Quantcast

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920
Results 286 to 299 of 299

Thread: Why did Snes sold more games than Genesis?

  1. #286
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,219
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post

    I am also not apposed at all to barone's recent wall o quotes:
    http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post685946


    In which of these comments do I claim Sega was the model of benevolent corporate nonsense and never did anything wrong? Can any of you be honest for once?

    By the way, barone's responses expose his love of Sony especially, and his belief that Sega failed to support its products as anti-competitively as Nintendo and Sony.
    Pretty much right here:

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I challenge anyone to find a single quote from any Sega executive or developer that implies they intended to be the only, or the dominant sales wise, game or console developer at any given time. Sega and Nintendo were very different companies, in game development, in console development, in marketing and PR, and especially in their tendency to using anti-competitive business tactics.
    You're saying Sega never used any "anti-competitive" tactics and didn't want market dominance. This is a rather bold statement that goes against common business sense and you present it with absolutely nothing to back it up. The only reason we can come to is that you think Sega didn't do it because they were better or something.

    And I don't think Barone loves Sony anymore than he loves any other console manufacturer. The only one in love with a console manufacturer here is you with your love of Sega that has basically made you look at them with rose tinted glasses.

  2. #287
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    42
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    131

    Default

    Which developer did Sega murder then?

    Where has it been proven that Sega demanded an exclusivity contract?

    Can trollies admit his folly even once?
    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  3. #288
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,219
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Which developer did Sega murder then?
    You missed the point on that one. It was an analogy, not literal fact. The point was that it didn't matter if Person A spit on the people he murdered or not, he still murdered people which is pretty damn evil. Likewise it doesn't matter if Sega specifically demanded 2 years of exclusivity, they still demanded exclusivity which is just as shitty and "anti-competitive".

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Where has it been proven that Sega demanded an exclusivity contract?
    In the Sega vs Accolade Court documents.

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Can trollies admit his folly even once?

  4. #289
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    42
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    131

    Default

    Yet you can't quote the court document, or the 6th gen thread, to prove that I have done any of the things you and "stu" and barone have claimed I have done. How interesting.
    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  5. #290
    Raging in the Streets A Black Falcon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,238
    Rep Power
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    You're saying Sega never used any "anti-competitive" tactics and didn't want market dominance. This is a rather bold statement that goes against common business sense and you present it with absolutely nothing to back it up. The only reason we can come to is that you think Sega didn't do it because they were better or something.
    The licensing model of console videogame systems is an anti-competitive practice, you know. A company which truly was devoted to openness would create an open platform like the PC, not one with expensive paid licensing which they controlled.

    And I don't think Barone loves Sony anymore than he loves any other console manufacturer.
    I'm not so sure about that, myself...

  6. #291
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,219
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Yet you can't quote the court document,
    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    From the Legal Brief:

    Prior to rendering it own games compatible with the Genesis console, Accolade explored the possibility of entering into a licensing agreement with Sega, but abandoned the effort because the agreement would have required that Sega be the exclusive manufacturer of all games produced by Accolade.
    This isn't a casual blog post, it's a legal brief. The language in these is chosen very carefully to make sure there's no chance of misinterpretation. How it's worded, is how it's to be literally interpreted.
    http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post685965

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    or the 6th gen thread, to prove that I have done any of the things you and "stu" and barone have claimed I have done. How interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    The entire generation was "floating around" the 1 million mark.
    http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post653150

    Please see the video in my previous post.

  7. #292
    Raging in the Streets goldenband's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,492
    Rep Power
    93

    Default

    It's a shame that transcripts from court proceedings are $1/page or so, because the transcript from Sega v. Accolade -- not just the decision, that is, but the actual arguments -- would really put this to bed. Accolade's lawyers certainly weren't likely to commit perjury by claiming Sega wanted exclusive console rights to their games (not just manufacturing) if that wasn't in Sega's contract -- a contract that certainly would've been entered into evidence, since confidentiality would hardly apply anymore.

    Alternatively, maybe Melf could simply ask one of his Sega contacts: "Did Sega seek to become the dominant player in the console market? Did you ever talk openly about putting Nintendo out of business?"

    I'll see about the Scotchmer book; unfortunately it's not available directly from my local library. In the meantime another avenue for exploration via footnotes is the book "Innovation for the 21st Century" by Michael A. Carrier, which has a discussion of Sega v. Accolade on p. 174 that's similar to the Scotchmer, and notes:

    In the 1990s, Sega introduced the Genesis system and sold licenses to game developers on the condition that the games would not be available on other platforms (such as Nintendo). Accolade, an independent developer, objected to this exclusivity provision and refused to sign a licensing agreement.
    This is pretty categorical, and scholarly authors aren't normally in the habit of making such assertions if they don't feel themselves to be on firm ground. However, I'd need to have the book in hand to check the footnotes, as it's not clear how much of his discussion is derived from Scotchmer vs. based on primary sources.

  8. #293
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,219
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goldenband View Post
    It's a shame that transcripts from court proceedings are $1/page or so, because the transcript from Sega v. Accolade -- not just the decision, that is, but the actual arguments -- would really put this to bed. Accolade's lawyers certainly weren't likely to commit perjury by claiming Sega wanted exclusive console rights to their games (not just manufacturing) if that wasn't in Sega's contract -- a contract that certainly would've been entered into evidence, since confidentiality would hardly apply anymore.

    Alternatively, maybe Melf could simply ask one of his Sega contacts: "Did Sega seek to become the dominant player in the console market? Did you ever talk openly about putting Nintendo out of business?"

    I'll see about the Scotchmer book; unfortunately it's not available directly from my local library. In the meantime another avenue for exploration via footnotes is the book "Innovation for the 21st Century" by Michael A. Carrier, which has a discussion of Sega v. Accolade on p. 174 that's similar to the Scotchmer, and notes:



    This is pretty categorical, and scholarly authors aren't normally in the habit of making such assertions if they don't feel themselves to be on firm ground. However, I'd need to have the book in hand to check the footnotes, as it's not clear how much of his discussion is derived from Scotchmer vs. based on primary sources.
    Honestly, I think at this point even if we had an exact copy of Sega's license agreement that clearly stated an exclusivity clause sheath would still try and read between the lines and claim it meant something else.

  9. #294
    Hero of Algol
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,818
    Rep Power
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    In which of these comments do I claim Sega was the model of benevolent corporate nonsense and never did anything wrong? Can any of you be honest for once?
    Yeah, you keep insulting us for nothing. That's ridiculous.

    But here are the quotes you claim to not exist (just in case you didn't notice at the time, it was because of your Sega-in-rainbow-colors nonsense that the rest of the guys also came up and replied to you):

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    For me this argument goes back to what Sega proved about the industry, innovation and high quantity of quality games will not draw sufficient market share. If that approach had failed in a vacuum I would say that the people just didn't like to find unique games over franchises. New games failing in the face of Sony steamrolling the entire industry, and overmarketing their brand and its "core" franchises, causes me to say it had more to do with marketing and less to do with product or demand.
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    None of these marketing mistakes were anti-competitive in nature, Sega wasn't trying to corner the market or put anybody out of business by promoting these things. It's a fact that they screwed up marketing these ideas, and it is a fact that they canceled their successful platform and add-ons and pushed the Saturn instead. Doing so hurt their brand recognition, and in the meantime they kept cranking out 20+ new games a year in the hopes that "if you make it they will come."
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    As an addendum to the "Sega sucked just as bad.." subthread. I've always looked at it like this. Sega spent money on games, particularly new games, and hardware, particularly new hardware. The megacorps and megapublishers saved money on sequels and recycling game engines and spent money on marketing, and locking down third parties and franchises. For Sega to compete with this they would have had to been more selective about the kinds of games they made, and only made games they could project profits for. That means virtually no new games, as gaming history has proven.



    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    By the way, barone's responses expose his love of Sony especially, and his belief that Sega failed to support its products as anti-competitively as Nintendo and Sony.
    Oh, thanks for trying to put me in the same bag you are.
    Too bad the quotes of the thread showed the opposite of what you say.

  10. #295
    Hero of Algol
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,818
    Rep Power
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Quote the line then, trollies, where Sega actually requires a 2 year exclusive agreement. You can't can you? Quote it.
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Why don't you use this official court document to prove anything you have claimed?
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Laugh it up guys, you still haven't proven anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Keep trying guys, but you still haven't proven anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Can trollies admit his folly even once?




    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    In my ideal world we would all be discussing the development tools available today versus back then.
    You have ruined all those discussions in order to hijack your conspiracy theories and paint Sega in rainbow colors, have you forgotten about it?




    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Yet you can't quote the court document, or the 6th gen thread, to prove that I have done any of the things you and "stu" and barone have claimed I have done. How interesting.
    The amount of insults, false accusing and lies you've spewed in this thread is insane.
    But don't worry, sheath, I have all quotes you want right here.

    Here's a compilation of your Sony/PS2 hatred spew in the PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics thread:
    http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post633816

    Here are your biased claims and non-sourced statements being disproved "in public" in the PS2 vs Dreamcast Graphics thread:
    http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post637108

    Here are your lies and false accusing being caught up in the 6th gen thread:
    http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...l=1#post645645



    And here's your absurd stuff in this thread being properly answered:
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    You three have failed to provide any evidence, at all, of Sega shutting down retailers and developers for making games for other platforms. It was your initial troll that caused me to be just sick enough with your utter idiocy and bullshit to post these lists. That is a fact. Another fact is that none of you have actually proven any of your persistent lies about me, not even one. This obviously makes you three crazy.
    Oh, really?
    Let's see:

    High horse biased claim
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I challenge anyone to find a single quote from any Sega executive or developer that implies they intended to be the only, or the dominant sales wise, game or console developer at any given time. Sega and Nintendo were very different companies, in game development, in console development, in marketing and PR, and especially in their tendency to using anti-competitive business tactics.
    High horse lunatic claim
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    The only thing that is true by all accounts is that Sega never targeted dominance in any console generation, and rarely if ever used similar tactics as Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA or Activision have_consistenly used against other game developers.
    High horse deluded "historian" claim
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    None of the interviews on this very site mention Sega taking other companies to court over and over, and losing, just to put them out of business. Sega never put an online retailer out of business for selling imports of their own devices. If I keep going, these cynics and childish rage monsters will just spin this post into another "pro-Sega" anti-whatever post. Well I will just say it again, I am against anti-competitive megacorps. Which makes me against companies like Apple, Sony, Intel, EA, modern Activision and Nintendo in the 80s and 90s.

    I really can't even think of a court case or magazine article that puts mega-publishers like Akklaim or Ubisoft in those dirty shoes. That isn't even getting into the Technosofts, GameArts, Sunsofts, Argonaut, Bignet, Bizarre, Bullfrog, Core, Hudson and more that just made really really good games and ended up shut down. Like it or not, this is the actual history of the game industry and it follows with the early movie industry step for step.

    Like it or not, not all organizations or corporations are built around the kind of abuse of capitalism that the current "winners" have made popular and worth defending in a stupid video game forum.
    High horse free class of the self-pity deluded historian
    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    I know you and stu, and others are wrong because I know how I treat facts. It is a painful process of reading them, walking away while absorbing other necessary info, and coming back and reading them again. This is the reason I haven't updated the console history section of GP for YEARS, and why I wait so long to do a comparison video. I don't care about entertainment, or shock value, or whatever, I care about it being right. You should have known this, and you turned people you yourself have insulted repeatedly in this very forum against me by asserting otherwise.

    sheath's bs getting disproved #1
    Quote Originally Posted by stu View Post
    Well I guess I'll give my point a little bit meat to it and then turn it back over to you to chew on. Here's a quote:

    "After the release of the Sega Genesis in 1989, video game publisher Accolade began exploring options to release some of their PC game titles onto the console. At the time, however, Sega had a licensing deal in place for third-party developers that increased the costs to the developer. According to Accolade co-founder Alan Miller, "One pays them between $10 and $15 per cartridge on top of the real hardware manufacturing costs, so it about doubles the cost of goods to the independent publisher." In addition to this, Sega required that it would be the exclusive publisher of Accolade's games if Accolade were to be licensed, preventing Accolade from releasing its games to other systems.

    So to sum up Accolade wanted to publish games on the Genesis and entered negotiations with Sega, however Sega's licencing agreement with 3rd parties place a large licencing fee on top of manufacturing costs of the cartridges and also prevented said 3rd party from releasing their games on to other systems. Doesn't that sound just a tad bit anti-competitive to you? Or is it ok because Sega was the one doing it and not any other platform manufacturers?

    BTW Sega initially won the case and had all of Accolade's games pulled from stores and prohibited any future sales of their games, Accolade appealed and the judgement was overturned and eventually Sega and Accolade settled, not before it cost Accolade millions of dollars though

    He was "allegedly" taking employees away, it was never proven and Ubisoft's case was thrown out.

    That highlighted point is false since both Nintendo and Sega attempted to control the production of cartridges for their respective systems, The only reason EA was allowed to make their own cartridges was because they didn't give in to Sega's intimidation as they had also reverse engineered Sega's design and threatened to release games without Sega's approval. In fact the control over the cartridge manufacturing was was the of the factors that almost caused the collapse of the industry towards the end of the 16 bit generation. I've posted on that before but I really can't be bothered to go through my posts and quote it again.

    sheath's bs getting disproved #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    I think I'll just drop this link here:
    http://newsok.com/video-game-makers-...rticle/2364929
    http://newsok.com/video-game-makers-...364929/?page=2

    "RazorSoft has been trying to protect its continued right to develop, publish and manufacture games for the mature, older consumer," said Michael Brazier, RazorSoft director of marketing.

    "We finally reached a point where we could no longer endure Sega's business conduct and their oppressive and discriminatory business tactics," Brazier said.


    In a prepared statement, Sega said: "Sega has established the Sega Genesis system as a leader in the U.S. home video game marketplace. In order to protect the strong brand identification and equity that we have developed in the Sega and Sega Genesis trademarks, it was necessary to bring this action at this time. "

    sheath's bs getting disproved #3
    Quote Originally Posted by stu View Post
    I have been reading through my copy of Game Over, by David Sheff and found an interesting section on page 365/366 in the chapter entitled "Sonic Boom" which I think disproves sheath's argument that Sega never intended to be as dominant as Nintendo.

    Here's the quote from the book:

    Quote: "Most Nintendo licensees liked the idea of competition between Nintendo and Sega, even though it meant they had to make choices about which system to support - or whether to support both. The attitude of some licensees was that anything that weakened Nintendo was good news. Part of this was resentment - it was always good to see a tyrant fall - but part was that it strengthened their positions. Whereas they had originally come to Nintendo hat in hand when they wanted to become NES licensees, now Nintendo needed them. Nintendo had to have a strong library of games to beat Sega and licensees were key. In spite of their discreet rooting for Genesis, the licensee found neither openness nor benevolence at Sega, whose own licensing terms got tougher until they appeared to be nearly as strict as NOA's. The only thing that some licensees had going for them was that they were being wooed by both Nintendo and Sega which gave them some negotiating power. "As often happens, a revolutionary accomplishes a coup and becomes the next despot," a licensee said. "Sega was as bad as Nintendo because Sega wanted to be Nintendo."


    Clearly David Sheff did mention that Sega wanted, not just to break Nintendo's monopoly, but wanted to supplant Nintendo as the dominant force in the industry. So much for the "kind" and "benevolent" Sega, huh?

    sheath's bs getting disproved #4
    Quote Originally Posted by stu View Post
    Just me again, you know, the "made up" "contrarian" guy.

    I present exhibit A - Sega-16 interview with Trip Hawkins - Founder of Electronic Arts - A Sega 3rd Party licensee.


    http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/interview-trip-hawkins/

    Sega-16: Some publishers complained about Sega attempting to emulate the strict licensing policies Nintendo had. Was this ever the case with EA?

    Trip Hawkins: Sega’s initial “standard license agreement” was indeed a Nintendo clone. EA skirted this because we reverse engineered the Genesis and therefore did not technically need a license agreement to bring games to market. This gave me a lot of leverage in negotiating a reasonable license, which I did in 1990.


    A bit further on:

    Sega-16: It seems like you were going to develop for the Genesis, regardless of whether Sega licensed you or not. What was Sega’s initial reaction when you approached it about developing software and showed that you had reverse-engineered its new hardware?

    Trip Hawkins: They huffed and puffed and said they would blow my house down. When intimidation did not work, we got down to brass tacks and they accepted that I was committed to going to market with or without a license. They became much more reasonable after that because they were afraid I would hurt their third party program by licensing my information to competitors.


    Oh btw that's just one interview on here. I'm sure there are others.

    sheath's bs getting disproved #5
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenband View Post
    BTW here's a bit from the Pettus book (Service Games, pp. 85-86) which I found interesting, if only because it's unequivocally (and diametrically) opposed to any claim that Sega was somehow more benevolent or less ruthless than Nintendo:

    "In reality, it was back in 1992 that the winds of fortune started to blow against the company. Sega was still the new master of the U.S. video game market; however, its reign was by no means assured. Having seized the throne from Nintendo the year before, Sega wasted no time in committing many of Nintendo's same mistakes. In fact, Sega had already begun the process years before their swift ascent to power: restrictive licensing agreements (not as harsh as Nintendo's, perhaps, but still quite strict), the all-too-familiar and carefully manipulated "inventory management" techniques, the expensive (and not always successful) side ventures, the emphasis of breath of product over substance, and more. Nearly every single mistake Atari and Nintendo had made during their respective turns in the catbird seat were now being committed by Sega; and like them, Sega seemed blind to its growing corporate arrogance."

    It then goes on to quote the same line about "despot" that stu mentioned earlier.

    sheath's bs getting disproved #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Sega to Pay Inventor $33 Million in Patent Case : Courts: Jury finds the Japanese firm infringed on rights to a technique used in most video games.
    April 11, 1992|JONATHAN WEBER | TIMES STAFF WRITER

    A Los Angeles jury found Friday that video game vendor Sega had deliberately infringed a patent held by an American inventor and ordered the Japanese company and its U.S. subsidiary to pay $33 million in damages.

    The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for individual inventors seeking royalties from large corporations and also marks at least the second time in recent months that a jury has found a Japanese company to be illegally using American inventions.

    Because the U.S. District Court jury ruled Sega's infringement to be intentional, the judge in the case could order the damages to be trebled, according to Fred Lorig, the attorney representing the inventor. Lorig said he would also seek an injunction barring the sale of Sega video games.

    "Obviously we're going to appeal," said Tom Kalinske, president of Sega of America. "We believe the jury was in error. We don't believe they understood" the technical issues involved, he said.

    Attorneys at Brown & Bain, the prestigious technology law firm that represented Sega, did not return calls seeking comment.

    The invention, developed in 1969 and patented in 1975 by Jan R. Coyle and Robert W. Stevens--but now owned by Coyle--involves a technique for displaying simple color images on a video screen through the use of low-frequency audio signals rather than video signals.

    According to Lorig, the technique is used for the creation of background scenes in nearly all video game systems. Atari and Nintendo both reached settlement agreements after Coyle filed patent infringement lawsuits, but Sega chose to fight it out in court.

    Lorig said he had initially offered to settle for $2.5 million, and Sega proposed $100,000. Before the trial began, Lorig again offered to settle, this time for $5 million, but Sega did not respond.

    "This illustrates the risk for big companies in not settling with these guys," said William Schwartz, an intellectual property attorney with Morrison & Foerster, which was not involved in the case. "(The individual inventor) gets the sympathy of the jury, and that has a lot of emotional appeal. And the fact that Sega is Japanese makes the emotional appeal that much stronger."

    While it was once extremely rare for individual inventors to prevail in patent infringement actions against large companies, changes in the patent courts have made it easier for such claims to succeed. Recently, a lone La Palma inventor, Gilbert Hyatt, has begun to reap substantial royalties for a "computer-on-a-chip" patent.

    In addition, Honeywell recently won a patent infringement lawsuit against Minolta. Many attorneys believe that the Honeywell verdict against the large Japanese camera maker in particular was at least partially the result of ill will toward Japanese firms.

    The patent that Sega was found to have infringed expires in August. Still, a short-lived injunction against the sale of Sega games could have a dramatic impact on the company, which is closing in on Nintendo for leadership in the multibillion-dollar video game business.

    The jury awarded almost $12 million in damages for the infringement, and another $21 million in damages for the advantages that Sega gained in the game business as a result of illegally using the invention.

    sheath's bs getting disproved #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    GDRI: Do you know anything about this incident ["Video Game Manufacturer Sues City Firm RazorSoft"]?
    KS: Some, if it is what I am thinking of (and the timing seems right). This is all just what I recall, so any portion of it could be incorrect.
    RazorSoft didn't like how much Sega charged to make cartridges. The minimum order was 30,000 units, and IIRC, they cost $17 each. So publishers had to pony up about a half million dollars, and the risk was all theirs if the product didn't sell. I never saw the contract between Sega and RazorSoft, but apparently it specified a royalty rate for cartridges (I don't know if that $17 per cart included the royalty or not).

    So RazorSoft decided to manufacture their own cartridges for Stormlord instead of paying Sega to do it because they could do a smaller run, it was cheaper, and they could turn them around faster. They paid all of the royalties to Sega, just didn't have Sega make them (if you get your hand on a Stormlord cartridge, you will see they are shaped differently than Sega cartridges were).
    Sega was annoyed because they obviously make a profit on making the cartridges and also like to maintain tight control over what gets made when.
    IIRC, the final outcome was they settled out of court, RazorSoft agreed to buy carts from Sega in the future, and Sega dropped the suit.

    http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index....Kevin_Seghetti

    sheath's bs getting disproved #8
    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    As for there being no source in the Sega v. Accolade case to mention the exclusivity clause,
    IT'S IN THE FUCKING LEGAL BRIEF!:
    http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1561.htm


    sheath's bs getting disproved #9
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenband View Post
    Here's a passage from the 2004 book Innovation and Incentives by Suzanne Scotchmer, published by MIT Press. This is part of a discussion about how "dominant firms manipulate standards" on pp. 303-304.


    "The ambiguities of the best business strategy can also be seen in the 1992 case, Sega v. Accolade. Sega was an integrated firm that sold game consoles and games, while Accolade was a game developer that supplied games for the IBM platform. Accolade reverse engineered the Sega interface to make its IBM games compatible with the Sega console. One might have thought that Sega would welcome the additional games, which would make its platform more valuable to consumers. Instead, Sega sued Accolade for copyright infringement of the interface. How should we understand this apparent contradiction?

    Sega did not necessarily bring the lawsuit because it thought it would be better off with fewer applications. Rather, it wanted to keep control of its interface. If Accolade needed a license to write for Sega's console, Sega could demand exclusivity. It is true that adapting the IBM games to Sega would dilute any advantage that its rival IBM might have, but making games exclusive to Sega would improve its market advantage even further."
    (Emphasis mine.)

    I should also note that the late Ms. Scotchmer (she died earlier this year) is described on her Wikipedia page as "one of the leading and most prominent experts on patent law and incentives for R&D and game theory". She was a professor at multiple high-profile institutions, a consultant for the Department of Justice on antitrust cases, etc.

    I think her interpretation of Sega v. Accolade should carry more weight than, well, that of anyone here.

    sheath's bs getting disproved #10
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenband View Post
    I'll see about the Scotchmer book; unfortunately it's not available directly from my local library. In the meantime another avenue for exploration via footnotes is the book "Innovation for the 21st Century" by Michael A. Carrier, which has a discussion of Sega v. Accolade on p. 174 that's similar to the Scotchmer, and notes:

    "In the 1990s, Sega introduced the Genesis system and sold licenses to game developers on the condition that the games would not be available on other platforms (such as Nintendo). Accolade, an independent developer, objected to this exclusivity provision and refused to sign a licensing agreement."

    This is pretty categorical, and scholarly authors aren't normally in the habit of making such assertions if they don't feel themselves to be on firm ground. However, I'd need to have the book in hand to check the footnotes, as it's not clear how much of his discussion is derived from Scotchmer vs. based on primary sources.
    Last edited by Barone; 09-25-2014 at 06:20 AM.

  11. #296
    Road Rasher
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    423
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    It seems pretty clear that Sega had, at the very least, attempted to secure exclusivity rights over third party licensed games.

  12. #297
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    42
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    131

    Default

    Fact: Nintendo entered the industry with every intention to prevent third parties from making games for other consoles, lock down ALL cartridge manufacturing in Japan, and sue any third party developer or threaten any retailer that opposed them.

    Fact: Sony entered the console manufacturing market intending to price fix its first console to put Sega out of business.

    Fact: Sega entered the console manufacturing market all kinds of arrogant that it could produce all games for the consoles itself without the need of what it saw as "competition" from third party developers.

    Not-a-fact: Sega required a 2-year exclusive license agreement like Nintendo's, or sued legitimate companies out of existence after failing repeatedly to succeed in court like Sony.

    Accolade became a Sega third party developer under more favorable terms, as did EA - the epitome of anti-competitive megacorps in the game industry.As far as has been presented, no company ever had to let Sega publish their PC games, the opposite is obviously true. Sega let other companies publish their games on other platforms. Yet another disparate act on Sega's part with this group's claims that they wanted to push out all competition.
    Last edited by sheath; 09-25-2014 at 12:24 PM.
    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  13. #298
    Outrunner
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post

    Not-a-fact: Sega required a 2-year exclusive license agreement like Nintendo's, or sued legitimate companies out of existence after failing repeatedly to succeed in court like Sony.
    Which "legitimate companies" did Sony sue and put out of business? Twisting the facts again to suit your agenda?
    If you're referring to Lik Sang and Bleem, firstly Lik Sang was sued by Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for copyright infringement due to them selling backup devices and mod chips that allowed people to make illegal back up copies of games and promoting software piracy. Lik Sang LOST that case and had to pull those items from sale. Hardly a legit company if you ask me.


    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/1905/so...t_vs_lik_sang/

    Lik Sang was then sued again by Sony, this time it was for importing PSPs in to the UK before the launch date as it was infringing on Sony's trademarks, Lik Sang also lost this case in the UK.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2006/2509.html

    They then closed up shop citing the amount of legal costs put them out of business.


    Yes, Sony did lose both of its lawsuits against Bleem!, but that was thanks in part to Accolade's eventual victory over Sega in the reverse engineering of copyrighted hardware. Bleem! never infringed on any Sony's copyrights since Bleem reverse engineered the Playstation operating system and emulated the Playstation hardware through the Dreamcast, therefore the court ruled in favor of Bleem! I find it kinda ironic that your attacking Sony for suing Bleem! but are defending Sega in their lawsuit against Accolade, both lawsuits claimed trademark infringments and the Accolade case set the precedent for trademark law and probably allowed Bleem to win against Sony.

    I wonder how Sega would have reacted if, hypothetically speaking, a company managed to make a Dreamcast emulator for either the PC or maybe the PS2/Xbox during the time that Sega was still a hardware manufacturer? I'm quite sure Sega would have sued in that case, just as Sony did.

  14. #299
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,219
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Fact: Nintendo entered the industry with every intention to prevent third parties from making games for other consoles, lock down ALL cartridge manufacturing in Japan, and sue any third party developer or threaten any retailer that opposed them.
    Yet Konami produced plenty of games for the MSX, X68000, and PC-Engine while they made Famicom titles.

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Fact: Sony entered the console manufacturing market intending to price fix its first console to put Sega out of business.
    And Sega of America didn't try to do the same thing with the Dreamcast? Heck Sega priced the Dreamcast so low that they actually ended up doing more damage to themselves than their competitors.

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Fact: Sega entered the console manufacturing market all kinds of arrogant that it could produce all games for the consoles itself without the need of what it saw as "competition" from third party developers.
    While in the beginning they had almost no third party support, I think that has more to do with the fact that their system was dead last in 2 of the 3 major markets. When the Genesis came along they clearly wanted Third party support and were aiming to have the dominate system on the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Not-a-fact: Sega required a 2-year exclusive license agreement like Nintendo's, or sued legitimate companies out of existence after failing repeatedly to succeed in court like Sony.
    Sega may not have wanted 2 years, but they did want exclusivity as the court documents show. As for taking companies to court, they did do that quite a bit in the 90's. Heck they even tried to sue Sony if I remember correctly.

    The two companies you bring up that Sony sued to death aren't perfect either. bleem! sold an unlicensed PS1 emulator for the Dreamcast. That was literally asking for trouble. While bleemcast was awesome, it's perfectly understandable why Sony would be upset by that when the PS1 was still on the market.

    As for lik-sang, while they did sell imports, they also sold quite a bit of shady things such as boot discs for the PS2 that allowed you to play imports AND pirates/backups.

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Accolade became a Sega third party developer under more favorable terms, as did EA - the epitome of anti-competitive megacorps in the game industry.As far as has been presented, no company ever had to let Sega publish their PC games, the opposite is obviously true. Sega let other companies publish their games on other platforms. Yet another disparate act on Sega's part with this group's claims that they wanted to push out all competition.
    Yet many third party developers during that time who supported the Genesis, only made Genesis games during this brief period of 1989-1990. The lists you spammed actually coresponded with this as those companies were either making only Genesis games during that time or the non-Genesis games they made didn't leave Japan.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •