PS5 Jailbreaks Are Escalating at an Unprecedented Pace

On PS5 it's done in couple of seconds.

Online purchases in some fashion are delivered to you and put on your hard disk. You can in theory preserve the game or reverse engineer it when its constituent parts have to be delivered to you.

(Of course their profit margin is higher from digital which is why they're running anti disc marketing.)

I wish y'all would learn what % actually means and that it's meaningless without the denominator. And stop dismissing successful products because you found a way to munge %.

I'd be very careful about using those kinds of numbers to indicate what consumers what. Many PS5 consoles don't come with disk drives. The ones that don't were cheaper which increased their popularity. The numbers themselves are questionable after a leak showed first-party titles sold more physical copies than digital copies. https://en.gamegpu.com/news/igry/utechka-insomniac-raskryla-...

> Also, online purchases are cheaper. Frequent sales happen, at steeper discounts than brick and mortar retailers ever have.

This has not be my experience at all. Steam sales can be very cheap. The prices on the playstation store are high and tend to stay high. Retail (especially used games) prices are extremely cheap and every person who walks into a store pays the same price while the playstation store uses dynamic prices so one person might get a great deal, but if Sony thinks they can squeeze you for more money your price for the identical game can be much higher. Zero price transparency makes price tracking and discount data unreliable.

That's kind of like saying places that suffer from dine-and-dashers suffer from a service problem. I disagree.

Some services can sustain subsidization. Google can "give out" GMail, people will be happy to have the service for "free". Smaller players who can't subsidize their service(s) with ad platforms may have to either charge money or offer fewer features and recoup revenue via features.

Gabe has the breadth and resources to practice his economics -many others do too; however, many smaller or more focused players don't have that liberty. Obviously we have companies who go to extremes to ruthlessly extract as much as they can from their customers. They are obviously deserving of criticism --but not everyone who wants can play by Gabe's philosophy.

I’m not sympathetic to this argument in the context of current generation gaming for titles where developers are trying to sell them and making them easily available digitally.

He was making a pitch for Steam in a different time where digital distribution was not a thing.

Now digital distribution is the baseline and availability and ease of use are in favor of not pirating, but his quote is taken out of context to justify piracy anyway.

This was me for a long, long time. I pirated games until I was into my late 20s simply because I couldn't afford to buy them. Now, with Steam, the idea of pirating a game is something I never think about.

Sorry, but that’s life. Saying something is too expensive but you still want it doesn’t change anything.

> - platform lock - this is more for emulation, where people don't want to buy a platform to play 1 or 2 IP;

How is this relevant? You can’t play a pirated PS5 game without buying a PS5.

This is just another variant of your argument above that people want things but don’t want to pay for them.

> but you can't assume they would be customers at the moment they get a copy.

You can’t assume that every pirate would not be a customer if they couldn’t pirate.

Which means the sales would be higher without piracy. Which means piracy hurts revenue. The rest is hand waving.

(I presume the picofly & similar devices are just doing this automatically so you can boot the hardware under user control without requiring other hardware to make the exploit work?)

The rarely-used Playstation Link cable, ostensibly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Link_Cable

Never used it myself, but it allowed a really weird first-person multiplayer mode in Bushido Blade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obFMn_u3U4

You don't get a choice is the issue, more so this is hidden from the consumer that it's occurring.

If when you buy a PS5 you sign a contract saying that you're buying hardware below cost is one thing, but without that contract there is no binding agreement at the time of sale. Without this selling the hardware below cost and you paying for the games is just a really nice thing that Sony hopes happens.

This is decidedly untrue non-fungible item markets (ex - the market where you can only play Sony exclusives on a playstation).

> in markets for non-fungible goods - price formation and demand equilibrium do not rely on a single, continuous market-clearing price. Instead, they rely on discrete matching, asymmetric information, and social coordinates.

Basically - no. Fuck off. Sony is acting in their best interests with asymmetric information (ex - they know how much profit they make of those game sales and you don't, they know how much profit/loss they make from that playstation sale and you don't).

You know how we know? Because absolutely nothing is stopping you from still opting into a model where you don't pay costs up front.

> The problem is assuming everyone wants the hardware costs upfront model.

We have an absolutely smorgasbord of financial services that would LOVE to let you pay over time, or give you a moderate loan, to buy a playstation with low upfront costs... to just list some of the bigger ones: affirm, afterpay, klarna, paypal, zip, bread, upstart, albert, withcherry, etc... there are SO many of these.

Of course and perfect example of that is the existential crisis of Hollywood. Video games aggressively outpace traditional cinema in revenue, cultural relevance, and audience time and Hollywood can't really do anything with that.

GTA V hit $1B in 3 days. GTA VI will be even bigger than that, probably the biggest entertainmant product launch ever.