Court Rules For Connectix, Against Sony 108
Robotech_Master writes "According to this article in Wired News, a court has just dismissed many of Sony's charges against Connectix in the Virtual Game Station emulation case, noting that 'both copyright and trademark law favor broad consumer choice.'"
A death-blow for "intellectual property"! (Score:1)
This is great, the courts are finally recognizing what we've known all along: The Internet makes IP an obsolete mess. It's holding back progress. The economy will be crippled if we keep granting artificial government-enforced monopolies to all comers.
Now that the courts see the wisdom of an unimpeded free market in ideas, we can expect the uptake rate Open Source bazaar paradigm to multiply dramatically. Within five years, there may not be a single surviving proprietary software company on Earth.
Micro$oft, your days are numbered!
Oh shut up (Score:1)
"Yeah, the internet makes IP obsolete! You can download all the porn, warez, and music you want for free, man! These big companies don't have a chance!"
Uh-huh. And if these big companies can't make money, who's going to create the warez and music for you to share? You and your merry band of 3l337 hax0rs?
Great. THAT will bring about some quality products, I'm sure. I guess everyone should get started on business plans to sell support for user-hostile software ("No, ma'am. You have to hit META, then CTRL-z, THEN an 8-digit prime number to go to the end of your file.") If these big companies didn't have something worth paying for, why would you bother getting their stuff in the first place?
You twits oppose intellectual property law for the same reasons a burgler opposes alarm systems. If your mommies and daddies would just raise your allowance so you could buy more CDs, you wouldn't gripe.
Re:That comment from the judge (Score:1)
No kidding. Misrepresenting the law should be illegal. I wouldn't mind seeing those FBI warnings at the beginning of video tapes revised so folks realize the FBI won't beat down your door if you make a backup copy of your video library. And enough of these "Copying of this video{cassette|disc} is prohibited." Prohibited by who? (or is it whom?) Not by law. Uggh... They rape the ignorant - most people don't know they're allowed to copy their own movies, books, music, software, etc, for personal use because of this crap... and so these corporations get away with more, and more, and more. Bastards...
Re:Reverse Engineering and DeCSS (Score:1)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:2)
Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
Yeah, the spring 2000 issue of 2600 goes into more detail on how this is done. Neat idea, but like anything, it can be worked around.
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
Will PSX games look as good on PSX2 as they do on Dreamcast/Bleem?
Will there be a Dreamcast emulator for PSX2?
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
more third-party emulators sold = less money lost selling consoles.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:I just don't get it (Score:2)
a) Connectix and or Apple enhancing the hw/sw mix of the VGS platform to the point where PSX games look exceptionally better on VGS-Macintosh than PSX consoles. - basically an embarassment to Sony.
b) The existence of a multi-purpose computer system that can play PSX games also makes possible the analysis and circumvention of their game copy-protection scheme, which encourages more widespread piracy.
c) The technical "black-eye" they get when another company figures their shit out.
d) Mac/VGS becomes a more attractive buy for consumers, lowering the marketshare ratio between Macintosh and PSX, causing game developers to go "whoa, maybe it's more profitable to put Mac higher up on our platform priority list", and they're afraid of falling below the cutoff, and being marginallized as a platform. The fact that PSX is THE standard platform for games these days is a big advantage for Sony, as the same holds true for Microsoft when software companies develop for that platform to the exclusion of their competitors.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:It's about time. (Score:3)
Violence against women is an awful thing, but justifying it on the grounds of interstate commerce is almost offensive. It feels like almost a direct reference to the idea that virginity or chastity is property, and to rape or attack over sexual reasons is a violation of that property. That's as bothersome as the bloody sheet that gets hung out for the village to see that the new wife was a virgin--it's Just Not Cool.
Now, the real justification that the federal government seems to want to use is, "When a state is unwilling or unable to effect Justice within its territory, the federal government may interdict and enforce its jurisdiction on the uncontrolled territory." State, in this sense, seems to refer to both State of the Union and State in the World.
And, to be honest, I'm just not that sure that's a bad thing. Should require some pretty extreme violations of justice, though.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:A death-blow for "intellectual property"! (Score:2)
How do you see the 'digital revolution' affecting author's copyright?
Larry Niven, famous SF author:
It's worth remembering that intellectual property is fiction. It obeys the
laws that are set. If we can't defend intellectual property any more, then
creation will become a hobby again.
Hey, I got a URL for ya! (Score:3)
Re:Whole other ball of wax (Score:1)
Whole other ball of wax (Score:2)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:2)
The Dreamcast graphics hardware has a couple extra features that bleem! takes advantage of that the PSX2 does not: trilinear filtering and anti-aliasing.
The PSX2 probably provides more complete emu(sim/cosim)ulation without these features, but bleem! for Dreamcast probably will make some games look a little nicer than even the PSX2 will.
~GoRK
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:3)
Sony has more of an issue with the VGS people reverse engineering the PSX copy protection scheme than emulating the machine itself. This is quite significant in that bleem! couldn't afford to fight Sony on this one and consequently bleem! backed down and does not check the integrity of playstation cd's.
Of course it is widely known that console game companies make more money selling the games than the consoles themselves. I personally think it is a misconception that Sony wants to quaff emulation. I just think that they want to make sure that they get a piece of the profits. If VGS had licensed the copy protection from Sony and Sony had gotten a kickback from the sale of each copy of VGS, lawsuits would have probably been a non-issue as all that VGS could possibly do to Sony is broaden their market and their popularity. It is the REVERSE ENGINEERING that they take issue with and NOT EMULATION. Sony's methods of copy protecting playstation disks are patented and protected and in this particular case there's not much of an argument against that particular fact. No matter who argues for the "freedom of information," "Broad customer choice," or whatnot, it's very difficult to argue that an emulator should be able to play a backup copy of a PSX game any more than a legitimate Playstation should. (Especially when Sony will send you a replacement disk if your original copy breaks or otherwise becomes unplayable.) [Personal note: I think that emulation software and all legitimate playstation hardware should also be able to run original software/demos/etc.]
Sony's case against bleem! and VGS was to protect Sony's rights to their copy protection system. Granted, they also went after the emulation aspect as well, but the copy protection was the major thing. The media and the public seems to mangle these facts every time Sony vs. the Emu's comes up.
Sega is obviously condoning this (as they gave bleem! a development license) -- and they get a kickback from sales of bleem! for Dreamcast. If you look at the bleem! for Dreamcast situation, Sony would have much to gain by not having made such a fuss of this whole thing from the beginning - e.g. if bleem! for Dreamcast had copy-protection measures then Sony would lose much less money to piracy than it obviously will now.
Sony shot itself in the foot with emulation. It should have jumped in to help VGS and bleem! (which could have very easily included contracts to distribute the emulation software with copy-protection measures.) They would have had a lot to gain doing that.
~GoRK
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
Re:It's about time. (Score:4)
Congress regularly uses the Interstate Commerce Clause -- which says that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce -- to pass laws that really have nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has gone along with this practice for a long time, but the current court appears ready to impose limits.
If the court has in fact decided to end the "interstate commerce loophole", then huge bodies of federal law will be vulnerable and may be challenged, as much of federal law has no constitutional basis besides the thinly stretched doctrine of "it somehow affects interstate commerce."
and that would have enormous consequences.
Re:Woo-hoo! Good for bleem, too? (Score:1)
The internet existed for years before PC's even existed. Right now, the majority of machines connected to the internet are "PC's", but when the day comes taht everyone's alarm clocks, refridgereators, TV's, coffee makers, refridgerators, and home security systems (Hello, George Orwell!) are all connected to the internet, the PC will be relegated to a much smaller percentage of systems out there.
Not that I'm saying that Sony should be allowed to bar a clean-room reverse engineered title from the market (in fact, I'd think they'ed want to encourage it... Developers need to buy pricey systems from them to develop games, they need to get license SDK's from them, they need to pay them royalties, while sony apparently loses money on each playstation it sells...). I just don't think that anyone should say that the internet is the territory of the PC...
Keep walking in that direction and you'll find yourself saying that the internet is in fact the territory of Windows... Which is owned by Microsoft, which would in fact make the internet Microsoft's territory. No... The internet was developed as a heterogenious (sp?) network.
That's all for now...
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Woo-hoo! Good for bleem, too? (Score:2)
Re:Killing Blow? (Score:2)
Additionally, courts sometimes take other rulings into account; if there is adequate evidence that a party is not acting in good faith, it's possible for that to work against that party in other rulings.
A judge who sees Sony making things up for several of their charges will be less sympathetic to them on the trade secret charge.
Re:Creation ONLY for economic profit?? (Score:1)
Realistically, true artists produce art because they have to -- something in their souls move them and won't allow them to not create. I think that a lot of programmers are similar ... most of the open source projects began because (a) someone had an "itch" they had to scratch and (b) once they had begun to scratch it, they weren't opposed to helping others scrath their itches, too.
Ummm... I don't quite understand you.. I agree with the "true artists" portion, but I feel you have a gap in your metaphor to open source. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that art is at work in many people's programmatic creations, but the crux of the matter is that people have an intrinsic need to share their creations. Not to mention that most "artists" worked for monies doing prtraits and the like for the rich folk who paid them. That's how they survived. They didn't demand that every peasant down the street had the right to bring the historical equivalent of silly putty to be able to make copies or to even view it publicly.
My personal feeling as a programmer/systems engineer is that somebody pays me to solve their problem. However, the solution I provide, I should be able to give away to someone else. The original person who paid me is losing nothing, even though they had to pay and others didn't. The solution was personalized for them, and I fulfilled a need that they had that didn't previously exist in the world. That is what open source is to me. I don't see it as a bunch of guys trying to build something "because they can"... I see it as "because it solves a problem" whether it be to undermine a monopoly (BTW, how did Microsoft decide how much a product costs without competition?) or to feed a craving to try a new technology or whatever. This last example is typical of creation for creation's sake.
If economic value is the only value you recognize, of course, this makes less than sense. In fact, it's downright scary. That's why the suits and the drones and droids absolutely despise and (I think) secretly fear the FSOS movement. They don't understand it, because it's not entirely driven by economic profit. But if you free your mind from those sorts of blinders you begin to see that such things can make sense.
Yes and Yes and Yes and Yes and Yes
The key is that companies spend X man hours on something and expect to get back 20X man hours worth of "value" by selling it to everyone. What's wrong with getting paid for the X man hours or even 2X hey, go crazy, and then doing more man hours? There's always something new and exciting on the horizon. Blows the hell out of Anne Rand, "get whatever the market will bear", but what the heck..
Re:isn't connetix MS? (Score:2)
Perhapes you're thinking of ConXion [conxion.net] which is used to mirror software and stuff for downloading.
or an Airline? [cca-airlines.com]
There's a lot more too...
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
I just don't get it (Score:3)
Understand that this isn't the same as somebody like Nintendo suing the makers of an emulator. In that case, since the Nintendo systems use cartridges, all the games anyone will ever acquire for a N64 emulator will be pirated. But with a playstation emulator, you just buy the game and stick the CD in your computer. Sure, there are ways to make copies of the CD and then run these copies with your emulator, but there are ways to do that with a playstation console as well.
So I just don't get it. What is Sony trying to accomplish with lawsuits like this? Is it simply a matter of control?
Re:it's not over yet..... (Score:1)
Confusing error in Wired story (Score:5)
In fact, Judge Legge is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the federal trial court in which Sony sued Connectix. He had previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Sony and against Connectix on the basis that Sony was likely to succeed on its copyright and trademark claims. The Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court which hears appeals from the Northern District of California) instructed Judge Legge to dissolve this preliminary injunction in its February 10, 2000 opinion [findlaw.com]:
In light of the Ninth Circuit's opinion, Judge Legge has now ruled that these claims by Sony (though not all claims by Sony) are deficient as a matter of law. Readers may judge for themselves whether they should be surprised by this turn of events.
Re:Actually, it makes sense (Score:1)
The dreamcast uses the trademark bit, the sony copy protection is straight CRC errors. VGS currently will NOT play a gold disc without a software crack, just as a regular PS won't play a gold disc without a hardware crack.
"broad consumer choice" (Score:1)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Opinion available online (Score:2)
I was unable to find the Connectix opinion available online.
The Bleem case is quite interesting, and is a playstation interpreter case as well. Perhaps Judge Legge was moved, at least in part, by the scolding he received just last week in Bleem?
Re:Creation ONLY for economic profit?? (Score:2)
The truth is rather more interesting.
One problem is that today it costs zillions of dollars to produce a film or album.
Perhaps some artists will forego life and livelihood for the "sake of the art," by begging up funds to stretch a canvas or paper to etch out a novel. In the meanwhile, we all lose out while those talented and smart enough to create, but who can't get resources go to law school instead.
However much the artists may "have to" create, no one else needs to give them a dime to do so.
Opinion available online (Score:3)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals web site [uscourts.gov]
Re:it's not over yet..... (Score:3)
It wouldn't be good.
Depending upon the statute, the court could grant an injunction against using the product, an award of damages, treble damages, an award of attorney fees and court costs, or worse.
A finding of misapproporiation could also expose Connectix to criminal penalties, including the substantial civil forfeiture provisions of the EEA.
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
Re:Oh shut up (Score:1)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:2)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Party at CmdrTaco's... (Score:2)
Re:Whole other ball of wax (Score:1)
crack (Score:1)
Re:crack (Score:1)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
--
"HORSE."
Sony still true to form (Score:2)
This is consistent with their position in favor of banning/suing deCSS, banning/suing mp3 companies, and forcing their engineers to committ sepuku (sp?) if consumers figure out ways to use sony products in accordance with US fair use policy.
i wish they'd just stuck to the freakin walkman, myself.
Good for Dreamcast? (Score:5)
Using Bleem, Dreamcast owners will have access to 400 or so Playstation games, along with a projected 200 Dreamcast games, before Playstation 2 is even released in the US.
This could make things interesting!
Killing Blow? (Score:5)
"Dilution by tarnishment occurs when a famous mark is linked to poor quality or unwholesome products, or otherwise displayed in a derogatory manner.[46] If the use of the mark does not result in negative associations for the senior trademark user, then there is no dilution by tarnishment." - http://www.loundy.com/JMLS-Trademark.html [loundy.com]
It sounds like Sony was really reaching to try and get Connectix on any of these kinds of accusations. I doubt that the dismissal of those charges were in any way a shock to Sony. I'm guessing they've been aiming to nail Connectix on the theft of a trade-secret all along, and these other trumped up charges are just for filler. As a result, I don't think the dismissal of these issues is really a positive sign for Connectix at all; rather, it probably bodes that the legal battle is going just as Sony has intended it to all along. With the verdict on the trade-secret theft pending, I wouldn't be popping marguaritas at Connectix any time soon....
Re:I just don't get it (Score:1)
Pretty much all game consoles work this way. The price point drops any time a competitor does the same or manufacturing costs have dropped substantially, but these companies always make money off the systems after R&D costs are covered. The people that really lose out are the retailers, who pretty much lose money on the system by the time you add in the cost of shipping and storage. This is wwhy Sony doesn't like Bleem! and Virtual Game Station. If best buy sells a copy of an Emulator over a Playstation to make a profit, Sony will start losing out big time.
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
This whole thing gets sillier all the time. "You can reverse engineer, except things we protect so that you dont."
Or even lamer, you can reverse engineer, except things that we try in a half-ass manner to protect.
freedom to emulate (Score:1)
This makes a rather strong statement about other emulators, that as long as you don't steal anything they tried to hide, you can emulate anything that you want. Including, Game consoles, Operating Systems, etc.
This is a rather strong blow for consumer rights, and I give Connectix a big high-five to take on Sony.
Now I'll probably actually buy one of these things...
Re:No DMCA? (Score:2)
This adds a bit of scrutiny on the MPAA's case. Everyone here will agree the MPAA is ethically in the wrong, but are they legally in the wrong? Maybe the MPAA knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but since DVD is it's cash-cow, it's using legal intimidation to wear down people completely in the right (IE: DeCSS for compatibility purposes). Maybe Sony knew that that route was a losing battle and decided to not even pursue it.
Just some thoughts ...
No DMCA? (Score:5)
Earlier this year, the court issued a ruling upholding Connectix's right to use a process known as reverse engineering to develop a product for playing PlayStation games on home computers.
Wonder why Sony isn't hiding under the umbrella of the DMCA like the MPAA with DeCSS. Perhaps there was no protection (to parallel with the weak encryption used by CSS) to be broken in order to reverse engineer?
This whole thing gets sillier all the time. "You can reverse engineer, except things we protect so that you dont."
TO stay somewhat on topic, I don't really see why it upset Sony so much. They sell the console at a loss (initially anyway) and make the majority of the revenue from the licensing of games. You would think that:
More people able to play PSX games = more games sold = more licensing revenue.
I could see Sony going apeshit about people developing (more importantly, selling) unlicensed games, but trying to stop an additional way to play licensed games seems counter-productive.
But then again, since when has corporate paranoia made sense? :)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
They were showing several games running on the Dreamcast vs. PSX, including Gran Turismo 2. The improved visual quality is pretty impressive.
Reverse Engineering and DeCSS (Score:4)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
So that part doesn't apply -- unless, of course, Sony decides to twist things around so this is somehow technology designed to violate copyright protections. After some of the other charges, would it be a surprise?
Re:Reverse Engineering and DeCSS (Score:2)
<rant>
How about, in one case US companies interest is hurt by the reverse engineering, in the other case US companies benefit from the reverse engineering ?
</rant>
Re:That comment from the judge (Score:2)
After all, Sony wasn't whining about Connextix violating DMCA, which favors just the opposite, it was whining about the reasonable forms of copyright.
----------
Re:it's not over yet..... (Score:2)
Re:A death-blow for "intellectual property"! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I just don't get it (Score:2)
I can sort of understand Sony's position on this:
Re:I just don't get it (Score:1)
Re:Reverse Engineering and DeCSS (Score:2)
The difference is that CSS is an access control
And PSX's protection isn't?
Re:I just don't get it (Score:1)
Sony has been building a platform they hope will be the sole computing device for a lot of people. If they lose this case it will set a precident for Playstation 2 emulation.
With emulators freely avaliable some people who would have bought a Playstion will just go for a regular PC, a platform Sony has little influence over. Also, if emulators really do take off there is a chance Sony will lose control of the Playstation API the same way that IBM lost control of the PC BIOS.
This would be a very good thing for consumers but a very bad thing for Sony
The DID at one point, now they aren't..... (Score:1)
That comment from the judge (Score:1)
Is he actually familiar with copyright law?
Sony (Score:1)
Re:That comment from the judge (Score:2)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? No, good for Sony (Score:1)
Sony should [although they won't] be pleased. Console hadware is sold either at a loss or barely over cost. I think Sega would be most pissed. Any obstacle to you buying more Dreamcast games [which Sega gets a piece of no matter who wrote it] is bad, bad, bad. Considering how many people already own Playstations [in fact the majority of Dreamcast owners own at least one other system] though I don't think this is going to cause that much of a ruckus outside of the courts.
This will get to court though.
Re:it's not over yet..... (Score:1)
I wonder how Sony would go about proving that they didn't?
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
Bleem! backed down and put in the copy protection so gold PSX CDs wouldn't work under it. The old Bleem! played gold CDs, and that is what Sony objected to.
One level of PSX protection is just to check certain sectors for bad CRCs. CD-R writers repair the CRCs for you in firmware, so it's impossible (without a firmware mod) to get it to write bad CRCs.
The second level is in the PSX hardware, and a PC CD-ROM drive couldn't possibly detect it.
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
Seriously, how many Dreamcast owners don't have a Playstation as well?
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Throw some third-party bozo software into the mix, and Sony might have thousands of "customers" complaining to them that their purchases didn't work as expected. These people might do stupid things like sue Sony - things like this happen.
Sony just doesn't want all this crap going on - it's quite understandable. You might view it as paranoia, but in business you're either paranoid or you're dead. It certainly makes sense, from Sony's perspective.
I doubt Bleem! would ever represent a sizable increase in revenue for Sony, even when it's on Dreamcast.
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
If you send all zeroes with a CRC of zero to a burner it will replace the CRC with the correct value before writing the disk. You cannot get around this without a firmware mod.
Even if you did mod the firmware and do this, the 2nd layer of Sony's protection would screw you anyway, since you can't alter the track's physical position on the CD unless you have a fabrication plant in your basement ;)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
I think yesterday was my day for being wrong ;)
it's not over yet..... (Score:1)
So what's gonna happen if they stole trade secrets???
decss impact (Score:2)
Jaeger
http://334.se2600.org
http://jump.to/jaeger
My mandatory DMCA reference (Score:2)
The article doesn't make any reference to DMCA. Maybe the judge considered DMCA and decided that Connectix didn't violate it. Maybe DMCA wasn't brought up at all. There's a whole lot the article doesn't say, so my comments are mostly speculation...
Baring that disclaimer in mind, I suspect that Sony didn't bring it up because they don't have any "security" for their technology. No encryption like DVDs, no licenses like MS Kerberos.
So apparently it's OK to reverse engineer (or just peek under the hood) only if the company who holds the copyrights doesn't try to prevent it. Under DMCA, the act of putting some (possibly flimsy) protection in place makes reverse engineering illegal.
One of these days, I'm going to get sued for bypassing the copyright protections on a paperback novel by opening the cover.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Finally! (Score:1)
Re:No DMCA? (Score:1)
Possibly that's what Sony's problem is.
subsolar
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
Actually, one disc probably will have all the rpgs. From the Daily Record article [dailyradar.com]: The packs contain support for games roughly based on genre, so one pack will have all the driving games on it, for example.
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
Re:Reverse Engineering and DeCSS (Score:3)
The difference is that CSS is an access control and the DMCA prevents circumvention of access controls. UCITA is what will look to prevent reverse engineering...
Re:Finally! (Score:1)
He bet it in a card game - and lost.
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
Re:A death-blow for "intellectual property"! (Score:2)
IP is bigger than copyright, patent law, or trademark law by themselves.
Re:Reverse Engineering and DeCSS (Score:3)
Creation ONLY for economic profit?? (Score:5)
Realistically, true artists produce art because they have to -- something in their souls move them and won't allow them to not create. I think that a lot of programmers are similar ... most of the open source projects began because (a) someone had an "itch" they had to scratch and (b) once they had begun to scratch it, they weren't opposed to helping others scrath their itches, too.
If economic value is the only value you recognize, of course, this makes less than sense. In fact, it's downright scary. That's why the suits and the drones and droids absolutely despise and (I think) secretly fear the FSOS movement. They don't understand it, because it's not entirely driven by economic profit. But if you free your mind from those sorts of blinders you begin to see that such things can make sense.
Yet another Multinational taken to it's knees! (Score:1)
What is this world coming to when the people (small timers at least) come before the almighty dollar!
I'm shocked, this is finally Apacolypse Now!
Re:I just don't get it (Score:1)
? They're only down $200 if they make the console and then dump it in the river or something.
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
It would appear you are making things up.
A price has not been set on Bleem! for Dreamcast & it will come on one disc (not four).
It would appear you don't know what you're talking about. The president of Bleem announced weeks ago they would release bleem on a series of discs, four to begin with, each retailing for about $20 and hold around 100 games each. This has been reported on ign.com, dailyradar and i believe nextgen magazine.
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:2)
This could make things interesting!
I am Dreamcast owner, and I do not own a PSX. But I don't think I'll be going the Bleem route... to be able to play all 400 of the PSX games they are advertising, you have to pay $80 or so for the 4 Bleem discs... Personally, I'd rather just buy a PSX. I'm sure they'll drop in price again when the PS2 comes out... And if not, I'd still pay the extra $20 to have the actual hardware... And guaranteed compatibilty for any game. The only way I'd go Bleem is if there was just one game that I wanted, or if they organize the discs by genre. If I could buy one disc and get compatibility with all the RPGs, I'd go for that. But I imagine they'll mix them up...
Josh Sisk
Re:Sony still true to form (Score:1)
Re:Good for Dreamcast? (Score:1)
btw, anyone have any news on the GT2 PC port?
sony and psx2 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:2)