Comments on: Stupid Game Companies (Part 3,622 of a Series)

By: Ian Schreiber

Ian Schreiber — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:29:00 +0000

Wow.

I really wonder what RedOctane makes of this; weren't they publisher for ITG? In fact, wasn't the whole *point* of ITG to drive sales of RedOctane's hardware?

With one less player in the field, that'll hurt. (At least, I'd assume Roxor is closing up shop now that they have effectively nothing to their name.)

By: Darius Kazemi

Darius Kazemi — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:13:00 +0000

Aprotim: the language of the article states that one of Konami's complaints was that Konami logos were plastered over with Roxor logos, so that implies that the modding actually took place, not just that it was possible.

Andrew: sure, they settled by selling the IP. I'm not saying that was stupid, I'm saying that modding DDR cabinets was stupid.

By: andrew khosravian

andrew khosravian — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:48:00 +0000

I read it more as they settled by selling Konami the rights to In The Groove

By: Aprotim

Aprotim — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:21:00 +0000

Did Roxor actually do the modding, or was it based on the fact that the machines were so similar that it was easy for Konami to demonstrate it? The article says “based on the fact that the arcade version of In The Groove can be retrofitted”, not “was retrofitted”. That doesn’t actually seem that far-fetched, either – it’s simply a matter of using the same basic underlying hardware and there only being so many ways to map 6 buttons into inputs.

By: solipsistnation

solipsistnation — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:51:00 +0000

Heh, how long before the game industry does what the comic industry has done and resolves itself into a few titans with their ongoing piles of company-owned IP surrounded by a melee of independant studios doing their own thing? How long before creator-owned games become the place to go for actual innovation and quality, while the giant publishers continue to trade on retreads of their old characters and series with an endless cavalcade of cookie-cutter releases, in the meantime buying up the indies and taking over their IP (and occasionally closing down or firing the original creators who were either foolish or desperate enough to sell out)?

Oh wait.

By: Darius Kazemi

Darius Kazemi — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:17:00 +0000

Well, Patrick, I think the answer is obvious: if you're a developer, it makes more sense for developers to control IP. If you're a publisher, it makes more sense for publisher to control IP.

Since I'm a developer, you can guess my stance.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:41:00 +0000

Keeping a clean track of IP ownership is pretty much boiler plate for this industry, but I feel sorry for the Roxor CEO, he's probably a bit upset.

This brings to mind a question, does it make more sense for developers or publishers to control IP?