61–70 of 148 posts
Silly idea. I would rather have a right to unlock. Make it law that Sony can't prevent alternatives OS installation. Then when you get Arch running on a PS5 you can install Steam on top
That’s dumb. Why should you have to unlock?
PC gaming lets me shop from Steam, GOG, etc.
I can't do any of that on a closed system.
Silly idea. I would rather have a right to unlock. Make it law that Sony can't prevent alternatives OS installation. Then when you get Arch running on a PS5 you can install Steam on top
Even when the PS3 supported Linux, Sony didn’t give OtherOS full access to the GPU. So I doubt you’d get any benefit running Steam on a hypothetical Linux-powered PS5.
No real reason to buy a Sony system anyway, PC will always win in the long run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s dumb. Why should you have to unlock?
Because that's the only way Sony doesn't have a monopoly on what software you can run on your hardware. PC gaming lets me shop from Steam, GOG, etc. I can't do any of that on a closed system.
Laws are.
Why ask that the fire doors in a building are unlocked when it’s on fire? Maybe they just shouldn’t ever be locked.
Going digital was inevitable, i'd rather focus on making digital ownership better than fight to restore discs or game codes to 3rd parties
People don't focus on improving digital ownership because that requires butchering the sacred cow of copyright and DRM. These are the root of the problems and no one wants to touch them.
Consoles have been a captive market since after the video game crash of 1983, and that's in part what has help the industry come back on track, by having manufacturers keep crap out of their platforms. They still have that level of control on physical disks, you can't sell a game on a Playstation unless Sony approves it, and always with some kind of DRM / copy protection.
A captive online store is just the natural evolution. Many on-disk games today are not completely on the disk, there is an online component somewhere and should it shut down, the game will not survive. The model where you buy a game and can use it and resell it for as long as the console and the media survive is already a thing of the past, pure online sales is just the final nail in this coffin.
But there is also a bright side. With the exception of Nintendo games, exclusives are not really a thing anymore. Almost every game come out on the PC, an open platform. It is a market that Steam dominates, but unlike with consoles, no exclusivity here. There are even DRM-free platforms like GOG, so you can put your games on your own media and save them for as long as you want.
The manufacturer controlled model of game consoles that Sony and Microsoft represent has served us well since 1983, but it is not the only way anymore, I would even say it is becoming a thing of the past. They are not killing games, they are killing themselves, or maybe dying of old age.
Why not just stop buying Sony instead? Consoles have been a captive market since after the video game crash of 1983, and that's in part what has help the industry come back on track, by having manufacturers keep crap out of their platforms. They still have that level of control on physical disks, you can't sell a game on a Playstation unless Sony approves it, and always with some kind of DRM / copy protection. A capt…
Why not just stop buying Sony instead? Consoles have been a captive market since after the video game crash of 1983, and that's in part what has help the industry come back on track, by having manufacturers keep crap out of their platforms. They still have that level of control on physical disks, you can't sell a game on a Playstation unless Sony approves it, and always with some kind of DRM / copy protection. A capt…
Nobody is questioning consumer behavior, consumers would buy bread with sawdust if it was cheaper, they don't because we have standards to protect consumers that makes it illegal to sell it. This is the same principle but with a more subtle harm.
If people actually read the claims... it's about fair business practices, this is why they are suing Sony: > ... In the EU, it is forbidden for large companies to abuse their position to make more profit at the expense of consumers. Yet Sony does not fully abide by these rules. > > If you buy a digital game or in-game content, Sony will only ensure that you can do so through its own PlayStation Store. Sony keeps the…
Hmm but when that argument was applied to phones, Android essentially got punished for being more open than Apple - you actually can have other app stores on Android, therefore Google could be held accountable for anti-competitive actions in the Android app marketplace. Whereas Apple doesn't allow any third party app stores so there's no competition in the first place and they're fine! Retarded logic but I feel like…
So they want Sony to be required to sell slightly discounted codes to resellers who then sell them to consumers? How does that matter to anyone besides resellers? I guess the resellers could pass some of that discount on to consumers? This seems like a pretty irrelevant concern since Sony is has no state granted or effective monopolies in game sales, they aren't a common carrier, they aren't benefiting from access to…
It matters to consumers because businesses have greater financial power to pressure Sony into reducing prices than individual consumers. Additionally, businesses will not only sell Sony codes. They won't be like car dealerships, tied to 1 manufacturer. Due to this, they'll have even greater incentive and negotiating position to pressure Sony as if Sony doesn't want to play ball, the sellers can start promoting non-So…