Cerny and House discuss playstation past, present and future

#1 Edited by The_Last_Ride (70493 posts) -

They talk about them never considering DRM. The camera never made sense to them to bundle it. Their roles before and after the company released PS1. What Ken kutaragi had as a role. What changed in 2009 . What role Cerny has had and what he is doing now. And a lot more

#2 Posted by delta3074 (17867 posts) -

They talk about them never considering DRM. The camera never made sense to them to bundle it. Their roles before and after the company released PS1. What Ken kutaragi had as a role. What changed in 2009 . What role Cerny has had and what he is doing now. And a lot more

BS, they patented no used games DRM so to say they never considered it is BS.

If they never considered it they wouldn't have patented the Tech unless they are patent trolls.

.

#3 Posted by freedomfreak (39059 posts) -

Only an hour long.

#4 Posted by Telekill (4389 posts) -

@delta3074: They, like every other company are exactly that. They patent something in case they use it so they don't have to pay royalties to someone like Microsoft.

Just because they patent something doesn't mean that using it is on the table. It's simply a business tactic.

That's why I always find it weird that you guys bring up patents as system wars material.

#5 Posted by delta3074 (17867 posts) -

@Telekill said:

@delta3074: They, like every other company are exactly that. They patent something in case they use it so they don't have to pay royalties to someone like Microsoft.

Just because they patent something doesn't mean that using it is on the table. It's simply a business tactic.

That's why I always find it weird that you guys bring up patents as system wars material.

so they are Patent trolls then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

And i am Sorry, but Patenting Anti used game DRM does not equate to 'never considered it' so in that context it isn't strange for me to bring up Patents at all

#6 Posted by Alcapello (763 posts) -

@Telekill said:

@delta3074: They, like every other company are exactly that. They patent something in case they use it so they don't have to pay royalties to someone like Microsoft.

Just because they patent something doesn't mean that using it is on the table. It's simply a business tactic.

That's why I always find it weird that you guys bring up patents as system wars material.

so they are Patent trolls then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

And i am Sorry, but Patenting Anti used game DRM does not equate to 'never considered it' so in that context it isn't strange for me to bring up Patents at all

Patent is only one step in a long process. Plz understand.

#7 Posted by edwardecl (2099 posts) -

So patenting and not using restrictive DRM makes you a patent troll?

#8 Posted by blackace (20238 posts) -

Only an hour long.

That's too long when it comes to Cerny. These guys will put me to sleep. They are as exciting as watching paint dry. If the DRM policies didn't have any backlash to it Sony would have jumped right in with their Patented DRM. There's no question that if all of this went positive for Microsoft, Sony would have followed suit and did the same shit. That is why they patented the DRM. Because it was all negative is the reason Sony is now saying they had no intentions to use DRM. lmao!! Then why have a patented DRM? They created it because they know in the future, this is where it's all heading. Just like STEAM, consoles will eventually be all digital content. They even have it in their TOS.

#9 Posted by Alcapello (763 posts) -

@blackace said:
@freedomfreak said:

Only an hour long.

That's too long when it comes to Cerny. These guys will put me to sleep. They are as exciting as watching paint dry. If the DRM policies didn't have any backlash to it Sony would have jumped right in with their Patented DRM. There's no question that if all of this went positive for Microsoft, Sony would have followed suit and did the same shit. That is why they patented the DRM. Because it was all negative is the reason Sony is now saying they had no intentions to use DRM. lmao!! Then why have a patented DRM? They created it because they know in the future, this is where it's all heading. Just like STEAM, consoles will eventually be all digital content. They even have it in their TOS.

Sound like you could use some time in the PSL.

#10 Edited by blackace (20238 posts) -

@blackace said:
@freedomfreak said:

Only an hour long.

That's too long when it comes to Cerny. These guys will put me to sleep. They are as exciting as watching paint dry. If the DRM policies didn't have any backlash to it Sony would have jumped right in with their Patented DRM. There's no question that if all of this went positive for Microsoft, Sony would have followed suit and did the same shit. That is why they patented the DRM. Because it was all negative is the reason Sony is now saying they had no intentions to use DRM. lmao!! Then why have a patented DRM? They created it because they know in the future, this is where it's all heading. Just like STEAM, consoles will eventually be all digital content. They even have it in their TOS.

Sound like you could use some time in the PSL.

No idea what PSL means. I'm sure I don't need to do anything there.

#11 Edited by SambaLele (5147 posts) -

@delta3074 said:

@Telekill said:

@delta3074: They, like every other company are exactly that. They patent something in case they use it so they don't have to pay royalties to someone like Microsoft.

Just because they patent something doesn't mean that using it is on the table. It's simply a business tactic.

That's why I always find it weird that you guys bring up patents as system wars material.

so they are Patent trolls then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

And i am Sorry, but Patenting Anti used game DRM does not equate to 'never considered it' so in that context it isn't strange for me to bring up Patents at all

It's all speculation.

They could be patent trolls, they could have considered directly using it, etc. It could be anything, you don't know, I don't know, and people will only lose time imagining what the market as a whole would be like if the X1 succeded in implementing anti used games policies (which are not DRM, since DRM is strictly an anti-piracy measure, and used games are not piracy, they are private property - of course, if bought, not licensed, since then it could be only a right of use, which means you can't sell it, like in Steam, but even then, it's not piracy).

#12 Posted by delta3074 (17867 posts) -

@delta3074 said:

@Telekill said:

@delta3074: They, like every other company are exactly that. They patent something in case they use it so they don't have to pay royalties to someone like Microsoft.

Just because they patent something doesn't mean that using it is on the table. It's simply a business tactic.

That's why I always find it weird that you guys bring up patents as system wars material.

so they are Patent trolls then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

And i am Sorry, but Patenting Anti used game DRM does not equate to 'never considered it' so in that context it isn't strange for me to bring up Patents at all

Patent is only one step in a long process. Plz understand.

no, you need to understand, for them to even 'consider' patenting something like that means that they obviously 'considered' no used game DRM so to say they never 'considered' no used game DRM is an absolute fallacy.

They would have to 'consider' no used game DRM to patent it in the first place, it's simple logic really.

They may not have implemented it, kudos to them, but they obviously considered it.

#13 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70493 posts) -

@delta3074: they patented a lot of stuff... Doesn't mean they are going to use it...

#14 Posted by tdkmillsy (1273 posts) -

@delta3074: they patented a lot of stuff... Doesn't mean they are going to use it...

No but it does mean they considered it.

#15 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70493 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@delta3074: they patented a lot of stuff... Doesn't mean they are going to use it...

No but it does mean they considered it.

uhm no... Because the DRM was never considered for the PS4... They never implemented anything of the sort...

#16 Posted by cainetao11 (16839 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

They talk about them never considering DRM. The camera never made sense to them to bundle it. Their roles before and after the company released PS1. What Ken kutaragi had as a role. What changed in 2009 . What role Cerny has had and what he is doing now. And a lot more

BS, they patented no used games DRM so to say they never considered it is BS.

If they never considered it they wouldn't have patented the Tech unless they are patent trolls.

.

To an extant I agree. Filing a patent certainly doesn't mean anything like "we need to do this", but it is a place holder for lets look into it. Otherwise as you said, why do it, and pay the filing fee? This is all PR to stay "the good guy" when imo they don't need it. Sony is doing awesome with the PS4.

#17 Posted by cainetao11 (16839 posts) -

@Telekill said:

@delta3074: They, like every other company are exactly that. They patent something in case they use it so they don't have to pay royalties to someone like Microsoft.

Just because they patent something doesn't mean that using it is on the table. It's simply a business tactic.

That's why I always find it weird that you guys bring up patents as system wars material.

This is just as bad in SW imo. You don't, and I don't know the defined reason for why they file a patent. Your guess is logical and mine that they did so in order to weigh the possibility is. Bottom line is if they NEVER EVER were going to even consider it, there is no reason to file it. What we do know is: Sony didn't announce it, MS did, and human beings lie.