My opinion? Microsoft is too overt.

#1SigmaLongshotPosted 3/28/2014 1:21:21 AM
Now, I have researched this quite thoroughly (even harking back to my 2006 master's degree dissertation on the modern licensing of gaming stifling new, creative IP whilst rewarding repetition).

People often ask why "they're the same internal license structure, so why would you prefer Sony over Microsoft, or vice-versa?" - well, I can actually answer that.

Originally, it was deemed common business practice to have a cruelly over-regulated licensing structure in terms of gaming. Everything from the Sega badge and Nintendo Seal of Approval meant developers had to pass strict viability tests to even see shelves. Simply put, you must develop your game 100% before Nintendo would assess the final product, and then pass judgement on that product alone if it was worth a platform release licence. Nintendo still uses this process today, which is why the console often misses sometimes no-brainer multiplatform releases.

This is called unconditional gold licensing.

Sony and Microsoft use a different licensing for content sometimes referred to as "conditional iterative licensing" because content is based on a case-by-case process. But here is where they differ - Microsoft are seen as the "sterner brother" here for a single differentiation.

Microsoft do not license products solely on proof-of-concept. Sony, however, allow this. Simply put, they can both announce and advertise content, games and features as "their final projection", but their terms and conditions mean that they must assess this content at certain milestones to ensure the quality is there. The difference is, Microsoft actively choose to adhere to their term that if something changes, that a product or service may change, or a new process, limitation or alteration is made... they announce it to the public, whilst Sony sells it's products throughout each milestones with the right to maintain the original concept or aim solely as the "goal product".

What does all this mean? Well, short version: Sony can legally sell you a game, service or product based on the initial concept alone, no matter the end result, whilst Microsoft feels personally obligated to release all milestone information based on the product or service in the state it is *at the time of writing*.

Somehow, this translates to "Microflipflop" or "Dictatorsoft" in many uninformed communities, but to me, personally, this may be a case where being too open and honest is actually detrimental to your company image despite being MORALLY correct.

What are your thoughts? Were you aware of the individual companies' licensing procedures?
---
Double Jump Game Comics: http://doublejump.thecomicseries.com/
#2Tyronelio1Posted 3/28/2014 1:30:50 AM
Thank you for sharing your opinion, it was a semi interesting read.

But in the topic at hand or your second question, I couldn't really care about licensing no offence I just have no opinion on the topic.
---
I wouldn't mind a game where I could be a Russian or North Korean character and shoot the us troops for once.
#3Troll_DirectoryPosted 3/28/2014 1:40:49 AM
reading that, i was reminded of my youth, looking at the softly rendered paintings on videogame box covers in the store. but then, getting my eyeball caught on the corner of tv pixel # 478 when i got home. thanks for the memories, sigma. :)
#4Spetsnaz420Posted 3/28/2014 2:25:03 AM
SigmaLongshot post
---
I don't conform to social convention
PS4 or Xbox... Why not Zoidberg?
#5da_StoOgePosted 3/28/2014 2:44:11 AM
Going to need some recent examples from both companies.

Because the thing that immediately springs to mind is the last generation Kinect. That thing didn't come anywhere close to living up to what MS promised.
---
My sig. Please don't mark it as being offensive.
#6SigmaLongshot(Topic Creator)Posted 3/28/2014 2:51:31 AM
Troll_Directory posted...
reading that, i was reminded of my youth, looking at the softly rendered paintings on videogame box covers in the store. but then, getting my eyeball caught on the corner of tv pixel # 478 when i got home. thanks for the memories, sigma. :)


I don't want to assume you missed the point, but I don't think that was quite relevant to my post.

Let me give some context. In the light of recent talks on forums about Microsoft "shooting themselves in the foot at every avenue, I thought I'd explain the iterative process Microsoft chooses to use. They release information, positive or negative regardless, at developmental milestones. Explaining DRM? Announcement. Releasing new exclusive? Announcement. Change in policy?

You get the idea.

What I'm getting at is that the counter-proposal is that they "be more like Sony", only Sony has the SAME ITERATIVE PROCESS, only they have no terms and conditions, internal or external, to announce whatever they don't feel is in their best interests. They can cherry-pick the good and omit the bad, they can market a game 2 weeks from release by showing a concept sketch if they wished.

This to me makes for good practice for Microsoft as a commercial entity, but terrible for customer relations as they release a slew of alterations and everyone assumes evil genius scenario.
---
Double Jump Game Comics: http://doublejump.thecomicseries.com/
#7BSerenityPosted 3/28/2014 5:30:09 AM
And... Here... We... Go... Again...
---
This is your freedom in a life of fallacy,
With no last kiss and no regrets; You don't deserve good bye.
#8SigmaLongshot(Topic Creator)Posted 3/28/2014 6:17:47 AM
Yes, how very droll, Sigma always uses Tur Muny Wurds, and it's hilarious you fixate on that. Or perhaps it's that I'm actually invested in researching the items I post about instead of being a kneejerk?

Whatever it is, my only intention is at least pseudo-intelligent discussion and debate, not just crass, wry one-liners and personal attacks.
---
Double Jump Game Comics: http://doublejump.thecomicseries.com/
#9HellsControllerPosted 3/28/2014 6:26:21 AM
Damn you're pretentious for a guy posting on a video game board.
---
I spilled Spot Remover on my dog....Now he's gone
#10BSerenityPosted 3/28/2014 6:32:28 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]