MAMEWorld Forums - EmuChat - Re: Scott posted Doug Macrae (GCC) presentation at CAX 2010

> > I haven't seen this one yet, I was basing my responses on a previous one I saw
> I would recommend watching the posted video then. There's no doubt that Doug has a
> certain bias to the whole thing but nothing he said sounded unreasonable.
>
> My executive summary if you don't have time:
> GCC had an idea and implementation for a sequel which introduced a pac family. Namco
> had nothing, liked their idea, and bought it from them. Everyone made crap-tons of
> money. GCC eventually realized they had invented the family concept and, even if it
> was a derivative of the original, they were owed some compensation for all the
> non-arcade related products. The law was on their side. Namco forgot about the whole
> thing a few decades later and needed to be reminded by a court of law.

Thanks for the exec sum. To be as fair as possible I'll watch it (not tonight though) and reply again later if my opinion changes, but here is my argument about this summary. I say this with no exaggeration at all. Anyone in the world could look at a video game character and have the idea to give them a family. The only reason it could have even seemed new is because Pac-Man was basically the first popular video game that used a character with a name. Any idiot in the world could look at a video game and have the idea to increase the speed it runs at. Any idiot in the world could look at a maze game and decide that in the sequel, the mazes should be altered. Any idiot in the world could look at a video game and decide in a sequel, some enemies should run in new patterns. I don't think Namco thought it out well or they could have dismissed Crazy Otto and made their own sequel and argued these points if GCC ever tried to sue them over them, which they wouldn't have done. These concepts are like common sense and I don't think GCC deserved tons of money for them. Even if they were more significant, like say, some gameplay changes done in SFII hacks, though, I still don't think they would deserve to be able to sue the company over merchandise etc. Namco made a poor and quick decision and are still paying for it. And even if the law technically is behind GCC, it doesn't sit well with me, it doesn't feel right, I don't think it's right, no matter what some judge said who had never played a video game in his life.