been shooting itself in the foot and getting worse and worse, to the point where it's going to run out of options on the video gaming front due to the corner it's painting itself into. By retreating into markets that are less critical of them and their products, they are leaving themselves less options when competing products eventually break in, and really there are plans to try and break the racial and national barrier of Japan in the next generation, or at least try to according to some things I've read. I expect Microsoft's next gen gaming materials to be backed by an unprecedented wave of overseas advertising, of course that may or may not work because I don't think the motivating factor in the market is one that can be influanced by advertising since it's motivated by some darker cultural aspects.

A lot of people won't like what I'm saying, or agree with me, but in the end I don't think Jim's suggestion about piracy would work, as we're dealing with a company that increasingly seems to be pulling up stakes in the US Market, which is bad for gamers, as Sony still has it's moments of genius, but kind of understandable. I honestly don't think Sony plans to even try and compete with a lot of these more conveinent services, at least not for the forseeable future.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
So, points of interest:

1) Service and Convenience vs Legal-Technical Arm Tweaking
Needs no further evaluation. Sony went directly onto my shitlist the moment they started acting like they owned your PS3 (in all but legal title), and forced users to downgrade their systems or be locked out of future games.

I don't care how minor a loss that may look to someone; that's a ridiculous premise and a dangerous one at that. I don't know who at Sony is running their paranoid looney parade, but it's hardcore anti-piracy shit like this that lead to the major PSN breach last year.

Which is a pity, because the Vita is, at least in terms of gaming power, a GREAT potential system. But it's the managerial bullshit, and half-hearted offerings that's pissing off their customers.

2) It's not "monopoly".
Monopoly deals in market control. Absolute market control, specifically.
The correct word some of this topic is looking for is "proprietary": A form of product control, and NOT market control.
Products and markets are related, but different. Simple as.
(Though companies with monopolies might employ propriety in order to maintain their monopoly)

Sony is in a pluralist market currently, which disqualifies them as a monopoly. Perhaps not oligopoly though. Microsoft and Nintendo compete against them, and one could feasibly make a case for Nintendo not really competing against Sony as directly as they used to.

Therumancer said:
Demanding better products and services of Sony, just has them pull back into other markets, focusing on Japan where they kind of walk on water, or dealing with the European market that happily slurps up what they have handed, due to having been neglected in the past. It's easier for Sony to release an inferior produt and these crappy controls and systems to their home market (which is substantial for this) and Europe, than to deal with the standards of Americans in a market where they have more competition.
That's the most insightful thing I've read in this topic, and if they are pulling back HARD to their domestics, then we're looking at a dangerous parallel between Sony and the other shrinking Japanese game publishers.

Nintendo was doing the same thing with their smaller franchises (read: not-Mario/Zelda/Pokemon), citing translation/localization costs when that isn't much of a bar for entry (both 3DS games I was looking forward to later this year: Pushed back to 2013. So once again my 3DS becomes an oversized MP3 player.)
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
I think the games industry is the only one that gets away with treating paying customers like utter shit, and people eagerly defending the shitty treatment they get for fear they might get even shittier.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza said:
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 really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.

Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):
immortalfrieza said:
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.
Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza said:
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 really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.
Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
NightHawk21 said:
Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):
immortalfrieza said:
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.
Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions. If they were legally capable of the exact same functions, then there would be no monopoly on Sony or anybody's part.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
Immortal most of that reply didn't make sense and its restating the same thing I refuted in my first post. Let get something start, something that if you want to try to convince me otherwise needs to be addressed.

Firstly what you are saying is a monopoly is NOT a monopoly. It is not even close to a monopoly, and to call it a monopoly is wrong based on the very definition of the word.

Secondly, I am getting the impression that you are blinded by some sort of Sony hate, because identical or even worse practices by other companies you are dismissing (like the Apple examples which are completely false and biased). If this is the case that's fine. I'm not claiming you have to love Sony, but to discount any other non-sony evidence is not doing your arguments any favours.

Now going back to your arguments
immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza said:
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 really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.
Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
To start, no one can make an iPhone like product, and the last company who apple claimed to have tried, namely Samsung (whose phones are not really all that similar and run the Android OS I believe) was sued internationally and had their phones banned. Then we get to this sentence sentence:
immortalfrieza said:
If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
This sentence doesn't make any sense, and I no idea what you are trying to say. What I can say is that if the product are in direct competetion (both being smart phones for example) regardless of any exclusive software on each, this is again NOT A MONOPOLY (the main thing you are wrong about).

immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):
immortalfrieza said:
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.
Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions.
No, no that would never work. Hardware aside (because neither of the three have identical hardware), the software that runs that hardware is completely different. Its the same reason I can't buy a Windows disc and expect to run flawlessly in a Mac OS. This is not a monopoly and has nothing to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with how the system handles the information on the disc.

Here's what you have to understand. In a competitive market a monopoly only happens when the object is the only available product of its kind with NO similar products. Yes the 360 and the wii are different products and they have some different functions, but at their core they are similar products who do one thing and as such are competing, and because they are competing, and this is tricky so hold on to your seat, none of their parent companies has a monopoly. They have copyright protection over the names of their products and any hardware they have developed, which they may license but are under no legal obligation to do so, and I doubt in fact that any company has approached to buy the license anyways.

I don't know how else to explain that you are wrong and have a misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Read the wikipedia page (I've linked it for you) and I suppose I could recommend you make a conscious effort to educate yourself about what a monopoly is and why what you are saying is false. Here is a sentence I think you really need to consider:
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."
You'll noticed I bolded "viable substitute goods", which is the main error in your misundertanding of what a monopoly is. In fact if anything I would say that not only are there viable goods, but based off sales, their are superior goods on the market that are in direct competition.

Wiki URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal most of that reply didn't make sense and its restating the same thing I refuted in my first post. Let get something start, something that if you want to try to convince me otherwise needs to be addressed.

Firstly what you are saying is a monopoly is NOT a monopoly. It is not even close to a monopoly, and to call it a monopoly is wrong based on the very definition of the word.

Secondly, I am getting the impression that you are blinded by some sort of Sony hate, because identical or even worse practices by other companies you are dismissing (like the Apple examples which are completely false and biased). If this is the case that's fine. I'm not claiming you have to love Sony, but to discount any other non-sony evidence is not doing your arguments any favours.

Now going back to your arguments
immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza said:
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 really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.
Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
To start, no one can make an iPhone like product, and the last company who apple claimed to have tried, namely Samsung (whose phones are not really all that similar and run the Android OS I believe) was sued internationally and had their phones banned. Then we get to this sentence sentence:
immortalfrieza said:
If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
This sentence doesn't make any sense, and I no idea what you are trying to say. What I can say is that if the product are in direct competetion (both being smart phones for example) regardless of any exclusive software on each, this is again NOT A MONOPOLY (the main thing you are wrong about).

immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):
immortalfrieza said:
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.
Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions.
No, no that would never work. Hardware aside (because neither of the three have identical hardware), the software that runs that hardware is completely different. Its the same reason I can't buy a Windows disc and expect to run flawlessly in a Mac OS. This is not a monopoly and has nothing to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with how the system handles the information on the disc.

Here's what you have to understand. In a competitive market a monopoly only happens when the object is the only available product of its kind with NO similar products. Yes the 360 and the wii are different products and they have some different functions, but at their core they are similar products who do one thing and as such are competing, and because they are competing, and this is tricky so hold on to your seat, none of their parent companies has a monopoly. They have copyright protection over the names of their products and any hardware they have developed, which they may license but are under no legal obligation to do so, and I doubt in fact that any company has approached to buy the license anyways.

I don't know how else to explain that you are wrong and have a misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Read the wikipedia page (I've linked it for you) and I suppose I could recommend you make a conscious effort to educate yourself about what a monopoly is and why what you are saying is false. Here is a sentence I think you really need to consider:
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."
You'll noticed I bolded "viable substitute goods", which is the main error in your misundertanding of what a monopoly is. In fact if anything I would say that not only are there viable goods, but based off sales, their are superior goods on the market that are in direct competition.

Wiki URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
The first 2 sentences of the wikipedia article that you linked to alone prove me correct.

"A monopoly (from Greek monos ìüíïò (alone or single) + polein ðùëå&#8150;í (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."

The commodity or service that I am referring to in this thread is the capability to run PS3 games, (which as I have been saying all along that capability is a commodity in itself) and the enterprise which is the only supplier of that commodity for which I have been using the PS3 as an example is Sony. Sony has a monopoly because it is the only enterprise legally allowed to make the PS3 or any other console capable of running PS3 games. A "viable substitute good" would be another console legally made and sold by someone else besides Sony that is capable of playing PS3 games.

I'm using Sony and the PS3 as my example because both because that's the company under scrutiny in this Jimquistion episode and it's easier than trying to argue my point with all 3 major video game companies and their consoles at once, but yes, it does apply to Nintendo and Microsoft, it is not hatedom for Sony on my part, they have the same monopoly on their products as well, and it's just as bad with them as it is with Sony.

Oh, and I have to keep reiterating my point over and over because you and others seem to believe that I have been saying that Sony has is "the only supplier of a particular commodity" (translation: Sony has a monopoly over all video games) in the entire video game industy, which I have never said in this thread in any way, shape, or form. All of you guys keep arguing against a point I never actually made, and I keep restating the point I have always made in this thread from the very beginning in the hopes that some of you will actually see and start arguing against or in favor of the point I actually have been making.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Nurb said:
I think the games industry is the only one that gets away with treating paying customers like utter shit, and people eagerly defending the shitty treatment they get for fear they might get even shittier.
Well, yes and no. A good part of the problem is simply that the gaming industry has been patient in sticking with it's changes. Most of the consumers who complain about the practices are older folks who have been gaming for decades in many cases, and know better. A lot of the people defending what's going on do so out of ignorance, never having done things any other way. Consider that 5 or 6 years is enough time for a 12 year old to grow into a 17 or 18 year old with their own money to spend, and if they have been gaming using money from part time jobs or more likely having their parents buy games from them, they see nothing wrong with the business model because it's how things have always been, they are used to digital.

A big part of the problem is that gamers want to game, and with the youth outnumbering the "old" guard (and not being known for it's patience) your dealing with people who don't really want to be educated because accepting the truth and putting their foot down would ultimatly mean not getting the latest game(s) they want to play. Some kid with a part time job wants that $60 toy to play with, and like most kids and young adults doesn't care if it's the right thing or good for them in the long run, especially when the issues go beyond the product itself.

The game industry bided it's time to create a situation where sensible customers are actually a minority. What's more it's cleverly worked to do things like blur the distinction between serious gamers and casuals. To the gaming industry a "serious" gamer is anyone they can sell a product to by calling them one. The industry gets away with recycling shooters and such for the same basic reason Zynga hit gold with their repetitive "Ville" series, casual products aimed at the lowest common denominator, it's just that shooters are aimed at a differant face of that, people who can consider themselves hardcore if people tell them these are serious games despite the fact that a 9 year old can learn to play them with a degree of skill (and which contributes to all of the little kids infesting XBL servers, the "M" rating doesn't mean the game is actually designed so it takes a mature player). As a result the gaming industry has created a crop of players it can routinely manipulate and harvest, who are also used to all the scams. For a lot of kids and young adults going without the next "Madden" or "Call Of Duty" is an anathema, and why should they be upset over the quality if it's always been repetitive, and why should they care about not controlling the property when they never did, or feel slighted about paying for tons of DLC at inflated prices, when as far as they can see games always worked that way.


The beast being dealt with is a bit harder to deal with than Jim and others give it credit for, and there are reasons why there is so much infighting between gamers, like it or not customers who will not demand more because they don't even see the problem are as big a part of the equasion as the game industry itself.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal most of that reply didn't make sense and its restating the same thing I refuted in my first post. Let get something start, something that if you want to try to convince me otherwise needs to be addressed.

Firstly what you are saying is a monopoly is NOT a monopoly. It is not even close to a monopoly, and to call it a monopoly is wrong based on the very definition of the word.

Secondly, I am getting the impression that you are blinded by some sort of Sony hate, because identical or even worse practices by other companies you are dismissing (like the Apple examples which are completely false and biased). If this is the case that's fine. I'm not claiming you have to love Sony, but to discount any other non-sony evidence is not doing your arguments any favours.

Now going back to your arguments
immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Immortal I really think you need to stop using the word monopoly. What I have tried to explain to you (and many others) is that what you are describing is in fact not a monopoly. This I think might be the nails in your coffin:

immortalfrieza said:
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 really curious if you can explain what you meant here and how is it different? Ideally I would love examples of such a product, but bearing in mind your previous points it should be really easy to find for you.

It has to be an iphone (and be sold as such) that is not made by apple, and it has to have access to all the software that is available for the official iPhone.
Apple has a monopoly upon the iphone brand name, not it's functionality. Anybody can legally make an iPhonelike product with all the capabilities of an iPhone, able to run all the same apps an iPhone can, or at least that's the assumption I was acting under because I don't have an iPhone myself and am unaware of any exclusive apps, so I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt when I wrote that. If those exclusive apps exist and nobody else can legally create an iPhonelike product capable of running those apps then yes, Apple does have a monopoly. If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
To start, no one can make an iPhone like product, and the last company who apple claimed to have tried, namely Samsung (whose phones are not really all that similar and run the Android OS I believe) was sued internationally and had their phones banned. Then we get to this sentence sentence:
immortalfrieza said:
If 2 products only legally allowed to have certain functions despite it being easily capable of either being modified to be allowed to run the other products' functions, then they are not the exact same product, they're 2 different products and the companies that make either of those 2 products have a monopoly upon not the technology, but on the technology's functionality.
This sentence doesn't make any sense, and I no idea what you are trying to say. What I can say is that if the product are in direct competetion (both being smart phones for example) regardless of any exclusive software on each, this is again NOT A MONOPOLY (the main thing you are wrong about).

immortalfrieza said:
NightHawk21 said:
Also I would really love if you could explain this (not the erroneous use of the word monopoly, but the actual idea behind the statement):
immortalfrieza said:
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.
Specifically I would like to know how that is different from this statement:
They have a monopoly on the PS3 brand name itself, because nobody else but them can call anything an PS3, but they do not have a monopoly upon the product.
Again, functionality. If I was able to pop a PS3 game disc regardless of the game on said disc into a Wii or 360 and it would actually work because Microsoft and Nintendo were legally allowed to make a system capable of running said disc, then Sony would not have a monopoly. However, as it stands without extensive modding (which is likely to break the system if modded, not work all that well, and it's illegal to do so) I nor anybody else is able to run any PS3 disc on any other system other than the PS3 due to protections on the disc and the PS3 technology needed to run it, this includes games which are cross platform.

Add in the fact that nobody other than Sony and whoever Sony allows to whether it be some guy in a basement to any of the other console companies on Earth are able legally to make and sell another console capable of running PS3 games, at all, even if it's badly, thus Sony does have a monopoly, not on the technology (though they do have patents on several parts used to make the PS3, so they could be said to have a monopoly upon the technology too) but on the functionality of the product. The PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii are different products because they may be capable of SOME of the same functions, but are not innately capable of ALL of the same functions.
No, no that would never work. Hardware aside (because neither of the three have identical hardware), the software that runs that hardware is completely different. Its the same reason I can't buy a Windows disc and expect to run flawlessly in a Mac OS. This is not a monopoly and has nothing to do with being a monopoly, and more to do with how the system handles the information on the disc.

Here's what you have to understand. In a competitive market a monopoly only happens when the object is the only available product of its kind with NO similar products. Yes the 360 and the wii are different products and they have some different functions, but at their core they are similar products who do one thing and as such are competing, and because they are competing, and this is tricky so hold on to your seat, none of their parent companies has a monopoly. They have copyright protection over the names of their products and any hardware they have developed, which they may license but are under no legal obligation to do so, and I doubt in fact that any company has approached to buy the license anyways.

I don't know how else to explain that you are wrong and have a misunderstanding of what a monopoly is. Read the wikipedia page (I've linked it for you) and I suppose I could recommend you make a conscious effort to educate yourself about what a monopoly is and why what you are saying is false. Here is a sentence I think you really need to consider:
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."
You'll noticed I bolded "viable substitute goods", which is the main error in your misundertanding of what a monopoly is. In fact if anything I would say that not only are there viable goods, but based off sales, their are superior goods on the market that are in direct competition.

Wiki URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Don't bother.

He's really talking about intellectual property rights and freedom to pirate and is using a deliberate misunderstanding of the term monopoly to hide it from the mods. His selective reading and cherry picking of ideas and facts will not allow him a different understanding.