The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I’m sure you have all heard this rumour about Sony having to pay Nintendo all or some of the profits from Playstation sales due to the original association between the two giants which eventually resulted in the Playstation and a red face for Nintendo.
Well I’ve been having a think about this and have concluded it’s all complete pap – dreamt up but some fanboy somewhere.. Anyway here’s why I think its rubbish:
1) When Sony were developing the unit for Nintendo – the unit wasn’t called the playstation – even well into final development after the split the console was to be called a PSX. In this respect Nintendo have no claim to something that didn’t exist during their partnership. It is possible that I’m wrong on this point……
2) Even so, because the CD unit was entirely Sony technology etc etc and the fact that the name ‘Playstation’ wasn’t registered by Nintendo, they have no claim over either the hardware of the software.
In summery, they never owned the technology in the console and they certainly never registered the name, if it existed at all during the Nintendo/Sony Partnership.
Well I’ve been having a think about this and have concluded it’s all complete pap – dreamt up but some fanboy somewhere.. Anyway here’s why I think its rubbish:
1) When Sony were developing the unit for Nintendo – the unit wasn’t called the playstation – even well into final development after the split the console was to be called a PSX. In this respect Nintendo have no claim to something that didn’t exist during their partnership. It is possible that I’m wrong on this point……
2) Even so, because the CD unit was entirely Sony technology etc etc and the fact that the name ‘Playstation’ wasn’t registered by Nintendo, they have no claim over either the hardware of the software.
In summery, they never owned the technology in the console and they certainly never registered the name, if it existed at all during the Nintendo/Sony Partnership.
There are two problems I have this rumour, which it appears to be seeing as I've yet to see an official announcement by anyone over this matter. Also noticed how hardly any of the bigger game web sites haven't said anything yet? That’s possibly because this is all still a rumour.
Anyway, the first problem I have with is why would Nintendo have waited so long to mention this 'situation'? Because they forgot? Doubtful, you don't just forget something like that, some people have even said Nintendo planned to wait this long to make more money when they came round to suing Sony, which is again bull, because it's too big of a gamble to assume Sony would make more money in the future on the Playstation name.
No, Nintendo would have sued Sony a long time ago I think, if it had a case, especially when the PS1 became so popular and began making some real big money.
The second problem, the court case. Sony have made a mint on the Playstation brand, and I really doubt they'd make settlement with Nintendo, and even if they did, I don't think they'd agree on 10% of profits from the name. I think what would happen is Sony would let Nintendo take them to court to fight over the Playstation name, which would result in a long and costly courtroom battle. It's too big a matter to settle in just one day.
Anyway, the first problem I have with is why would Nintendo have waited so long to mention this 'situation'? Because they forgot? Doubtful, you don't just forget something like that, some people have even said Nintendo planned to wait this long to make more money when they came round to suing Sony, which is again bull, because it's too big of a gamble to assume Sony would make more money in the future on the Playstation name.
No, Nintendo would have sued Sony a long time ago I think, if it had a case, especially when the PS1 became so popular and began making some real big money.
The second problem, the court case. Sony have made a mint on the Playstation brand, and I really doubt they'd make settlement with Nintendo, and even if they did, I don't think they'd agree on 10% of profits from the name. I think what would happen is Sony would let Nintendo take them to court to fight over the Playstation name, which would result in a long and costly courtroom battle. It's too big a matter to settle in just one day.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Any one of the above points would surely leave Nintendo with no claim
> on anything, IF any of this is true. But don't you think that Sony
> would have checked into the legaslities of all this before launching?
My thoughts exactly - I just can't see this rumour being true. Knowiung a thing or two about Law the case would be extremely complicated and as we can all come up with dozons of reasons why the alleged claim doesn't stand up I can't see this as being true.
> Any one of the above points would surely leave Nintendo with no claim
> on anything, IF any of this is true. But don't you think that Sony
> would have checked into the legaslities of all this before launching?
My thoughts exactly - I just can't see this rumour being true. Knowiung a thing or two about Law the case would be extremely complicated and as we can all come up with dozons of reasons why the alleged claim doesn't stand up I can't see this as being true.
No-one knows whether its true or not. Well except for the big cheeses at the top. I'd just like to point out it's all rumours!
I'm fairly sure Sony have to pay £2.3 billion (10%) of the profits from PSX to PS2!
1. As already stated, Nintendo approached Sony to develop a CD drive for the SNES - hence the technology would have been Sony's.
2. The original PlayStation was based on Namco's System 11 arcade board, so Nintendo would have had on claim on that either.
3. It was Nintendo who withdrew from the arrangement, leaving Sony in the lurch.
4. The name 'PSX' stood for Play Station eXperimental, which is - technically - not the name Sony used.
Any one of the above points would surely leave Nintendo with no claim on anything, IF any of this is true. But don't you think that Sony would have checked into the legaslities of all this before launching?
2. The original PlayStation was based on Namco's System 11 arcade board, so Nintendo would have had on claim on that either.
3. It was Nintendo who withdrew from the arrangement, leaving Sony in the lurch.
4. The name 'PSX' stood for Play Station eXperimental, which is - technically - not the name Sony used.
Any one of the above points would surely leave Nintendo with no claim on anything, IF any of this is true. But don't you think that Sony would have checked into the legaslities of all this before launching?
phi11ip wrote:
> Has it even been confirmed?
I thought it had been aggreed that Sony would pay 10% of all profits the PSX made past, present and futer to Nintendo over 20 years, in and out of court settlement.
> Has it even been confirmed?
I thought it had been aggreed that Sony would pay 10% of all profits the PSX made past, present and futer to Nintendo over 20 years, in and out of court settlement.
I think there may be slightly more to it than what you said there!
Why would Nintendo file a case if it can easily be argued against by someone on a chat forum?
They will definantly have some kind of a case to push, they aren't just gonna go in with absolutely nothing to back them up are they?
Has it even been confirmed?
Why would Nintendo file a case if it can easily be argued against by someone on a chat forum?
They will definantly have some kind of a case to push, they aren't just gonna go in with absolutely nothing to back them up are they?
Has it even been confirmed?
I’m sure you have all heard this rumour about Sony having to pay Nintendo all or some of the profits from Playstation sales due to the original association between the two giants which eventually resulted in the Playstation and a red face for Nintendo.
Well I’ve been having a think about this and have concluded it’s all complete pap – dreamt up but some fanboy somewhere.. Anyway here’s why I think its rubbish:
1) When Sony were developing the unit for Nintendo – the unit wasn’t called the playstation – even well into final development after the split the console was to be called a PSX. In this respect Nintendo have no claim to something that didn’t exist during their partnership. It is possible that I’m wrong on this point……
2) Even so, because the CD unit was entirely Sony technology etc etc and the fact that the name ‘Playstation’ wasn’t registered by Nintendo, they have no claim over either the hardware of the software.
In summery, they never owned the technology in the console and they certainly never registered the name, if it existed at all during the Nintendo/Sony Partnership.
Well I’ve been having a think about this and have concluded it’s all complete pap – dreamt up but some fanboy somewhere.. Anyway here’s why I think its rubbish:
1) When Sony were developing the unit for Nintendo – the unit wasn’t called the playstation – even well into final development after the split the console was to be called a PSX. In this respect Nintendo have no claim to something that didn’t exist during their partnership. It is possible that I’m wrong on this point……
2) Even so, because the CD unit was entirely Sony technology etc etc and the fact that the name ‘Playstation’ wasn’t registered by Nintendo, they have no claim over either the hardware of the software.
In summery, they never owned the technology in the console and they certainly never registered the name, if it existed at all during the Nintendo/Sony Partnership.