Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="msilcommand" data-source="post: 285282" data-attributes="member: 7642">Right, I completely understand your license-owner standpoint, but I am also asking you why you and others in your position feel this current way is the right way? Lack of competition stifles innovation and progress, so by giving exclusive licenses, you are stifling the potential of your license's value to grow. To remedy that risk, you retain the rights to revoke or non-renew licenses, but what does that accomplish in the long run? Nothing. Many people came back to licensed pinball, or discovered it because of TPA, and TPA had no competition, and they stagnated years ago. That scenario didn't help your license value grow. Had Farsight and Zen and any number of digital pinball companies been competing and innovating all these years, interest and popularity would have likely grown much more, and thus the value of your license would follow. If companies can trust that getting licensed to sell means they can invest in building their product without threat of having the license pulled on that specific product, you build their confidence and thus their drive and innovation over time. This current approach is anti competition, anti growth and innovation, and makes licensees live in fear of investing in their game, because their license could be non-renewed or pulled. That's why.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 340 (members: 1, guests: 339)