4 ms·

They can remove the NDA on the SDK but still require games to go through a strict quality control and approval process before allowing them to be sold. Those th

by tapoxi 3y ago

They can remove the NDA on the SDK but still require games to go through a strict quality control and approval process before allowing them to be sold. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

shadowgovt 3y ago
It's risky. Remember Tengen games on the old NES? Tengen chose not to play Nintendo's game, reverse engineered the protocol, and started manufacturing cartridges of their own games without Nintendo's consent. Nintendo tried several flavors of technological and legal obstacle to them doing this, but ultimately those failed. In the end, Nintendo combated the problem by establishing the Seal of Quality branding which, as a trademark essentially, was something they could legally control and choose who received it and who did not. That, coupled with a propaganda campaign hinting that off label electronics could set your Nintendo on fire, eventually added too much friction for Tengen to see profit in continuing this mode of operation. I had a conversation with an Xbox development producer back in the early aughts on this topic where I had the chance to ask why Microsoft cared if people cracked the console to turn it into a home system they controlled, given that consumers would almost certainly still feel more comfortable buying officially branded software from the official distributors. The answer was simple: Microsoft isn't concerned about the home user, they were still concerned about development houses making their own games outside of the Microsoft ecosystem control and, more importantly, developing peripherals and alternatives compatible with Microsoft software, up to and including clean room developed alternative versions of the Xbox itself sold by other companies. A generation of console is one big game of architecture cracking, which is one of the things that keeps console generations evolving: sit on one console architecture for too long, and everything about it from the legal protections to the technical competency required to reproduce the artifact will age out. To give up the NDA is to willingly let that clock spin much faster, and ultimately disintermediate the console manufacturer from the flow of money they need to continue making product and developing the next generation of console.
- tapoxi 3y ago
  I mean I suppose, but the iPhone remains locked to the App Store despite the SDK being public. It might be easier to find an exploit chain to allow unsigned code to run, but those tend to be quickly patched if people want to play online.
- muststopmyths 3y ago
  I think it's more inertia than anything else at this point. For example, the Xbox/Windows GDK allows you to basically target one codebase for both platforms (with minor differences). So developing an Xbox-competing console is a matter of shipping a GDK-compatible software platform. Maybe even using Proton on a linux-based console. But that's just on the software level of course. The entire ecosystem of a console is hard to replace. I would have said it's about preserving the price-point/entry-barrier of the devkits themselves, but they don't cost thousands of dollars as they used to either. So, I think they do the NDA because that's the way it's always been done.

by tapoxi 3y ago

They can remove the NDA on the SDK but still require games to go through a strict quality control and approval process before allowing them to be sold. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

shadowgovt 3y ago

It's risky. Remember Tengen games on the old NES? Tengen chose not to play Nintendo's game, reverse engineered the protocol, and started manufacturing cartridges of their own games without Nintendo's consent. Nintendo tried several flavors of technological and legal obstacle to them doing this, but ultimately those failed. In the end, Nintendo combated the problem by establishing the Seal of Quality branding which, as a trademark essentially, was something they could legally control and choose who received it and who did not. That, coupled with a propaganda campaign hinting that off label electronics could set your Nintendo on fire, eventually added too much friction for Tengen to see profit in continuing this mode of operation. I had a conversation with an Xbox development producer back in the early aughts on this topic where I had the chance to ask why Microsoft cared if people cracked the console to turn it into a home system they controlled, given that consumers would almost certainly still feel more comfortable buying officially branded software from the official distributors. The answer was simple: Microsoft isn't concerned about the home user, they were still concerned about development houses making their own games outside of the Microsoft ecosystem control and, more importantly, developing peripherals and alternatives compatible with Microsoft software, up to and including clean room developed alternative versions of the Xbox itself sold by other companies. A generation of console is one big game of architecture cracking, which is one of the things that keeps console generations evolving: sit on one console architecture for too long, and everything about it from the legal protections to the technical competency required to reproduce the artifact will age out. To give up the NDA is to willingly let that clock spin much faster, and ultimately disintermediate the console manufacturer from the flow of money they need to continue making product and developing the next generation of console.

tapoxi 3y ago
I mean I suppose, but the iPhone remains locked to the App Store despite the SDK being public. It might be easier to find an exploit chain to allow unsigned code to run, but those tend to be quickly patched if people want to play online.
muststopmyths 3y ago
I think it's more inertia than anything else at this point. For example, the Xbox/Windows GDK allows you to basically target one codebase for both platforms (with minor differences). So developing an Xbox-competing console is a matter of shipping a GDK-compatible software platform. Maybe even using Proton on a linux-based console. But that's just on the software level of course. The entire ecosystem of a console is hard to replace. I would have said it's about preserving the price-point/entry-barrier of the devkits themselves, but they don't cost thousands of dollars as they used to either. So, I think they do the NDA because that's the way it's always been done.