

Sony, Nintendo, EA hide behind PR move. Still support SOPA - nextparadigms
http://www.destructoid.com/ea-nintendo-sony-reduce-sopa-support-by-50--218742.phtml

======
Macsenour
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

------
DanBC
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
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.

~~~
ROFISH
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.)

