The Free Market is Non-existent with middle-men services that legally kidnap IPs

Author Topic: The Free Market is Non-existent with middle-men services that legally kidnap IPs  (Read 3777 times)

The Free Market is Non-existent with middle-men services that legally kidnap IPs


This is a problem that is omnipresent, but at the same time it is widely ignored. Intellectual Properties are being kidnapped legally, to force consumers to purchase multiple service subscriptions/purchase multiple products across multiple services. Effectively making the drawing part of these platforms the content they have purchased the rights too or purchased the licenses too, and not their own innovative practices. This perpetuates stagnation and forces consumers to spread themselves thin to have access to everything, not because they believe these platforms are all great, but because they're a part of a dangerous pissing contest.

Ask yourself, why do you have Netflix, Hulu and/or Amazon Prime? Why did you buy an Xbox, Playstation and/or Nintendo Switch? Why do you have accounts on Steam, UPlay, Origin and/or Epic Games?

If the answer was anything other then, "I Like both/all platforms equally for their services and innovative design that improves my quality of life" or "I only have one of these platforms, and I have no desire to get a competing one because the platform I have is the best for my needs". You're being scammed, and unfortunately it's all legal. I Bought a Nintendo Switch to Play Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey and Splatoon 2, the platform's unique features came second. I Bought an Xbox One for Spyro Reignited Trilogy and The Rare Replay Collection. Again, the platform's unique features came second. If I had my choice, I would have stuck to PC alone and played BotW, Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2, Spyro Reignited Trilogy, and the Rare Replay Collection on there. The PC, to me, is the superior platform with the best features. But I bought these other platforms to play games they had, because they had them, there was no competition. These platforms weren't competing, they were putting a paywall in front of games I wanted to play, despite the fact they all could have worked on PC just as well.

These are legally kidnapped IPs. They aren't selling me these platforms because their platforms are superior, but because they have this one property no one else has, and that's detrimental to the entire gaming market. These properties don't have an exclusive value to these platforms in the sense, they could only function on these platforms. All of the Nintendo IPs could function on PC, swapping the motion controls out for mouse controls. Spyro Reignited Trilogy and Rare Replay Collection could both easily run on the PC without any major functions or features being lost.

This may be legal, but it is detrimental. The worst part is, this isn't exclusive to gaming. Movies, Tv Shows and even game stores on PC all do this. This is leaving these companies in a situation of stagnance, where no newcomer can come in, and only the people already present can """Compete""". This """competition""" isn't won through innovation, or creative ideas, it's simply a game of who has the most money, and the more money you have, the more IPs you buy, the more IPs you buy, the more money you have, until you reach a point where you have limited or almost no competition.

These are monopolies in disguise of competing platforms and services. This is a major problem.

/discuss


big companies bad
fantastic """Counter argument""" forgetstick.

but how's about this, Pizzahut, dominos, and papajohns are all big companies. but they aren't on this level of anti-consumer and anti-free market. Unless Pizzahut has some secret monopoly on Pepperoni or mozzarella that I've not heard of yet, they aren't kidnapping ideas and holding on to them for dear life.

oh my god shut the forget up already



Capitalism in a nutshell

exclusive poducts bad.. i want nintendo 64 to release all the games on the computer... grrr making people want to buy your products bad

i expected this post to be about ip adresses but no it's matthew not wanting to buy products
« Last Edit: December 16, 2018, 09:41:17 PM by maxymax13 »

exclusive poducts bad.. i want nintendo 64 to release all the games on the computer... grrr making people want to buy your products bad

i expected this post to be about ip adresses but no it's matthew not wanting to buy products
I have no problem with buying products. But why should I need to buy another console to play a game I want to play? That's like needing to buy a Toyota vehicle to be able to park at restaurants owned by Darden Restaraunts, even though I already have another vehicle that could park there just fine.

This is just a legal form of monopolizing intellectual properties.

there's the ol matthew

I dont understand your point at all. "If you buy into more than one platform, you're being scammed." and then you go into detail as to how you own two different gaming consoles to only play a handful of games on them. Doesn't that directly conflict with your point making you a hypocrite?

Also, are you really trying to say that companies that own their own intellectual properties would instead opt to release them on a unified platform instead of trying to be independent from each other? I suppose all companies should just sell out to Microsoft because you already own a PC, right?
Dude...

I dont understand your point at all. "If you buy into more than one platform, you're being scammed." and then you go into detail as to how you own two different gaming consoles to only play a handful of games on them. Doesn't that directly conflict with your point making you a hypocrite?

Also, are you really trying to say that companies that own their own intellectual properties would instead opt to release them on a unified platform instead of trying to be independent from each other? I suppose all companies should just sell out to Microsoft because you already own a PC, right?
Dude...

You miss the point. The point is that they shouldn't have to be bought out. This type of stuff should be covered under anti-trust laws. It's like if Universal had Blu-ray and Fox had HDDVD, and they each had exclusive movies, and in turn each company kept buying other intellectual property until the consumer was forced to buy both platforms in order to watch movies. It's anti-competitive because it's just a game of who can buy more or what, and not a game of who has done what better on each respective platform.

You miss the point. The point is that they shouldn't have to be bought out. This type of stuff should be covered under anti-trust laws. It's like if Universal had Blu-ray and Fox had HDDVD, and they each had exclusive movies, and in turn each company kept buying other intellectual property until the consumer was forced to buy both platforms in order to watch movies. It's anti-competitive because it's just a game of who can buy more or what, and not a game of who has done what better on each respective platform.
dear god son if you want convenience that badly just get the new iphone

This whole thing sounds like something a communist would say...