Oleg apparently made a cryptic post that confirms there is some sort of real problem. As some people at SimHQ have rightfully pointed out, there aren't enough details yet to know if Oleg somehow misused a trademark and was uncooperative or if it's the start of some general grab for licensing fees or something else entirely.
Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.
Please don't give corporate leadership too much credit. PR, sales and marketing, legal, etc. are all different disciplines. Most leadership does not come from a PR background (PR is a support function) and the leadership may not appreciate PR, the specifics of this gaming market, the level of involvement of the player base, or even the corporation’s own history or have any respect for that history. Fortunately, it's hard to imagine that flight sim development will go easy into the night. The vulnerabilities from a PR perspective include:
* David vs. Goliath - media likes these stories, corporations will not benefit.
* Frivolous lawsuit - again topical. Whether truly frivolous or not, worthy of editorial coverage and again not likely favorable. It also reflects a tactic mostly associated with failing tech companies. Do you really want to be seen in that light?
* Trademark/copyright - a hot topic for business editors and people like the Wall Street Journal so you can get some press, especially true given the exotic nature of trademarks in question. The business readership are your prime potential investors as well. What’s interesting is that McDonalds can sue Joe MacDonald who sets up a Mac Donald Hamburger stand. But, Joe is selling a competing product that can actually take sales away from the McDonalds franchise down the street. There are obvious difference her and significant differences even with the arguments that can be made for NASCAR and the NFL, which are ongoing enterprises that draw people to a product because of the brand name. Here, with the exception of a core element, many players don’t know a Vought from a Grumman from a Lagg when they first start playing. I think there are also potential 1st amendment issues at work, certainly with documentaries but perhaps with the educational role these games play. IMO. Still, a good topic that many editors would devote resources to cover.
* Opportunities to discuss the near monopoly power these huge merge corporations have, and extend that conversation into their current products and cost overruns, etc.
In a worst case scenario, the licensing returns from this niche market would likely be minimal (unless Microsoft moves in, pays a big fee to see CFS as the only player in the market). The community would be very active, and whether the law is on the corporate side or not, the spin battle is on the side of the small developers. The story will get coverage, the coverage will likely be sympathetic to the community, and eventually the bad press should outweigh any potential benefits.
It’s mind numbing that these companies don’t use their resources to be proactive with the community (while ensuring that the appropriate
are added), generate good press, remind the world of their roles as pillars of freedom (using the gaming medium) etc. But, even if the PR person pushed the proper approach it doesn’t mean that the message was appreciated or will be (again if a worst case scenario) until the bad press starts developing. Then it’s a cost/benefit decision.
Charon.
