7 ms·

Sony, Nintendo, EA hide behind PR move. Still support SOPA

138 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Macsenour 15y ago
While I agree they were supporting it twice, and now only once, they did remove the support that they actually control. While each company is part of the ESA, they don't control it. The ESA will have to take that action itself. Maybe it will get a clue from it's members.
- bgentry 15y ago
  The point is that if they really didn't support the bill, the would either pressure the ESA into removing themselves or leave the group in protest.
  - bmj 15y ago
    How big is the ESA? Does any one of these companies (or even the three colletively) wield enough power to change the stance of the entire organization?
megablast 15y ago
Anybody who initially supported SOPA, has to come out against SOPA to win any browny points as far as I am concerned. Dropping support is just weak and non-believable.
- LeafStorm 15y ago
  On the other hand, the game companies probably also don't want to tick off the media industry. So while Nintendo, Sony, et al don't have much to gain from SOPA, they have quite a bit to lose if the major content industries decide to blacklist their platforms.
  - mrcharles 15y ago
    Which they would absolutely never do. Right now Hollywood is desperate to break in to videogames. They know that games are an important part of the future, and want very badly to start making good movie based games. But so far they haven't had much luck. As it stands, if the game industry couldn't continue making weak movie tie-ins, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. They are a handy cash cow, but as often as not they are abysmal games, no thanks to the movie industry itself.
    - LeafStorm 15y ago
      I was talking more about things like cutting off Nintendo, EA, Sony, etc. from deals with Netflix, licensing music to use as game soundtracks, and things like that. Basically, not letting their media hit the game consoles.
- simonbrown 15y ago
  So what? Surely the aim is to reduce the number of companies financially supporting SOPA and similar legislation, not punishing companies for wanting such bills to pass?
DanBC 15y ago
I think SOPA is a really bad idea. How should companies like Nintendo or Sony (the game division) deal with the rampant piracy of games on their systems?
- jbermudes 15y ago
  It's pretty much impossible to completely stop it. You can only choose how you will attempt to delay it or discourage it. Consider the war on drugs: at least there you have the advantage that you have a tangible object that you're seeking to limit access to which under our current understanding of physics is possible, but look how successful that has been. But trying to stop the spread of information that has no tangible limit and is trivial to spread? As Corey Doctorow pointed out in his speech at a recent conference, copying will only get easier. In this world of increasingly computerized things, corporations will continue to struggle with this core problem: Computers (of all types) are general purpose (at the architecture level) and execute instructions given to it. How can we make it so it doesn't execute code that we don't like? As others have pointed out, if your profitability relies chiefly on the secret order of 1s and 0s and restricting access to that voodoo then you're in for a long uphill battle because all of computing can be summed up as the art and science of copying bits from one location to another as cheaply and as efficiently as possible. In the case of video game developers we've seen a few models that take into consideration copyright infringement. Some games have demonstrated profitable virtual economies with the company taking a cut of the profit, and even a company like Nintendo sells its hardware at a profit so as long as people have a reason to purchase Nintendo hardware there is room for a company like Nintendo to exist. This isn't to say these are the only or the best solutions, but rather just pointing out that to stay profitable going forward there is no reason to believe outdated business models will continue to thrive.
  - daeken 15y ago
    Quick correction: It's 'Cory' not 'Corey'.
  - ROFISH 15y ago
    There are two ways current hardware makers are beating piracy, increasing hardware complexity and value-added services. A lot of people are complaining about the Vita's proprietary memory cards, but I wouldn't be surprised if that move was 100% solely made to prevent 3rd party execution. I'd imagine that more anti-consumer features would be coming in the next generation of console hardware too. The flip-side is rewarding good customers. By not having a hacked console, you can use online services (such as Xbox LIVE). Although amusingly, I think the answer may actually be in free-to-play games. 2011, in my opinion, was the year F2P changed from evil Zynga social games and last-ditch MMO fallback to a serious triple digit growth area with games like League of Legends and Team Fortress 2. Expect to see F2P on Sony consoles soon. (Sony is more liberal with their online policy, which is why I'm predicting the first popular F2P on their systems. Microsoft is very domineering of Xbox LIVE and how their online play works, and Nintendo's online strategy is somewhere in the pre-fire stoneage.)

138 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

While I agree they were supporting it twice, and now only once, they did remove the support that they actually control. While each company is part of the ESA, they don't control it. The ESA will have to take that action itself. Maybe it will get a clue from it's members.

bgentry 15y ago
The point is that if they really didn't support the bill, the would either pressure the ESA into removing themselves or leave the group in protest.
- bmj 15y ago
  How big is the ESA? Does any one of these companies (or even the three colletively) wield enough power to change the stance of the entire organization?

megablast 15y ago

Anybody who initially supported SOPA, has to come out against SOPA to win any browny points as far as I am concerned. Dropping support is just weak and non-believable.

LeafStorm 15y ago
On the other hand, the game companies probably also don't want to tick off the media industry. So while Nintendo, Sony, et al don't have much to gain from SOPA, they have quite a bit to lose if the major content industries decide to blacklist their platforms.
- mrcharles 15y ago
  Which they would absolutely never do. Right now Hollywood is desperate to break in to videogames. They know that games are an important part of the future, and want very badly to start making good movie based games. But so far they haven't had much luck. As it stands, if the game industry couldn't continue making weak movie tie-ins, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. They are a handy cash cow, but as often as not they are abysmal games, no thanks to the movie industry itself.
  - LeafStorm 15y ago
    I was talking more about things like cutting off Nintendo, EA, Sony, etc. from deals with Netflix, licensing music to use as game soundtracks, and things like that. Basically, not letting their media hit the game consoles.
simonbrown 15y ago
So what? Surely the aim is to reduce the number of companies financially supporting SOPA and similar legislation, not punishing companies for wanting such bills to pass?

DanBC 15y ago

I think SOPA is a really bad idea. How should companies like Nintendo or Sony (the game division) deal with the rampant piracy of games on their systems?

jbermudes 15y ago
It's pretty much impossible to completely stop it. You can only choose how you will attempt to delay it or discourage it. Consider the war on drugs: at least there you have the advantage that you have a tangible object that you're seeking to limit access to which under our current understanding of physics is possible, but look how successful that has been. But trying to stop the spread of information that has no tangible limit and is trivial to spread? As Corey Doctorow pointed out in his speech at a recent conference, copying will only get easier. In this world of increasingly computerized things, corporations will continue to struggle with this core problem: Computers (of all types) are general purpose (at the architecture level) and execute instructions given to it. How can we make it so it doesn't execute code that we don't like? As others have pointed out, if your profitability relies chiefly on the secret order of 1s and 0s and restricting access to that voodoo then you're in for a long uphill battle because all of computing can be summed up as the art and science of copying bits from one location to another as cheaply and as efficiently as possible. In the case of video game developers we've seen a few models that take into consideration copyright infringement. Some games have demonstrated profitable virtual economies with the company taking a cut of the profit, and even a company like Nintendo sells its hardware at a profit so as long as people have a reason to purchase Nintendo hardware there is room for a company like Nintendo to exist. This isn't to say these are the only or the best solutions, but rather just pointing out that to stay profitable going forward there is no reason to believe outdated business models will continue to thrive.
- daeken 15y ago
  Quick correction: It's 'Cory' not 'Corey'.
- ROFISH 15y ago
  There are two ways current hardware makers are beating piracy, increasing hardware complexity and value-added services. A lot of people are complaining about the Vita's proprietary memory cards, but I wouldn't be surprised if that move was 100% solely made to prevent 3rd party execution. I'd imagine that more anti-consumer features would be coming in the next generation of console hardware too. The flip-side is rewarding good customers. By not having a hacked console, you can use online services (such as Xbox LIVE). Although amusingly, I think the answer may actually be in free-to-play games. 2011, in my opinion, was the year F2P changed from evil Zynga social games and last-ditch MMO fallback to a serious triple digit growth area with games like League of Legends and Team Fortress 2. Expect to see F2P on Sony consoles soon. (Sony is more liberal with their online policy, which is why I'm predicting the first popular F2P on their systems. Microsoft is very domineering of Xbox LIVE and how their online play works, and Nintendo's online strategy is somewhere in the pre-fire stoneage.)