4 ms·

I'm confused, don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? (Heck Sony and Microsoft also take 30% cuts) What's the difference other than form

by w7 5y ago

I'm confused, don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? (Heck Sony and Microsoft also take 30% cuts) What's the difference other than form factor?

echelon 5y ago
I message my boss on PS5 Slack and tell him I'm done for the day. I then take my PS5 to the mall, because I carry it with me to do all of my financial transactions. Later, I log onto my PS5 bank account app to check my spending limits. I check PS5 Yelp for a list of restaurants. I head out, but I'm careful to check my PS5 GPS to know where I'm headed. I fill up my car using PS5 pay, and as I leave get messages from potential romantic matches on PS5 Tinder. Of course Sony gets a cut of every transaction and there are no other options than taking your PS5 with you everywhere. Oh wait, there's Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam, Epic, GOG, ...? Lots of options for games. But what about email, finance, dating, and everything else I would do on my PS5? Gaming devices aren't general purpose computers and don't do general purpose business, communication, finance, etc. Gaming is a toy and comparatively niche industry with lots of consumer choice. The iPhone is 50% of all commerce in all industries for all Americans. Apple has locked down computing behind an iron curtain, and they're clawing away at more and more as the days go by. If the trend continues, every restaurant will be Apple (instead of Taco Bell), and you'll license your car and pay Apple by the mile. The signs you see out your window will have to pay Apple a licensing fee.
bluescrn 5y ago
Gaming is unimportant. General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more concerning.
- Google234 5y ago
  General-purpose computing Is bigger than ever. Record PC and component sales and more open source software than ever.
- bogwog 5y ago
  Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo get to avoid competition because games aren't important? I don't like that argument. At the end of the day, it's a company telling a consumer what they can or can't do with their own property. Sony saying you can't buy a game from anyone else is just anti-competitive BS. It isn't fair to consumers, and it isn't fair to developers. Hopefully the court rules in favor of Epic, and this case is used as precedent to go against the game console monopolies next. Also, for what it's worth, the "real" reason why game consoles aren't allowed to be jailbroken under DMCA rules (whereas phones, computers, and other devices are) is because, currently, most people only want to do it to commit piracy. Of course, that's because there are no other legitimate software vendors for that hardware. It's a chicken and egg problem.
ncann 5y ago
The line is very blurry. The only major difference between a console and a smartphone is that a console is intended from the get go to be a gaming device, whereas a smartphone is more of a generic computing device, but even then it's hard to draw a meaningful argument on why one should be treated differently from the other.
- danbolt 5y ago
  Perhaps something similar to the Xbox’s UWP mode might be nice. The owner can run their own computer program on it, but opts out of Xbox games and services.
- cpleppert 5y ago
  Sure it is. A gaming console has a plethora of alternatives available to the consumer. PCs, other consoles, game streaming, mobile games and other entertainment options. If you need a smartphone ( and that is everyone for all practical purposes) your only choice is iPhone or Android. There are no substitutes whatsoever and little evidence of the price competition that would show market forces. In the same vein, software developers have no choice if they want to develop for smartphones and it’s hard to think of a substitute.
idle_zealot 5y ago
It may be a matter of consumer perception. A game console is viewed as an appliance for playing games. A phone is a more personal device, and users expect to be able to run any app they want. Generally apps that most people are interested in running have no issue getting published on the App Store, so consumers don’t care about the technicalities of what Apple does and does not allow. This Epic case is a big deal because it is likely the first time many iPhone users are being faced with Apple preventing them from running software that they care about.
esclerofilo 5y ago
In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut. And in my experience, another big difference was that when I had consoles, I could easily borrow my friend's games, or buy cheaper games used. I don't know how it works with digital goods on modern consoles, but Steam actually has a feature to lend your library to a friend, so there's precedent.
- anoncake 5y ago
  If customers don't buy consoles unless sold at a loss, they value them less than making them costs. Which means they shouldn't be made.
  - tompazourek 5y ago
    You forget that there's a competitive market that affects the pricing of consoles. If a customer values a console for $1000 and therer are two consoles on the market that are almost identical, one costs $600, and the other one $900, the customer is still going to get the $600 one. The cost is related to the value it brings, but it's also heavily affected by competition.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      No, I didn't. I meant that if opening consoles means they stop existing because customers aren't willing to buy them at full price, that's actually a good thing.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of control via extensive government lobbying.
anoncake 5y ago
There is none. Game consoles should also be forced open.

by w7 5y ago

I'm confused, don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? (Heck Sony and Microsoft also take 30% cuts) What's the difference other than form factor?

echelon 5y ago

I message my boss on PS5 Slack and tell him I'm done for the day. I then take my PS5 to the mall, because I carry it with me to do all of my financial transactions. Later, I log onto my PS5 bank account app to check my spending limits. I check PS5 Yelp for a list of restaurants. I head out, but I'm careful to check my PS5 GPS to know where I'm headed. I fill up my car using PS5 pay, and as I leave get messages from potential romantic matches on PS5 Tinder. Of course Sony gets a cut of every transaction and there are no other options than taking your PS5 with you everywhere. Oh wait, there's Switch, Xbox, PC, Steam, Epic, GOG, ...? Lots of options for games. But what about email, finance, dating, and everything else I would do on my PS5? Gaming devices aren't general purpose computers and don't do general purpose business, communication, finance, etc. Gaming is a toy and comparatively niche industry with lots of consumer choice. The iPhone is 50% of all commerce in all industries for all Americans. Apple has locked down computing behind an iron curtain, and they're clawing away at more and more as the days go by. If the trend continues, every restaurant will be Apple (instead of Taco Bell), and you'll license your car and pay Apple by the mile. The signs you see out your window will have to pay Apple a licensing fee.

bluescrn 5y ago

Gaming is unimportant. General-purpose computing is gradually being replaced by locked-down phones and tablets, and that's much more concerning.

Google234 5y ago
General-purpose computing Is bigger than ever. Record PC and component sales and more open source software than ever.
bogwog 5y ago
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo get to avoid competition because games aren't important? I don't like that argument. At the end of the day, it's a company telling a consumer what they can or can't do with their own property. Sony saying you can't buy a game from anyone else is just anti-competitive BS. It isn't fair to consumers, and it isn't fair to developers. Hopefully the court rules in favor of Epic, and this case is used as precedent to go against the game console monopolies next. Also, for what it's worth, the "real" reason why game consoles aren't allowed to be jailbroken under DMCA rules (whereas phones, computers, and other devices are) is because, currently, most people only want to do it to commit piracy. Of course, that's because there are no other legitimate software vendors for that hardware. It's a chicken and egg problem.

ncann 5y ago

The line is very blurry. The only major difference between a console and a smartphone is that a console is intended from the get go to be a gaming device, whereas a smartphone is more of a generic computing device, but even then it's hard to draw a meaningful argument on why one should be treated differently from the other.

danbolt 5y ago
Perhaps something similar to the Xbox’s UWP mode might be nice. The owner can run their own computer program on it, but opts out of Xbox games and services.
cpleppert 5y ago
Sure it is. A gaming console has a plethora of alternatives available to the consumer. PCs, other consoles, game streaming, mobile games and other entertainment options. If you need a smartphone ( and that is everyone for all practical purposes) your only choice is iPhone or Android. There are no substitutes whatsoever and little evidence of the price competition that would show market forces. In the same vein, software developers have no choice if they want to develop for smartphones and it’s hard to think of a substitute.

idle_zealot 5y ago

It may be a matter of consumer perception. A game console is viewed as an appliance for playing games. A phone is a more personal device, and users expect to be able to run any app they want. Generally apps that most people are interested in running have no issue getting published on the App Store, so consumers don’t care about the technicalities of what Apple does and does not allow. This Epic case is a big deal because it is likely the first time many iPhone users are being faced with Apple preventing them from running software that they care about.

esclerofilo 5y ago

In practice, the difference is that consoles tend to be sold at loss, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the 30% cut. And in my experience, another big difference was that when I had consoles, I could easily borrow my friend's games, or buy cheaper games used. I don't know how it works with digital goods on modern consoles, but Steam actually has a feature to lend your library to a friend, so there's precedent.

anoncake 5y ago
If customers don't buy consoles unless sold at a loss, they value them less than making them costs. Which means they shouldn't be made.
- tompazourek 5y ago
  You forget that there's a competitive market that affects the pricing of consoles. If a customer values a console for $1000 and therer are two consoles on the market that are almost identical, one costs $600, and the other one $900, the customer is still going to get the $600 one. The cost is related to the value it brings, but it's also heavily affected by competition.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    No, I didn't. I meant that if opening consoles means they stop existing because customers aren't willing to buy them at full price, that's actually a good thing.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> don't we allow this level of control with video game consoles? The copyright industry allowed themselves this level of control via extensive government lobbying.

anoncake 5y ago

There is none. Game consoles should also be forced open.