By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Will Sony sticks its penis in the hornet's nest?

 

Will Sony sticks its penis in the hornet's nest?

Yes 158 72.81%
 
No 59 27.19%
 
Total:217
buglebum on 06 April 2011
bannedagain said:
DonFerrari said:
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:

And about people complain about taking of Other/OS support going against the benefits to health and militar research... Did they needed to upgrade their firmware??? I don't think so, those PS3 weren't used to play games... I didn't saw any of the Supercomputer users complaining about the removal of other/OS just people that think homebrew is a civil right even if it make pirating rampant.

And the Dreamcast comparison is really good, put the console that bankrupted and took Sega from console development to say piracy don't harm... nice one.

If you didn't see any of the supercomputer users complaing, you weren't looking.

Lots of them did complain.  Including the US Airforce.

 

"We checked in with the Air Force Research Laboratory, which noted its disappointment with the Sony decision. "We will have to continue to use the systems we already have in hand," the lab told Ars, but "this will make it difficult to replace systems that break or fail. The refurbished PS3s also have the problem that when they come back from Sony, they have the firmware (gameOS) and it will not allow Other OS, which seems wrong. We are aware of class-action lawsuits against Sony for taking away this option on systems that used to have it.""


And yeah, piracy wasn't why the dreamcast failed.  The Dreamcast failed because of dumb hardware mistakes... everyone knows this, your just kinda... throwing shit against a wall and hoping it sticks at this point. 

I mean, it's pretty obvious you just want to support sony... because... and don't actually have a coherent line of reasoning for doing so.


I don't support Sony as I don't receive a paycheck.

And they can't buy a new PS3slim to put there, when the Slim never had Other/OS, failed.

Refurbished PS3, Sony fix the PS3 and send it back properly updated, did they tried to fix with 3rd parties (this are still legal you know)?

And the US Army can also sue Sony or never buy their thing again if they seem it is wrong, but they bought the PS3 because it was a lot cheaper option at the time.

What I don't support is hiding behind Civil Rights for doing harmfull things (isn't your case, but you know that a lot of people hiting Sony are doing for their own reasons masked behind the Other/OS remove).

About Dreamcast, you can't choose the problems for it failure, it's always a sum of problems. To say piracy didn't contribute whatsoever isn't really smart. If you want to say Piracy don't harm a company at least use PS2 or CoD since them got really pirated and still breathed.


DUDE DON! give up, you have been outwitted on everything in this debate. Everything you say is factless claims and yet you keep coming up with more that just gets busted down by Kasz. GIVE IT UP, YOU TOTALLY LOST THE DEBATE.

Don't worry we can all see, and anyone with half a brain is sniggering hysterically.

I mean checkout the guy's comment above mine ^


It would be comedy gold, if he wasn't being serious. The cretins on this site have really shown their hidden fanboy side the past few weeks. (I refuse to belive they are just plain stupid



Around the Network
bannedagain on 07 April 2011
buglebum said:
bannedagain said:
DonFerrari said:
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:

And about people complain about taking of Other/OS support going against the benefits to health and militar research... Did they needed to upgrade their firmware??? I don't think so, those PS3 weren't used to play games... I didn't saw any of the Supercomputer users complaining about the removal of other/OS just people that think homebrew is a civil right even if it make pirating rampant.

And the Dreamcast comparison is really good, put the console that bankrupted and took Sega from console development to say piracy don't harm... nice one.

If you didn't see any of the supercomputer users complaing, you weren't looking.

Lots of them did complain.  Including the US Airforce.

 

"We checked in with the Air Force Research Laboratory, which noted its disappointment with the Sony decision. "We will have to continue to use the systems we already have in hand," the lab told Ars, but "this will make it difficult to replace systems that break or fail. The refurbished PS3s also have the problem that when they come back from Sony, they have the firmware (gameOS) and it will not allow Other OS, which seems wrong. We are aware of class-action lawsuits against Sony for taking away this option on systems that used to have it.""


And yeah, piracy wasn't why the dreamcast failed.  The Dreamcast failed because of dumb hardware mistakes... everyone knows this, your just kinda... throwing shit against a wall and hoping it sticks at this point. 

I mean, it's pretty obvious you just want to support sony... because... and don't actually have a coherent line of reasoning for doing so.


I don't support Sony as I don't receive a paycheck.

And they can't buy a new PS3slim to put there, when the Slim never had Other/OS, failed.

Refurbished PS3, Sony fix the PS3 and send it back properly updated, did they tried to fix with 3rd parties (this are still legal you know)?

And the US Army can also sue Sony or never buy their thing again if they seem it is wrong, but they bought the PS3 because it was a lot cheaper option at the time.

What I don't support is hiding behind Civil Rights for doing harmfull things (isn't your case, but you know that a lot of people hiting Sony are doing for their own reasons masked behind the Other/OS remove).

About Dreamcast, you can't choose the problems for it failure, it's always a sum of problems. To say piracy didn't contribute whatsoever isn't really smart. If you want to say Piracy don't harm a company at least use PS2 or CoD since them got really pirated and still breathed.


DUDE DON! give up, you have been outwitted on everything in this debate. Everything you say is factless claims and yet you keep coming up with more that just gets busted down by Kasz. GIVE IT UP, YOU TOTALLY LOST THE DEBATE.

Don't worry we can all see, and anyone with half a brain is sniggering hysterically.

I mean checkout the guy's comment above mine ^


It would be comedy gold, if he wasn't being serious. The cretins on this site have really shown their hidden fanboy side the past few weeks. (I refuse to belive they are just plain stupid


So you point at me because why? I'm telling don to chill.  I do favor 360 and don't mind saying so but I also got a wii as well.

So being a person that favors a system is automatically a fanboy and you are what? Here to fight with everyone?



bannedagain on 07 April 2011
buglebum said:
bannedagain said:
DonFerrari said:
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:

And about people complain about taking of Other/OS support going against the benefits to health and militar research... Did they needed to upgrade their firmware??? I don't think so, those PS3 weren't used to play games... I didn't saw any of the Supercomputer users complaining about the removal of other/OS just people that think homebrew is a civil right even if it make pirating rampant.

And the Dreamcast comparison is really good, put the console that bankrupted and took Sega from console development to say piracy don't harm... nice one.

If you didn't see any of the supercomputer users complaing, you weren't looking.

Lots of them did complain.  Including the US Airforce.

 

"We checked in with the Air Force Research Laboratory, which noted its disappointment with the Sony decision. "We will have to continue to use the systems we already have in hand," the lab told Ars, but "this will make it difficult to replace systems that break or fail. The refurbished PS3s also have the problem that when they come back from Sony, they have the firmware (gameOS) and it will not allow Other OS, which seems wrong. We are aware of class-action lawsuits against Sony for taking away this option on systems that used to have it.""


And yeah, piracy wasn't why the dreamcast failed.  The Dreamcast failed because of dumb hardware mistakes... everyone knows this, your just kinda... throwing shit against a wall and hoping it sticks at this point. 

I mean, it's pretty obvious you just want to support sony... because... and don't actually have a coherent line of reasoning for doing so.


I don't support Sony as I don't receive a paycheck.

And they can't buy a new PS3slim to put there, when the Slim never had Other/OS, failed.

Refurbished PS3, Sony fix the PS3 and send it back properly updated, did they tried to fix with 3rd parties (this are still legal you know)?

And the US Army can also sue Sony or never buy their thing again if they seem it is wrong, but they bought the PS3 because it was a lot cheaper option at the time.

What I don't support is hiding behind Civil Rights for doing harmfull things (isn't your case, but you know that a lot of people hiting Sony are doing for their own reasons masked behind the Other/OS remove).

About Dreamcast, you can't choose the problems for it failure, it's always a sum of problems. To say piracy didn't contribute whatsoever isn't really smart. If you want to say Piracy don't harm a company at least use PS2 or CoD since them got really pirated and still breathed.


DUDE DON! give up, you have been outwitted on everything in this debate. Everything you say is factless claims and yet you keep coming up with more that just gets busted down by Kasz. GIVE IT UP, YOU TOTALLY LOST THE DEBATE.

Don't worry we can all see, and anyone with half a brain is sniggering hysterically.

I mean checkout the guy's comment above mine ^


It would be comedy gold, if he wasn't being serious. The cretins on this site have really shown their hidden fanboy side the past few weeks. (I refuse to belive they are just plain stupid


So you point at me because why? I'm telling don to chill.  I do favor 360 and don't mind saying so but I also got a wii as well.

So being a person that favors a system is automatically a fanboy and you are what? Here to fight with everyone?



pizzahut451 on 07 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.



pizzahut451 on 07 April 2011
buglebum said:

Pizahut451, you're punching so far above your intellectual weight division I'm pissing myself with laughter.

 

Kasz216 you're wasted here.

 

You obviously know how things really are and aren't tainted by ridiculous ideas of grandeur. You've layed out your arguments better than anyone deserves and yet the fools still don't understand and come back with irrelevent arguments.

 

You must feel like your banging your head against a brick wall. You can't argue with an idiot as they say and this thread is quite possible the epitome of that saying.


Why you dont you fuck off than? You have been banned before for insulting people  and you keep defending the cheating hacking assholes like they are your family(im pretty sure you dont even have a PS3), and thats fine by me,I dont give a shit, I dont care ig geohotz is your boyfirend or not,but stop insulting people you've never eveen seen in your life, because its both annoying and disrespectful



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 07 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?



pizzahut451 on 07 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?


Huh? what?



Kasz216 on 07 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?



pizzahut451 on 07 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?


Well, thats just the way it is, and that ''monopoly'' sure as hell isnt exclusive to sony, otherwise would MS and Nintendo allow their games to be played on other systems,.

As for justification to stay exclusive, all video game consoles have to have their own identity, to make themselfes look diffrent than others, otherwise there would be no competitive market and with no competition the industry wouldnt be as big and succesfull



Kasz216 on 07 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?


Well, thats just the way it is, and that ''monopoly'' sure as hell isnt exclusive to sony, otherwise would MS and Nintendo allow their games to be played on other systems,.

As for justification to stay exclusive, all video game consoles have to have their own identity, to make themselfes look diffrent than others, otherwise there would be no competitive market and with no competition the industry wouldnt be as big and succesfull


That's not really a justification.  I mean, that's like saying the Japan should have the right to nuke china, because otherwise Japan won't be able to comepete with China's economy.


And no, it isn't exclusive to Sony.  Someone if they wanted could develop a 3rd party system that plays 360, Wii and PS3 games and it wouldn't be against the law.

 

The only difference is, Sony is the only one that's ever sued.


I believe there are commerical emulators out their for either Gameboy or Gameboy Advance.