1060°

Sony sues Kevin Butler actor (update: Sony comments)

GamesBeat writes: "The PlayStation spokesperson and faux-executive Kevin Butler is in trouble with Sony. On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against the Bridgestone Tires company and Wildcat Creek, Inc advertising firm. Actor Jerry Lambert, who plays the hilarious and arrogant Kevin Butler character in PlayStation commercials, is the president of Wildcat Creek according to Corporationwiki.com. SCEA claims that Bridgestone and Lambert violated one of Sony’s intellectual properties. Which one? Well, Kevin Butler."

Read Full Story >>
venturebeat.com
black9114252d ago

"For the love of money People will rob their own brother"

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

knowyourstuff4252d ago

I wonder if the guy who sold those orange Shamwow towels has legal disputes between that Shamwow company and the new ads he does for some other vegetable chopping product. Really, it's the same idea, unless of course his contract ended and there was no non-compete clause.

KrimsonKody4252d ago

It all comes down to what's within the contract.
It's possible that Kevin Butler's contract had specifics which prevents him from advertising or being in other commercials.

PurpHerbison4252d ago

He is doing the "Schticky" product now.

3-4-54252d ago

He owns the shamwow stuff. That vince guy. He is the owner AND spokesperson for it.

Gaming1014252d ago

LMAO Chimpanzees ^

No, that Vince guy worked for a flea market who then decided to create a commercial marketing that product. You really think that guy is the business owner type? He punched a prostitute in the face because she bit his toungue and wouldn't let go LOLOL

alien6264252d ago

omg people! they not suing kevin they suing bridgestone for miss using KB

Thatguyinthesuit4252d ago

@alien626

They're suing Bridgestone AND Wildcat Creek and guess where Lambert works and is conveniently the head off? Wildcat Creek.

sikbeta4252d ago

-__-

Is it Sony suing Sony for using Lambert in the movie Bad Teacher as well? XP

darthv724251d ago

The woman that does the voice of bart simpson got sued by the simpsons creator for her using the bart voice in something unrelated to the simpsons without authorization.

I think it was, she was doing a promo for something else (which did not go against her contract) but as she was reading, the bart voice slipped out and was caught in the promo.

That was the violation right there. not just the fact she was doing work for something else. All actors have that right to work but their persona's (or characters) can be contractually obligated to not be used outside of whatever they are contracted for.

Lambert was doing a commercial for a tire company that happened to have the wii in it. Had he been in butler character then he would be in violation but simply being in the commercial is not enough for sony to go on.

i have seen enough commercials in my time to have seen the same person advertise for more than one unrelated product as many different characters.

This is stupid sony.

knowyourstuff4251d ago

For those of you who want to see the actual lawsuit, the file that Sony is suing on is detailed here:
http://dockets.justia.com/d...

Kevin Butler the character didn't need to be in the commercial. This Jerry Lambert is the biggest attention whore on the planet if he can't just keep himself out of the commercial and keep two campaigns separate, he should've had some inkling that Sony wouldn't be happy with him using his face to promote a competitor. Dumba$$.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 4251d ago
Freak of Nature4252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

That depends on the Brother, and the Brothers Brother... Money is not the root of all evil, just a portion of it...

Perhaps if they showed a pixel-ed out Mario, speaking with his familiar voice saying here Mr.Kevin Butler *Screwa Sony, *taka thisa* cash as Mario hands a overflowing briefcase of cash to Kevin Butler...

Bring in "Sack-boy" and he will show you how to be a proper mascot...

SixZeroFour4251d ago

ppl often misuse the quote "money is the root of all evil" because the actual quotation is "the love of money is the root of all evil" which gives a different meaning altogether from the former quotation

geddesmond4252d ago

I don't see the problem. Sony made this dude famous

insomnium24252d ago

True pekolie and then he went on and advertized the competing GAMING platform.

darthv724251d ago

we wasnt playing the game at all. If you watch the commercial, it is the woman playing. plus its a tire company commercial not specifically a wii commercial.

Basically sony are suing for association. He was doing his job as an actor and because it just so happened to be a wii in the commercial they think he stepped out of contract.

seriously, im sure his contract is for butler. Not tire guy #2.

StraightPath4252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

nintendo should capitilise this and get him and make adverts of him making fun of jealous sony sueing out of envy. in that advert he was even the supporting role.

hope they lose the case and nintendo pick him of official and promote the wii u. this will be big slap to sony for betraying him.

sikbeta4252d ago

That's dumb, Nintendo would win nothing more than an overused character that lost its funny aspect long ago.

ajax174252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

I love Sony, and all(scratch that), most of their products, but seriously? This makes it sound like they own the man! It reminds of the cartoon Rocko's Modern Life, and the company CONGLOM-O, with it's slogan: "We Own You".

black9114252d ago

SPUNKY!!! SPUNKY!!! I miss the 90's What happend to TV?

Ult iMate4252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

I don't like that sueing stuff and all, but Sony invested in Kevin Butler for 3 years. And now Lambert is participating in an ad, where they play Wii. That's not very ethical from Lambert.

nerdkiller4252d ago

omg! im sorry but thats bull crap, how can sony keep a man from making a living just because he took a role and sounded the same in it.if thats the case then universal, paramount and who ever should sue jack nickelson and christopher walken for acting the same in all there movies.

BISHOP-BRASIL4252d ago

That's not the case. Jerry Lambert is the owner of the marketing firm responsible for the ad, so it's not like he innocently ended up sounding like Butler again... Also, they are not sueing Lambert personally, but his company.

By the looks of it, it's not simply non-comepetitive clause, as A: Bridgestone is not in the same market so it's not competition; and B: they aren't suing Lambert, but his firm, which makes no sense for ex-employee agreement breaking.

My guess here is Sony is claiming some kind of usurpation (plagiarism, patent infringment, copyright infringement, etc), that they own the character "Kevin Butler" and as so suing whoever uses the same idea.

Also, companies don't like suing who they can't win or who won't benefit 'em if wasting time/money on courts... Considering that slowing down Lambert gives Sony nothing, chances are they have a little more than an ex-employe agreement. I'm thinking of copyrights over Kevin Butler's persona, speech, gestures, clothes, etc...

Legion4252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

"SCEA claims that Bridgestone and Lambert violated one of Sony’s intellectual properties. Which one? Well, Kevin Butler."

How did they violate the Kevin Butler property? They didn't use his name or even the attitude of Kevin Butler in that Ad. The character he played in the Ad was much too passive and dorky compared to Kevin Butler and his take charge attitude.

They are basically saying because his likeness (does he have to wear a disguise from now on when working on film?) and that he talked about a video game... makes it the Kevin Butler character?

Give me a break... if the courts up hold this then they are really allowing anyone to be sued for looking like ANY other character.

Here is a link to the original video: http://www.gonintendo.com/?...

fatstarr4252d ago

I mean sonys only real mascot is playing wii.
lol Id sue too.
it limits this guy in what he can do in his career.

badz1494252d ago

but not a generation has passed and the ad was like saying he's already jumping ship! for those who are aware that this guy is "Keving Butler" - VP of anything PS, this is kinda send a message that Sony has fired him or something!

andibandit4252d ago

Okay!!!!!! let me get this straight,

Sony wont spend money on marketing, but they WILL spend money on this!?!?!?

GTFO!.

Haha1234251d ago

This is up there as one of the stupidest lawsuits...

Godchild10204251d ago

I just saw Kevin Butler (Jerry Lambert) in a new bridgestone commercial. He appeared towards the end. The commercial was promoting tires; They made a football out of BridgeStone tire.

Funny Commercial, Kevin (Jerry Lambert) at the end made it worth watching.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 4251d ago
yesmynameissumo4252d ago

When I first heard of Sony's lawsuit, I had hoped there was something legit about Sony moving forward with the case, not this nonsense. While I don't think anyone could dispute Jerry Lambert IS Kevin Butler, it's an ad with him playing a second if not third character. He's not the focus. A little common sense should've prevailed with Sony's legal team, but alas, the company hasn't really built a reputation on that.

ChronoJoe4252d ago

Contract probably stipulates some control over both the Kevin Butler, intellectual property, and Jerry Lambert the actor.

Typically the contract would dictate that he, the actor, couldn't promote competing products, either in, or out of the Kevin Butler character. This is very common and done to ensure specific brands can be consistently associated with specific faces. Many people who have seen Jerry in Sony's adds are going to simply assume he's Kevin Butler in the Wii add.

Sony have every right to pursue this.

Reibooi4252d ago

I mentioned this in another story but it's similar to the WWF suing WCW back in the 90's when Razor Ramon(Scott Hall) left WWF to go to WCW. He didn't say his name but he acted as if he was the same character and WCW did this on purpose to try to profit on making it look like some outside guy was invading. WWF was within their right to sue in that case.

However if my memory serves WWF lost that cast and it was MUCH more clear cut then this one is so who knows how it will end up.

Either way it's sad because the end result will mean no more Kevin Butler. He was a awesome character and the best Sony marketing campaign ever.

thorstein4252d ago Show
BrunoM4252d ago

I been around here sense 2007 and I don't Coment on story's for the simple reason is stupid people with stupid logic ..

But will do it now wow there still are some people with a brain and some sense wow ...

And ya both of you are right I agree is due to the likeness and its use with out te word of sony

dennett3164252d ago

@Reibooi, I don't think the WWF lost that case as in WCW they had to acknowledge on the air that Scott Hall was no longer part of the WWF and he had to drop the accent of the Razor Ramon character.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4252d ago
fatstarr4252d ago

consumers are so stupid now a days.
some would have thought that the wii is apart of the playstation brand and that you could play ps3 move games on it.

its best to nip it in the butt before it gets bad.

jc485734252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

the thing is, character had no name. He's just some actor in the commercial with no name. I really want to see where this case goes.

rezzah4252d ago

I was thinking that too, but it seems that Sony might use the idea that the actor is the face of the name.

So regardless of what commercial he acts in, his face is like one in the same with the name of the character.

Think of it as Mickey Mouse being shown by some other company, but is not referred to as MM within the commercial. I think they could be sued.

It's only a guess.

--Onilink--4252d ago

so what now? he has to wear a diferent face if he is going to be on any other commercial?

This lawsuit is stupid, unless he said in the commercial his name was Kevin Butler, he is just an actor, acting in a commercial

rezzah4251d ago

Like I said it was a guess, don't take it personally.

Their reasoning if based on name alone is weak because he doesn't have to reveal himself as KB on another company's commercial.

PirateThom4252d ago

I think it's entirely down to the fact it's a competitor's console, not the fact the character is similar. If he's been just advertising tyres, it would have been fine, but to use a very similar persona with a rival console is not going to sit well. It's an intentional reference to the character, at the very least but considering Lambert owns the advertising company in question, I'd say it's foolish to think he wasn't using the "Kevin Butler" character intentionally.

Blankman854252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

But why sue bridgestone though? They didn't have any contract to breach with SONY.
It's not my fault if you sell me stolen goods without my knowledge

legionsoup4252d ago

If you bought it from the shady van at the gas station for 50% off retail, you knew it was stolen. ;)

Imalwaysright4252d ago

Exactly. If Sony is suing because Jerry Lambert made a commercial advertisement to a direct competitor they should sue the man himself. It makes no sense for Sony to sue Bridgestone.

"I'd say it's foolish to think he wasn't using the "Kevin Butler" character intentionally." That is pure speculation, one that Sony will have to prove in court to win the lawsuit because it wasnt given an identity to the character Jerry played in the Bridgestone commercial. I dont think Sony will go far with this lawsuit but then again i didnt think that Apple would go far with that "shapes" lawsuit either.

MikeMyers4252d ago

When Phil Harrison joined Microsoft was he told to put on a wig whenever he's out in public? I'm not sure how Sony can own the copyright of an actor unless that character, Kevin Butler, was co-created with Sony.

There are lots of actors that have their own style attached to them that they carry into other roles. The only legal backing I see is if Kevin Butler was owned by Sony and Jerry Lambert was not allowed to mention that name on another product. I don't know if they can trademark a comedic style.

Darrius Cole4252d ago

They don't own the man.

To me it sounds like Sony needs to keep this guy on the payroll and make VP of "something" for real.

If they don't want him making commercials for other companies then they should give him a steady paycheck so that he won't.

Carl_Shocker4252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

Surley though in the fine print of his contract there would of been something like

"You cannot participate in advertising or promoting rival brands for 3-6 months after this contract ends"

or something like that....

Logicaly wouldn't it of been wise to make him look a little differnt in the advert so people don't assume it's Kevin Butler even though he's just playing a no name character. Give him black hair, thick glasses, a goatee or maybe a crazy "Back to the Future Doc Wig" to go along with that scientist costume...it wouldn't of killed them to do that.

Hopefully they will work this out and maybe make another advert where the take the mick out of the situation to laugh it off....maybe Kevin being sued by Jack trenton stalking him, then saves his life so Jack drops it blah blah blah you get the point.

Blankman854252d ago

Carl, meet Have, Have, say hi to Carl.
Have isn't happy that you keep on replacing him with Of, Have would like you to know that he belongs with words like could, would, should, ect.
You two make nice now and forget this whole mess happened.

Carl_Shocker4252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

...oh sorry am I supposed to be laughing right now....nice try though I'll give you that

Ever thought that it's how we say/write things round here where I come from...it's old geordie slang. Sorry if you don't approve...

Seriously why waste your last bubble on that...<sigh>

Getowned4252d ago

How you write and how you talk are two different things, you shouldn't write how you talk. I know my English teacher gives me trouble for doing that.

OT:

I agree with you Carl_Shocker, When I saw the ad I thought it was for playstation at first, and then I realized it was for Nintendo. I can see why they would sue, not that I 100% agree with it but I understand it. I don't think they should of used PS KB's likeness for a nintendo ad. I'm sure Nintendo would hate it if they dressed someone up like mario to sell PS3s.

Carl_Shocker4252d ago

Honestly whats with the disagrees, I'm not saying Sonys in the right am just saying maybe when they hired Lambert to do the advert maybe they should of gotten him to look differnt so people don't get the wrong idea.

Oh and are people really disagreeing that there probably wasn't ANYTHING in a contract Lambert did with Sony...I find that hard to believe, I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to do it at all, just for a certain amount of time.

amaguli4252d ago

You do know that it would still be breach of contract if he dressed up, right? Just because he has a wig and a fake beard, he will still be Jerry Lambart and he will still be promoting a rival console.

dennett3164252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

It really depends how much of the character is like the real Lambert. If parts of it mirror how he looks or acts, then he's within his rights to carry on using that.

He could also argue fair use, but I'm unsure just how much that would apply in this case depending on the contract he signed with Sony...a judge may rule that the contract is unfair or unreasonable and rule against Sony.

But none of us know the particulars of the contract, if there were any restrictions, how much of the character came from Sony and how much from Lambert etc. So it's all speculation at this point.

@amaguli, they can't restrict a man's right to work in that complete a fashion...you can't ban an actor from representing a competing company. Jerry Lambert is allowed to take employment from whoever he wants...the issue is if he used Sony's intellectual property to do so, ie, the character of Butler. If he had any input into that character at all, he could even argue a right to fair use of said character depending on the level of involvement. That all has to be determined by the court.

amaguli4252d ago (Edited 4252d ago )

@dennett316

I know that they can't restrict his right to work, but I'm sure in his contract they stated he could not endorse a competing console for an x amount of time.

If Sony can show that, then Lambert is guilt of breaching his contract.

Bimkoblerutso4252d ago

Shouldn't have to do any of that. Sony does not own actors. If they had, for instance, called the character in the commercial "Kevin Butler," then sure, that's obviously a breech of contract, but I'm relatively sure there is no legal grounds for owning someone's face.

The movie industry would be a WAR ZONE if that was the legal precedent.

MikeMyers4252d ago

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Sony didn't seem to have a problem then. I think this has more to do with this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I think he was removed from that ad. Perhaps he had a contract (with Sony) that didn't allow him to advertise competitive brands. You would think Jerry Lambert would have known this, so maybe there wasn't anything in writing.

Show all comments (130)
200°

Sony Says The PS5 Is Its “Most Profitable Generation To-Date"

During Sony’s recent business segment meeting and investor presentation regarding its game and network services, the PlayStation company revealed that PlayStation 5 is the company’s “most profitable generation to-date.”

It’s the top slide of the presentation, showing that in its first four years, the PS5 generation has already hit $106 billion in sales, having almost caught up to the PS4’s total $107 billion generated.

Operating income for the PS5 generation has also already surpassed that of the PS4, having now reached $10 billion.

ApocalypseShadow5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

I wouldn't doubt it. They released a high quality system. A lot of high quality games from themselves and their support of 3rd party developers and indies. They released many high quality remakes and remasters. They released a high quality GaaS game going against the naysayers thinking Sony would abandon single player games. And they most likely are profiting a lot more than PS1, PS2 PS4 and the loss leading PS3 that drained all their profits.

Now, I'll wait to see what's cooking tomorrow. But can you use some of those profits to better support your high quality VR headset? Because, by supporting it, you can sell more games and more systems and make more profits?

jznrpg5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

I want RPGs for PSVR2! Good ones of course

shinoff21833h ago

If it had some rpgs I would buy right fking now. It looks dope and alot of fun, but it's biggest game resident evil 4(maybe) I've got no interest in. I'm not a fan of racing games, even with that metro game coming i was never much into that series. Rpgs would be fantastic.

MrNinosan1h ago

Lemme know if ya wanna play some Zenith 🙌
Bought it at release, but haven't played it more than 1-2 hours but for sure on my "todo list".

Cacabunga1h ago

Normal when they released mostly cross gen games so far. That’s a lot of money saved..
We haven’t seen what PS5 can do yet. 4years in and PS4 games still look great to me. The gen leap isn’t quite there yet.

--Onilink--2h ago

The interesting metric for me is the $106billion in operating income/profit (not sales as mentioned in the article) reaching the same as the PS4 did with only half the consoles sold.

In particular because they all are supposed to be making the most per hardware sold after a few years when manufacturing costs are down.

So even putting inflation aside(and the higher console price), it is interesting that they could reach PS4 $ with just half the consoles sold.

Maybe there is more to the metric thats whats seen at face value, but they have clearly been making a lot more money than before on the software side (with also less games released I suppose, given its only been half the generation so far)

VersusDMC2h ago

The bulk of the money has to be coming from the 30% cut on all games and microtransactions. Especially on all the free to play juggernauts like genshin, apex, fortnight, etc.

--Onilink--4m ago(Edited 1m ago)

@Versus

They are definitely making a lot on that for sure (which the $70 price increase factors into as well), but its not like many of those games werent around for the PS4 too.

They might be counting the gen as a whole and not just PS5 itself (so extra profit from PC sales, whatever that may be)

PS+ price increase and different tiers probably amount to part of that too.

But in general, its still quite a surprising metric. Half the time, half the consoles sold, less first party games released so far and still already making more of a profit than last gen is quite something, and as mentioned, there is probably more to it that we dont know, after all, since we are talking about operating income, all the expenses they have also factor into it, so it is also possible that they have found ways to significantly reduce that + all the means of increased revenue that appear to be factoring into the equation

All in all, just an interesting situation from a business perspective

Abnor_Mal4h ago

This will surely shut up all the new trolling accounts trying to spread lies and non facts in other articles comment sections before this article is posted.

Hofstaderman3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

Obscurely, those trolls or troll will not show in these articles as the truth is contradictory to his or their orchard-sized daily dose of copium and hopium.

Tacoboto2h ago

Or... They're intentionally trolling you guys specifically. Because they know it upsets you so easily.

Name-dropping Orchard, after this many months? How long has it been and he's still in your thoughts?

Elda2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

I'm quite sure the individual is reading these positive comments downvoting & seething at the same time. Edit: It just downvoted my comment...lol!!

Hofstaderman2h ago

No I'm entertained by this individual. I love unhinged people, they are so interesting lol.

Marvellepus2h ago

lol Tacoboto is right, this dude still talking about Orchard.

Dude hasn’t been on N4G for over a year and is still living in your head rent free

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2h ago
repsahj3h ago

Wow! I am super impressed that in just 4 years, ps5 already caught up to the PS4's. Congratulations.

sagapo3h ago

Not really surprised as Sony barely has any competition at the moment.

Show all comments (24)
150°

Sony CEO says although AI "has been used for creation," it's "not a substitute for human creativity"

"AI is not a substitute for human creativity. We position it as a technology that supports creativity. Creativity resides in people. We will continue to contribute to people's creativity through technology," the CEO said.

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
1nsomniac6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

...not yet but 100% within the next 10 years!

..Then Sony will use it like the drop of a hat. They're no different to the others.

isarai6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

They used to be 😞 sure it was always a business, and money's always the priority, but they used to have a very strong stance on supporting artists and creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" was a phrase they touted a few times back in the ps1-ps3 era, a philosophy carried over from their music branch PlayStation was created from. It's not COMPLETELY gone, but it's barely there compared to what it was back then, i just want them to return to that.

Eonjay5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

I am highly encouraged by their statement about human creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" is exactly what they are saying. But at the same time, I don't think people understand that Sony is a corporation. If they don't realize growth, they don't get to exist. When you say 'Sony', you are talking about a bunch of investors. To speak about them any other way is a illogical and incorrect. They haven't changed. They have been a group of investors since they became a public business.

isarai6d ago

Ugh, i really wish people would stop gambling people's livelihoods by turning a project/game into their political soapbox. Im all for statements and having your own opinion, but there's more people working on this than just druckman, ham fisting your political beliefs onto just seems inconsiderate for everyone elses job security when it can result in a failure due to people avoiding it for that reason.

I play games for escape, im so tired of nearly every AAA game blatantly dragging real world issues to shove in my face when I'm trying to take a break from it all. They don't even bother to be subtle about it, quite the opposite, it's blasted and force fed to you and it's just getting exhausting

Einhander19725d ago

People are taking a whole interview and cutting it down to clips that make him look bad and take what he actually was saying out of context. For example he also said things like this AI has "ethical issues we need to address"

-Foxtrot5d ago

@Einhander

Why defend him at this point?

It’s not taking things out of context, he said what he said.

Old ND would never talk about soulless AI taking over so many creative things they are well known for. The whole “ethical issues” is just a good PR spin people who push this crap fall back on to make their statements not seem as bad. So many AI lovers do this.

AI has no place is so many creative based things.

Einhander19725d ago

Well yeah, because everyone else is using it so they need to stay competitive. It's the same as paid online, they didn't want to go that route but their competition was making so much money they needed to add paid online just to keep up.

RaiderNation5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

AI will never replace humans in game development in terms of conceptualizing new games. Humans still need to come up with the ideas and what they want to implement. However much of the day to day menial coding could be AI driven to reduce production time and team size. I could also see AI being used for bug testing/optimization that could lead to better quality games at launch. I'm actually very optimistic about how AI can positively impact game development.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5d ago
XiNatsuDragnel6d ago

Good statement but hopefully this holds up

NotoriousWhiz5d ago

People that aren't software developers just don't understand the benefits of AI. People who's only exposure to A.I is the Terminator movie and other related sci fi films won't understand the benefits it provides.

It's not about replacing human labor. It's about making human labor easier.

Many years ago, I had laser eye surgery done. It was performed by a robot. The doctor took my measurements and calibrated the machine to make sure it would do what needed be done. And then the robot corrected my vision in 10 seconds.

15 years later and I still have 20/20 vision.

Eonjay5d ago

AI in and of itself is not a 'bad'. Money is bad. Money is evil, and corporations will do whatever they can to get more of it. They will find ways to implement AI to replace as may jobs as possible. This isn't even up for debate. It is the charge of the corporation to maximize returns for the investors. They have no choice. I'm a developer and I know that my job will absolutely be replaced. Therefore, I have decided to become an AI dev. AI has a lot of potential to help us solve problem on a scale most can't even imagine. The issue, as ever is that our monetary system only ever allows us to focus on greed and fiscal growth.

But I am a pragmatist. Perhaps an AI model can be built to help protect us from our most dangerous instincts and habits. And perhaps Congress can pass laws to protect us from people who would use AI to manipulate and control us (spoiler: they wont).

RaiderNation5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

Progress is inevitable. Nobody driving cars today is complaining that the horse and buggy is no longer around. Yes, some jobs will be lost but guess what? With innovation comes new job opportunities. It's how the cycle of the job market works.

150°

Sony Patents To Prevent You From In-Game Harassment By Reading Your Emotions

A new patent recently published by Sony wants to gather biometric data of gamers to track whether one is being harassed using AI tools.

Profchaos35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

I hope this is one of those patents that never comes to fruition.

I already dislike the fact you can pay a significant amount for a online service buy associated games and content on said service and get banned from that service over potentially a misunderstanding the bans are already handed out for flimsy reasons

I'd rather see money invested in a ban that simply removes the offensive players ability to communicate with unknown players allow them to continue party chats with friends but not with Joe blow on cod.

exputers34d ago

Agreed. Blizzard recently banned a college Overwatch 2 player who's dependent for saying "shit." Pretty harsh.

Profchaos34d ago (Edited 34d ago )

How rediculas really. You can't say a word that's allowed in most PG films and prime time TV but the game is based around killing the enemy team using guns, explosives etc.

It's just backwards.

just_looken34d ago

What your talking about is called block list

In 2006 a spaceship dropped of the playstation 3/xbox 360 i say that that generation was the last great gen with game functions/tech that has yet to comeback

Anyhow the playstation 3 if you block listed a id they could not talk to you in chatroom with either text or voice. But that was pre mind fucked 2018 when people were more human than sheep.

But hey gta 6 is coming out billion dollar budget without a single player custom character creator and without singeplayer coop off/online something saints row 1-3 had on the xbox 360.

z2g34d ago

Take my social security and bank account numbers too! Here’s a picture of my wife and our address.

phoenixwing34d ago

Cmon where's the pictures of your children. Don't hold out on them.

H934d ago

At this rate I feel Sony will eventually sell a room to play games in it where they can monitor your every breath

jambola34d ago

I genuinely get a bit worried sometimes when a friend says something that could be offensive In a party
Because I have no trouble believing some bans would happen when in a private party for saying something wrong

SegaSaturn66934d ago

I want them to censor erotic content by measuring my groin temperature so i dont get too distracted while playing black ops 2.

Popsicle34d ago

Terrible idea. Not only do I not consent to providing my biometric data, the potential for mishandling biometric data is almost a certainty. Positive stress and negative stress can produce similar changes in biometrics. Interpreting the precise emotion a person is feeling is not only invasive but could be easily misconstrued. I hope this never comes to fruition.

Show all comments (14)