Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9432872" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I don't see &quot;we are wrong, we are sorry,&quot; I see &quot;That was a long time ago and we already said sorry, why won't people stop harping on it?&quot; which... Still not exactly typical for corporations, but far from a good response nonetheless.A pretty inaccurate explanation that sets him up for the following talking point point, sure.Really? &quot;We didn't know in 2002, two years into the lifespan of what to this day remains the best selling video game console of all time, that video games would be a big thing&quot;?? Literally the OGL was modeled after software licencing at the time. It was specifically intended to insure the longevity of the brand in a rapidly evolving media landscape; far from not forseeing the rise of video games, it was created because they foresaw the rise of video games. It doesn't get more revisionist than this. Yes, we all know that they were worried about other people being able to make money from the brand without them getting a piece. That's exactly why everyone was upset about the decision. This is as revisionist as it gets, and still a terrible defense.The one true thing he said. Yes, they did ultimately end up embracing open source even more, and that is ultimately why the backlash mostly subsided. It's weird that he decided to give a weird revisionist take on the reasons behind the decision instead of focusing on this, the one point most critics of the decision will begrudgingly agree about.Yeah, I mean it's definitely true that it's not going to happen. Doesn't mean we should be accepting of this godawful response.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9432872, member: 6779196"] I don't see "we are wrong, we are sorry," I see "That was a long time ago and we already said sorry, why won't people stop harping on it?" which... Still not exactly typical for corporations, but far from a good response nonetheless. A pretty inaccurate explanation that sets him up for the following talking point point, sure. Really? "We didn't know in 2002, two years into the lifespan of what to this day remains the best selling video game console of all time, that video games would be a big thing"?? Literally the OGL was modeled after software licencing at the time. It was specifically intended to insure the longevity of the brand in a rapidly evolving media landscape; far from not forseeing the rise of video games, it was created [I]because[/I] they foresaw the rise of video games. It doesn't get more revisionist than this. Yes, we all know that they were worried about other people being able to make money from the brand without them getting a piece. That's [I]exactly why[/I] everyone was upset about the decision. This is as revisionist as it gets, and still a terrible defense. The one true thing he said. Yes, they did ultimately end up embracing open source even more, and that is ultimately why the backlash mostly subsided. It's weird that he decided to give a weird revisionist take on the reasons behind the decision instead of focusing on this, the one point most critics of the decision will begrudgingly agree about. Yeah, I mean it's definitely true that it's not going to happen. Doesn't mean we should be accepting of this godawful response. [/QUOTE]

Verification