Carmack: Rage to look worse on 360 if limited to two DVDs

The issue of the royalty fees is the most interesting part of this story, but its going to be completely muddied by the PS3 vs Xbox argument.

Why would royalties be higher for a multi-disc game?
I can't see the logic, perhaps someone can explain it.
I understand increased manufacturing costs but surely that would be the same situation as the Pc DVD platform, and Carmack has already said its coming on both DVD and Blu-Ray for Pc and Mac. So the minimal production cost of a third DVD isn't the issue.

"Why would royalties be higher for a multi-disc game?"

Because Microsoft's historical modus operandi as a monopoly is shining through here.

To this day, Microsoft struggles with free-market, entrepreneurial concepts. Just as with their operating system platform, they have a tendency to distrust and micromanage third-party developers, rather than encourage them to use their creativity and let the market sort out what works and what doesn't.

So you see Microsoft impose arbitrary size limits on XBLA downloadable games.

And you see Microsoft impose financial penalties on companies that want to develop multi-disc games.

And you see Microsoft disallow the publishing of user-generated content, and impose so many restrictions on third-party server environments that MMO's are nearly impossible to develop.

And if Microsoft feels that you are not charging enough for content that you want to distribute on XBox Live Marketplace, you will not be allowed to use their storefront.

And you see the Games For Windows Live platform fail completely because of the ridiculously onerous restrictions that Microsoft wanted to put on licensees.

In all of these cases, Microsoft would have a stronger platform if they allowed developers to operate outside of these artificial constraints, and let customers decide what works, and what doesn't work. But Microsoft usually operates from a perspective that they know better than everyone else, which almost invariably is proven false.

Yeah, agreed, this is where I'm a little lost. I don't wholly understand why a 3rd disc would be a deal-breaker in this regard. Seems like it'd be an easy call? Just a disc, can't imagine the mfg costs would be THAT steep...

"Just a disc, can't imagine the mfg costs would be THAT steep..."

Carmack isn't complaining about the manufacturing costs of the third
disc. He is complaining about the extra royalty fees he would have
to pay MS for including a third disc in the game.

Which brought into light something most of us didn't know: royalty
fees on the 360 (maybe all?) are not just per game but per disc in
the game as well.

I think copa just killed the need for any further discussion on this article.

Well said!

Just as long as I can play on pc, I will be fine. Since I can play Crysis with all but 3 things on high at 30 FPS to 40 FPS, I'm confident I can play these games. If I have too, I will add another card and do sli.

*Apologies for the massive wall of text coming up.

I think you're right on your second point, Sean. But as for the first, I'm rather certain whatever association receives licensing fees for the use of DVDs doesn't give a hoot whether a publisher uses one or a thousand. On the other hand Microsoft has a reputation to defend (i.e. that they were right and Sony was wrong regarding whether DVD really is sufficient storage for this generation). It sounds like they've decided to allow two disc games, but since games shipping on three or four DVDs make them look especially foolish/short-sighted, they'll do what they can to discourage it. Extra royalties, however, do seem to ease the embarassment.

On the end of the spectrum, I'm sure Sony does their damndest to encourage developers to use uncompressed textures and audio, overbloated code, duplicate data and hard drive installs to prove that their statements regarding Blu-ray and standard hard drives being necessary are true.

The truth of the matter is, not enough time has passed yet this generation to definitively prove whether 9GB is too restrictive or whether 50GB is a costly, unnecessary luxury. Would Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey have benefited from shipping on a single Blu-ray disc? Certainly. Would Assassin's Creed have more depth if Ubi had more space to work with? Perhaps. BUT, would Motorstorm be a much tighter experience if it shipped on fast-loading DVD? Definitely. Would Devil May Cry 4 have pissed me off less if I didn't have to sit through a 20 minute install? Without a doubt.

At this point, neither company is completely right, but each company has a PR image to uphold in order to retain consumer confidence. If I, the consumer, believe Microsoft made all the right decisions this generation, I'm more likely to purchase a Microsoft console next generation. Most likely, neither Sony nor Microsoft are entirely right, but that won't stop either of them from doing everything they can to make the other guy look like an idiot.

My bad, guys. My post didn't show up the first time, and since I didn't want to lose my massive essay, I reposted and in the process clicked the wrong reply button. That is a reply to Sean's post on the next page.

"On the other hand Microsoft has a reputation to defend (i.e. that they were right and Sony was wrong regarding whether DVD really is sufficient storage for this generation). It sounds like they've decided to allow two disc games, but since games shipping on three or four DVDs make them look especially foolish/short-sighted, they'll do what they can to discourage it. Extra royalties, however, do seem to ease the embarassment."

I would imagine that a game not appearing on the console at all would be more embarassing and punishing the publisher for Microsoft's short sightedness is very... strange...

ok, just to clear all this up...none of this is microsofts fault.

whenever a copy of a copyrighted work is pressed/manufactured/created it is FEDERAL LAW that you pay a royalty known as a mechanical royalty, to do this you obtain a mechanical license.

and that's the situation here folks, it's not microsoft being greedy, that's just how copyright law works. ( obviously i dumbed it down quite a bit but you should get the idea).

so if a game is 3 discs, you pay a royalty for every disc pressed.

the numbers can obviously be worked out and negotiated, but for a game so early in development im sure talks havent even gotten that far.

i'm pretty sure this is the issue going on. If anyone would like to expand on that please do.

For all of you railing against Microsoft and the DVD-ROM royalty fee chargers, you're off-bass partially.

This fee is charged by ALL game publishers. (Started by Nintendo, actually. Read "Game Over" or Greg Costyikan's rant from a few GDC's ago.) It's not the royalty for the pressing of the disc. It's the royalty for the privilege of having your game run on their system.

Nintendo started the dick move of having you pay the royalty at the time of manufacture and not the time of sale (so, the console maker doesn't honestly give a crap whether your game sells 1 million copies or 10 copies, so long as you printed 1 million copies. They already got their maximum amount of cash out of the transaction already.) and from that point forward, publishers have shouldered all the risk of publishing.

Anyway, this isn't SOLELY a Microsoft thing. If you produce a Wii game that's 2 discs, you pay 2 * (Nintendo Royalty). If you make a PS2 game that's 2 discs, you pay 2 * (Sony Royalty).

Kudos for Carmack stepping up and calling Microsoft out on it, because it really does not make any sense. It's a cash grab on the part of all companies, plain and simple.

@embassy

I just looked up mechanical royalty and it has to do with use of copyrighted audio. From what I understood it's money paid to the creators for using their music in games, dvds, cds, toys...whatever. Maybe there is more to it, but what does this have to do with the royalties Carmack is talking about?

Also, even if this were the case why would Carmack be asking MS to concede something that FEDERAL LAW requires him to pay? That doesn't make sense.

Now OhJustSomeRandomGuy's explanation makes sense.

cc123,

mechanical rights apply to all forms of copyrightable IP's; A/V works, performing arts, literary/text works ( which includes computer code), fine arts, dramatic works etc.

so no, it does apply here.

Well if you say so. Everything I read deals with it as if it was for copyrighted audio. Even the rates are calculated by 'playing time': http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html But it could just be very ambiguous.

Regardless, why would Carmack be trying to get a concession from MS over a federal law? That just doesn't add up.

oh you don't know the half of the ambiguity of copyright law..it's pretty ludicrous.

as for the LoC websites Mech rates, it's given in a flat rate per copy made *and* a per minute rate which usually applies to songs over 5 minutes. So other Ip's like movies being pressed on DVDs or a publisher printing books would just use the flat rate.

the reason so much info is geared toward music is because the music industry is one of the top exploiters of this law.

carmac is mentioning it because mech rates *are* negotiable. So MS can accept a lower rate than the statutory rate if they come to some kind of agreement.

I'm actually suprised of the lack of info regarding mech licensing and other industries myself, but copyright laws aren't limited to music, but music is one of the biggest players in copyright law.

Duke, this is Fenix, I have a visual on incoming fanboys at approximatly 100 meters, over.

-cue "HIGHWAY TO THE DANGER ZONE"-

XD

Roger that, over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8rZWw9HE7o

Seeing this music video reminded me of this classic Tarantino moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJSm6OdPhs&feature=related


Freaking hilarious.

Fenix- Listening to that song while reading most of these comments has been highly entertaining. +1 for you.

LOL, no problem same here.

:D

Take a good look; this is the last time you'll be seeing these.

Then u obviously have not been paying attention.

hahahahahahaha

No, it's AAA. It's just that a lot of people don't care because it's a racing game -- like me.

@SugarDaddy

Uh, it's a bit more than a racing game.

IS it a racing game, though? Trailer above should shooting.

Doesn't a game have to be out first before people can judge whether its AAA game or not?

TwEE,

Welcome to Joystiq

AAA titles are called that due to budget and intentions. AAA status has nothing to do with reception and reviews.

Very interesting topic, but this is not the game to sway me. I will likely not be buying it anyways.

AAA refers to the effort the publisher is putting into producing and promoting a title based on their belief that it will succeed; it's carried over from the financial world (from investment ratings). Assassin's Creed was a AAA title, but it received B- reviews.

Or what Shag says. Stupid refresh.

Assy

Is it just me or does this look pretty much like Fallout? I guess we should just be happy you're not a space marine.

Definitely looks more like Fallout than Fallout 3.

True that. Isn't there an RPG for the 360 that has 3 discs? Does Carmack think his game will sell worse than that? And wouldn't the sales from the PC and PS3 also compensate for the losses on the royalties for the 360? The fact is that Carmack is a prima donna. I think JP in the movie Grandma's Boy was based on him.

"True that. Isn't there an RPG for the 360 that has 3 discs?"

Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon, both published by Microsoft, which pretty much nixed any royalty fees.

AFAIK the new update doesn't "install" the game. It just copies an image of the DVD to the hard drive.
The Xbox then treats it as a virtual image.
Besides MS has already said the games for the Xbox must run without the hard drive.

Because MS has already gone on the record saying the HDD install will be optional and never mandatory.

Maybe they can add option to play it "standard" with no HDD support OR "uncompressed" for those who want Virtual Image , but "uncompressed textures"... not hard to program, or offer DLC for HIGH RES Textures

Ummmm... offer DLC for the high res textures.... wow. So what you're saying is CHARGE for us to grab the ~15GBs of textures ID5 can stream...

Because not everyone has the hard drive. You can thank the core sku for that f@ck up.