5 ms·

Does this apply to XBox and PlayStation?

by ADent 5y ago

grishka 5y ago
Those aren't general-purpose devices. You can't even get official SDKs unless you're a game studio.
- veilrap 5y ago
  They are just as general purpose as my phone. It's quite easy to sideload applications onto an Xbox console for example.
  - enragedcacti 5y ago
    courts don't really care about technicalities like that. No one is filing their taxes or sending out work emails on their Xbox so its not the same even if someone hypothetically could.
  - grishka 5y ago
    Most modern consoles include a web browser. How many people do use it for real? How many people use consoles for anything that isn't gaming or media playback? For all intents and purposes, most people do consider them appliances.
- nexuist 5y ago
  Is that fair? Why can't you develop software for the hardware you purchased? How is that different from the argument against Apple's App Store? > Those aren't general-purpose devices So if Apple sold an "iPad Gaming Edition" then none of this would matter?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    If they sold an iPad that was only made for playing games and that was sold at a large loss, it would be a different conversation, even though I think that consoles should be opened up.
    - scarface74 5y ago
      Epic tried to use the same argument in front of a desk judge with a real law degree. She disagreed.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        I'm not making a legal argument. I'm making an "ought" argument. We're talking about legislation, not legal interpretation.
- bogwog 5y ago
  I think this argument is less relevant today. Back in the early days of game consoles where they were very obviously designed for one thing only (ex: GBC, NES, etc), then sure. But consoles today are only limited to gaming and entertainment because the manufacturer artificially limits which software can run on it (and who can develop for it). I don’t know if they should be opened up like the iPhone (which 1000% should), but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if they were. Some business models would have to be changed, but that happens all the time. Consumers will certainly benefit from more choices. At the very least, even if they aren’t treated the same as phones/tablets, I think the ridiculous DMCA restriction about jailbreaking consoles needs to die. Jailbreaking a phone/tablet is legal, but doing it for a game console is illegal because it could maybe lead to piracy. That’s obviously dumb (because jailbreaking a phone could also lead to piracy), but it also acts as a convenient legal barrier that protects console manufacturers from competition. In the early days of home consoles, some publishers would jailbreak consoles to be able to sell games without going through the manufacturer. EA did this as part of a strategy to negotiate more favorable terms with Sega, for example. The threat of competition forced Sega to the bargaining table, and in the end consumers benefited from the games EA was able to publish.
andreime 5y ago
[flagged]
darknavi 5y ago
If it does (or did) I can see this being near the end of consoles. Or at least a price hike. Their entire model is based on selling hardware near at-cost and making up the margins in software cuts (and accessories). If you can side-load any game you want now you are just buying a privately subsidized PC.
ubermonkey 5y ago
It must. There's no functional difference. If it doesn't, there's grounds for injunctions and lawsuits aplenty.

Does this apply to XBox and PlayStation?

by ADent 5y ago

Does this apply to XBox and PlayStation?

grishka 5y ago

Those aren't general-purpose devices. You can't even get official SDKs unless you're a game studio.

veilrap 5y ago
They are just as general purpose as my phone. It's quite easy to sideload applications onto an Xbox console for example.
- enragedcacti 5y ago
  courts don't really care about technicalities like that. No one is filing their taxes or sending out work emails on their Xbox so its not the same even if someone hypothetically could.
- grishka 5y ago
  Most modern consoles include a web browser. How many people do use it for real? How many people use consoles for anything that isn't gaming or media playback? For all intents and purposes, most people do consider them appliances.
nexuist 5y ago
Is that fair? Why can't you develop software for the hardware you purchased? How is that different from the argument against Apple's App Store? > Those aren't general-purpose devices So if Apple sold an "iPad Gaming Edition" then none of this would matter?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  If they sold an iPad that was only made for playing games and that was sold at a large loss, it would be a different conversation, even though I think that consoles should be opened up.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Epic tried to use the same argument in front of a desk judge with a real law degree. She disagreed.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I'm not making a legal argument. I'm making an "ought" argument. We're talking about legislation, not legal interpretation.
bogwog 5y ago
I think this argument is less relevant today. Back in the early days of game consoles where they were very obviously designed for one thing only (ex: GBC, NES, etc), then sure. But consoles today are only limited to gaming and entertainment because the manufacturer artificially limits which software can run on it (and who can develop for it). I don’t know if they should be opened up like the iPhone (which 1000% should), but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if they were. Some business models would have to be changed, but that happens all the time. Consumers will certainly benefit from more choices. At the very least, even if they aren’t treated the same as phones/tablets, I think the ridiculous DMCA restriction about jailbreaking consoles needs to die. Jailbreaking a phone/tablet is legal, but doing it for a game console is illegal because it could maybe lead to piracy. That’s obviously dumb (because jailbreaking a phone could also lead to piracy), but it also acts as a convenient legal barrier that protects console manufacturers from competition. In the early days of home consoles, some publishers would jailbreak consoles to be able to sell games without going through the manufacturer. EA did this as part of a strategy to negotiate more favorable terms with Sega, for example. The threat of competition forced Sega to the bargaining table, and in the end consumers benefited from the games EA was able to publish.

andreime 5y ago

[flagged]

darknavi 5y ago

If it does (or did) I can see this being near the end of consoles. Or at least a price hike. Their entire model is based on selling hardware near at-cost and making up the margins in software cuts (and accessories). If you can side-load any game you want now you are just buying a privately subsidized PC.

ubermonkey 5y ago

It must. There's no functional difference. If it doesn't, there's grounds for injunctions and lawsuits aplenty.