Welcome Back to Digital Pinball Fans - please read this first
For latest updates, follow Digital Pinball Fans on Facebook and Twitter

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shutyertrap" data-source="post: 285284" data-attributes="member: 134">I'm going to point you in the direction of this article I wrote:<a href="https://www.thisweekinpinball.com/guest-post-speculation-on-what-happened-with-the-williams-bally-digital-license/" target="_blank">https://www.thisweekinpinball.com/guest-post-speculation-on-what-happened-with-the-williams-bally-digital-license/</a>Now then, and I'm not gonna speak in generalities this time for the sake of clarity but this can apply to many different companies, you ask why Williams would have allowed FarSight to sign an exclusivity agreement when that wouldn't help the brand grow? The flip side is why would FarSight sign a non exclusivity license? I'll take the first one first.Various companies had licensed Williams tables before for video games. I have no numbers to quantify their success, but I don't think they were ever popular enough to warrant multiple companies seeking it at the same time. The advantage to Williams of letting FarSight sign an exclusivity agreement is that they could charge a lot more money for that. The contract length was for 2 years, if more companies are clamoring for it, then they could either do a bidding war, remove exclusivity, or not let anyone license it. FarSight clearly sees exclusivity as advantages because they'll have sole market share for 2 years, in which during that time they can build the game unfettered by direct competition of the exact same product. Without that, FarSight might not have been so bold in the money they were even willing to invest in the product. FarSight also pretty much figured they were only going to be doing that initial run of tables. As mentioned in the article, the next time the contract was up Williams was being bought by Scientific Games so it is highly unlikely that anyone was looking at what FarSight was doing and asking how it was for the brand. FarSight was actually showing growth with the game; they came out with dynamic lighting, they did flipper physics, they bought better scanning equipment, so despite the lack of direct competition they were still innovating. As far as a license holder sees it, and indeed with how popular TPA was becoming, both sides were benefiting. Once Scientific Games was fully in control of the license, they took a look at FarSight's indirect competition, Zen. They approached them to see if they wanted a crack at it, but I have no information that would says whether they were offering a shared license or exclusive.Zen turned them down, because of reasons I'm not at liberty to say. Let's say though that what was offered WAS only for a shared license. Well TPA had such a head start, around 40 tables at that point with a large swathe of the AAA titles already done, that Zen would struggle to gain any of that market share. Were they supposed to just hope that showing they could build a better version would be enough? Too risky. When Zen was approached again, who knows who it was that put exclusivity on the table, but I guarantee SG got a lot of money for it, more than they would have gotten with shared licensing, and now Zen is cranking out tables fast to get as much value out of the license as they can during the time they have it. Again, we don't know how long this contract is for, but you have to believe SG is happy with what Zen has done with it so far.I said this before, once Zen has their own stable of Williams tables, a shared license would no longer be so dicey. FarSight could flip the switch and start selling their back catalog once more and Zen could continue making new tables. At that point though, would FarSight bother? They'd have to update their engine, redo graphics, and certainly eliminate every bug that has plagued them before day one of sales. If they were currently pumping out Stern and Gottlieb tables, I could see this happening but instead it's as if they've given up on pinball entirely. Zen and FarSight are not strangers to having licenses pulled and no longer being able to sell that product. Stern had the Pirates of the Caribbean license, they made their run of tables, that was it. Now JJP has it and is making their run. From a competition point of view, JJP one has to assume is trying to make a better table. They did the same thing with the Hobbit (but is it better than LotR? I don't really think so). Were both making them at the same time, Disney would have to be worried of the potential of one company making a terrible machine which in turn would tarnish the other by association. The general public doesn't pay attention to the manufacturer, they just know it as "the good Indiana Jones table" and "that other Indiana Jones" table. Some don't even realize there's two different machines.Timed licenses ensure the license holder that if they are in any way unhappy with the licensee, they can end it. Exclusivity ensures the licensee will be able to make and sell in the timed window they have to the fullest profit possible. Both sides see benefit in these arrangements. As a consumer, if when SG pulled the WMS license from FarSight all the tables I had got pulled too, then yes I'd be ticked. That's not how it worked though, I have my tables still. If FarSight turns off their servers, thus rendering the game unplayable, I'll be ticked. Zen doesn't demand online access connectivity for their tables, so this won't ever be a concern. Zen is certainly competing to gain control of the digital pinball market, they are innovating with all the visual enhancements as well as new Williams physics, and everything they do is even influencing Magic Pixel and how they are handling the Zaccaria license. Are you equally concerned about them? Do you wish FarSight could do those tables? Because even Magic Pixel has gone through and revamped the Zacc collection once already just to keep up with the digital landscape.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

No members online now.

Total: 337 (members: 1, guests: 336)