Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: No Xbox for You!
Markel writes "According this this story in the Sydney Morning Herald, Microsoft is very concerned about a man having been acquitted after allegedly selling [mod chips for a PlayStation]. So concerned in fact, that they are saying: change the law, or they will have to reconsider selling the Xbox in Australia. Not selling the Xbox is well within their rights, but putting it in a (I paraphrase slightly) "change the law or we'll .." context seems assuming a bit too much. I guess well see how many of our MPs are XBox gameheads."
Why should australia care if MS sells the XBox there? Are they in such a horrible financial situation that not having the third place console out of three consoles sales wise would hurt them that much? Or do people over there just play THAT many games? Sheesh, talk about ego on the part of Microsoft.
If I was an MSFT shareholder, I would find this news troubling to say the least. "Here at Microsoft we believe marketshare and expanding the Xbox community comes after making sure 1 or 2% of Austrailian users aren't using our product to play the "competition's" games." To quote Randolph Duke from Trading Places: "SELL! SELL!" *boggle*
As an early post said the article is wrong. The guy was selling mod chips for the PS/2. He had nothing to do with the Xbox.
So what Ballmer- go pack up your Xbox and leave- and take all that lost revenue with you. The Xbox has had an unspectacular launch in Australia with retailers even refusing to carry the stock because Microsoft was screwing them on the margins (e.g. Harvey Norman).
This is a hollow threat. Microsoft is simply going to *completely* concede the Australian video game market to Sony and Nintendo because they aren't getting their way.
Oh no! Please don't deny me your library of inferior games, Microsoft! Whatever would I do?
Maybe, but I don't see them going all the way as to more or less threaten the government of an entire country. What will be interesting is if the acquital stands and all companies that see their future in mod chip selling move to Australia. Microsoft would not be happy, to say the least, and we could order them from Australia direct to our doorstep. Which, of course, could lead to the potentially hilariously pathetic situation of Microsoft threatening our government concerning the import of such chips. Australia's one thing, but under no circumstances could Microsoft afford to come through on a threat like that with the USA.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Only common sense. Selling Windows is a profitable business, so there is no reason NOT to sell Windows. Existance of alternatives does not change anything. Selling XBOX is not profitable (money are made on games), so refusing to sell XBOX if money can't be made on games is reasonable.
What I don't understand is what is the big difference between Australian and imported games? It is probably the same games, the same royalties are being paid, and so on. Australians, can you explain this to us?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
They are going to "reconsider" selling the xbox? They need every possible market to sell this money-loser. It would be stupid to lock out a whole market of potential buyers. Are they going to sit back and let Sony and Nintendo take over? If this were true, Sony would want to lose this modchip case, it would end up helping them in the end.
I just don't buy it.
This is a prime example of when someone should call Microsoft's bluff.
If the disk was damaged or faulty, you'd return it under warranty.
I don't chip my consoles, but I can cite a personal experience where I did something similar on my PC.
Around the time Diablo II came out, I snagged a copy relatively cheaply at a blowout store in my area. Because I was pretty busy with work, I put it on a bookshelf and forgot about it for about a year and a half.
When I finally got around to playing it, I found out that someone had opened the box and keyed one of the discs. I was able to play the original game just fine, but when I bought and installed the expansion, it couldn't verify that the disc was valid.
Under Blizzard's support policy, I would have to mail them the disc and $10 for a replacement, because of the length of time since I actually bought it, not having the receipt anymore, etc.
I'm not willing to pay again for a product I own, so I used CloneCD to dupe a friend's disc.
Granted, the vast majority of the people who chip their consoles do so to pirate games. However, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to do so also - playing imports, situations like mine, running unlicenses/homebrew software, and so forth.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
"Maybe, but I don't see them going all the way as to more or less threaten the government of an entire country"
Are you absolutely certain about that? If they're going to go so far as to threaten the government of an entire country (Australia), who's to say they wouldn't have the brass to try it here?
We've seen Microsoft pretty much ignore and circumvent our Department of Justice, with no real retaliation. We've seen media companies push through legislation that tramps upon the rights of the people just becuase they can. With the way things are going, I would be surprised if Microsoft couldn't get some sort of law passed on the importation of a circumvention device, provided they threw enough lobbyists at it.
For all the things I have not the power to change.....
Keep in mind there are good reasons for the region coding. The games do have to be programmed differently if they are going to be run on NTSC or PAL. The European GameCube has different video out formats than the US/Japan one does.
Another reason Nintendo releases at different times in different regions is they have a policy of only releasing a game after translating it to the local language, which takes time (some companies release English language games all over Europe). That's why THQ published Conker's Bad Fur Day in Europe instead of Nintendo - Nintendo didn't think it was worth the cost to translate it, but THQ thought the sales potential of an English language version was worth it.
There are more open source programmers in Oz per capita than in the US. There are also more xbox game developers per capita than in the US too. I wonder if they will still write games for an Xbox when they can't get them.
Remember that Aussie laws allowed the realese of ssleay and Samba. Writing ssleay as open source in the US was illegal at the time it was written. Its wide distribution was one of the key factors in getting the US crypto export laws fixed since congress was concerned about the US not keeping its crypto edge over the rest of the world.
However I think the goverment woudl cave in if MS started pushing them around.
Lets just take this apart a little to see the stench inside shall we?
From the article:
Microsoft would be forced to reconsider selling the Xbox video game system in Australia
Now the spin:
Take the word 'forced', for example. Why exactly is that word in there? Who is forcing them? Is the force economic or social or some other force? Have they been given some sort of order that they must follow? How exactly does one force a large company like microsoft to do anything?
What they are saying is that they are forced to decide. Forced really adds little here because it is the deciding that actually matters and that is why decide is clearly the right word choice here, not forced. Indeed.
More from the article:
, or seek changes to the law, following the acquittal in July of a Sydney man
And the spin
Now they take that little bit of momentum gained from the poor use of 'forced' above and add to it. Here they polarize the issue. When one polarizes an issue, they generally have one good choice, which is the one they want you to identify with, and that other bad choice. Simple isn't it. Just change the law and things will be good because things can either be good or bad, and none of us wants bad so lets work together for good huh? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?
It's not. They limit all the avaliable choices to exactly two. The one they want, and the one that nobody wants. Realistically there are many other options avaliable to them, but that complicates things just a little. Can't have that when you are trying to sway public opinion about complicated things. Keep it simple, that way it's easier for everyone to see your point.
More from the article:
alleged to have sold chips that modify a Sony PlayStation 2 to play imported games
And the spin:
Alleged? Where do we normally hear that word? We hear that word when we refer to someone who we think committed a crime. This is a negative word, not a positive one... ever. Can you remember the last time you heard the word 'alleged' in connection with something good? I can't.
Now that's a pretty decent piece of spin because of what comes next. What is that you ask? The actual crime! In this case it happens to be selling chips that allow people to play imported games. There is so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to start.
Playing import games is legal for one. implying that this is a crime is clearly a deception no doubt about it. None. A simple thought exercise cuts right through that one. Here is mine:
You are in Japan playing a game you find interesting. You buy it, legally mind you, and bring it home. It does not work. You are frustrated to learn that the company who was happy to sell you the game is also responsible for the fact that you cannot use it at home. What to do? Return it? Wrong answer, you see you opened it when you tried to play your legally purchased game so thats out. IMport an entire console? Too expensive, besides you have one already and are trying to be a loyal customer, but too much is too much. What's left? Several things, but the most obvious is a mod chip. Simple easy and legal.
So this linking of crime and mod chips and import games sounds a lot like drugs. Shady people sell you some thing that is in poor taste. Playing import games is in poor taste, who does that? It all adds up to making the whole thing look bad. Which it clearly is not.
From the Article:
, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said yesterday.
And the spin:
None of this would be worth discussing if it came from a nobody, but it came from a chief executive. Now that's somebody. Not only a chief executive, but one that runs one of the largest companies in the world. Maybe we all better think this one over because a guy like this would not just bring this up over nothing would he?
The very title conveys a certain level of creedence to this whole thing, but for a minor point. The company he runs is in the middle of the largest anti-trust litigation known. Doesn't this put just a little different light on things?
From the article:
Mr Ballmer said the decision affected Xbox's business model, which relies on subsidising the hardware console in return for a royalty on every game sold.
Now the spin:
This actually is a true statement with regard to the business model. They need to sell games, or take a loss on each console. Saying the legal decision affected that business model though is clearly false. Someone who buys an xbox who also imports a game paid for both. How does this break the model? Games are sold as are consoles. Clearly this is worded to imply that the alleged selling of chips will affect Microsofts ability to make money.
Now the truth here is, mod chips can do this, if they allow users to run other things, but in this case, the users are running the things they are supposed to be able to run anyway; namely, import games. So, Microsoft does not like mod chips because there is a possibility that they could be used in ways that could harm their business model, but they can't say that so they imply it.
From the article:
Microsoft has slashed the retail price of an Xbox from $649 to $399, which resulted in increased hardware sales and more game software sold.
And the spin:
This is a fact. They have lowered their price to compete with SONY. According to them it is working, and it likely is, but this is something they choose to do. Having it mentioned here just adds to the negative connotation alrealy implied with the 'alleged' crime discussed earlier. Another point worth mention here is that SONY has been dealing with this the entire time and seems to make lots of money. Why can't Microsoft?
They have no real basis for a statement against another nations legal system just because they have to keep their price low in order to boost sales of their product. This is a pretty arrogant stand to take --if you look though the spin.
From the article:
But Sony, which saw sales of PlayStation 2 titles decline 19 per cent in the same period, still dominates, selling 28 per cent of all titles, against Xbox's 7 per cent.
And the spin:
This paints the picture of the perfect underdog. Everyone wants an xbox don't they? If these criminals are allowed to sell mod chips then some people just might not get one. They might have to settle for a SONY instead. You can carry that little piece farther if you want, it's easy.
From the article:
"Given the way the economic model works
And spin:
Note the use of the word 'the'. This is clever because it implies that there is only one economic model. What they should say here is, "Given the way our economic model works". Again subtle word use to shift blame from them to another entity; namely, the Australian legal system.
From the article:
, and that is a subsidy followed, essentially, by fees for every piece of software sold, our licence framework has to do that
And spin:
This is a complex way of saying we need some money for every game sold. Fair enough, but the alleged crime mentioned above does nothing to hinder that, so why bother with this whole affair in the first place. Is there something we are not seeing? If so, why hide it. Everyone would be a lot better off knowing what is is.
From the article:
"If there are aspects that are not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal framework. Otherwise, it wouldn't make economic sense."
And spin:
Basically they are saying here, if they cannot do what they want, then they don't want to do it at all. Sounds like the reasoning of a three year old plain and simple.
Essentially what is happening here is this.
Microsoft is saying that they want income from every xbox both from the sale of the actual box, and the games following that.
They say that a chip intended for users to play imported games hinders that in some fashion, but decline to discuss exactly what that is exactly.
So they basically throw down their gauntlet and say, either play the way we want, or we won't play at all.
What exactly is anyone supposed to realistically think about this? Should we support a change to another nations legal system because they tell us that the law there might hinder them from making the amount of money they want to make, or that the think they should be making with nothing but implications to that end?
Spin Indeed.
Blogging because I can...