Quote:

If MSX Association or ASCII were so kind with Microsoft's copyright, why did they publish their MSX Player without asking permision to Marat Fayzullin, fMSX creator? They simply rip-off his emulator, without caring about his work. Months later they finally made an agreement with Marat, but he was really upset about all this.

First of all, lets conclude that Marat is of less influence in this industry than Microsoft
Second, the MSXPLAYer was not released until an agreement with Marat was made. They cared a lot about his work, but were not yet in the position of negotiating yet.

Quote:

Once again, I think that the decision of not distributing MSX Magazine and MSX Player outside Japan is not a legal problem, but a commercial decision. The worst part of the MSX Revival is all this secretism. European users have been forgotten.

Of course it is also a commercial decision. Any idea how much money it costs to distribute something world-wide? This is how companies and projects start: small and slowly, in a place where it is most likely to succeed. The secretism comes with the (Japanese) business culture. Frankly I'm quite surprised we've been able to witness as much as we did already.

I'm not sure whether posting a screenshot of MSXPLAYer or not helps.

A lot off people are sceptic about the MSX ASSOCIATION and think there only interest is in Japan.

I think it would be good to contact at least Microsoft to find out what a European, European + Brazilía, worlwide costs would be for the rights.
To finally know were we are.

It's better to start on a micro-level indeed. Isn't it the same for all Japanese computer productions? It's released on the Japanese market first. The producer can measure how things are selling. Only about half a year later, the product is introduced in the US. Another half year passes and then it comes to Europe.

Why do you think European PlayStation 2 users can only play European games? It would spoil the market for European distributors when everyone gets their games straightly from Japan after their release. It's a pity that this is also the reason why many European PS2 users don't get to play certain games that aren't distributed in Europe after all, but probably those are the games of which the producers thought wouldn't be fit for the European market.

I think you'd best wait and see. You never know what'll happen. And if, just if the MSX revival is limited to Japan only, this still will cause such an impact on interest in MSX and MSX software development! I think, however you look at it, the MSX revival is an interesting development anyway.

Robert: I'm trying to find out more about the copyrights and the costs related, but it will take some time.

Wise words Rieks. Remember that at first Sony didn't even think a machine like the PlayStation could be succesful outside of Japan. The PSX was at first intended for Japan only and it took a lot of efforts and persuading before they decided to try and introduce the machine in Europe.

Quote:

Remember that at first Sony didn't even think a machine like the PlayStation could be succesful outside of Japan.

That's true. I remember that when there were rumours about Sony going into the game console bussiness nobody though that they could compete with Sega and Nintendo...

Quote:

That's true. I remember that when there were rumours about Sony going into the game console bussiness nobody though that they could compete with Sega and Nintendo...

..and when it turned out to be a success in Japan Sony still wasn't sure if it could ever be a success in Europe!

Quote:

First of all, lets conclude that Marat is of less influence in this industry than Microsoft

Just because he doesn't have an army of lawyers to send after them, doesn't mean they should treat his copyrights any different.

Quote:

Second, the MSXPLAYer was not released until an agreement with Marat was made. They cared a lot about his work, but were not yet in the position of negotiating yet.

AFAIK, MSX Player was released before the agreement. For a while, Marat had a notice on the fMSX site saying there were using his code without his permission. Also, it seems strange to me to invest in a code base you don't have rights on. If Marat had refused to license fMSX to MSX Association, would they have reprogrammed MSX Player from scratch?

Note that in his Tilburg speach, Nishi promised to release MSX Player under GPL. That didn't happen.

Quote:

AFAIK, MSX Player was released before the agreement.

AFAIK, not true.

Quote:

If Marat had refused to license fMSX to MSX Association, would they have reprogrammed MSX Player from scratch?

I don't think anyone would recognize much fMSX code in de MSX PLAYer source! MSX PLAYer has developed into a very compatible and highly accurate emulator, unlike the big hack that is called fMSX. No offence...

Hmmm...

If the MSXplayer was released only after an agreement with Marat, why was Marat so upset and his web said that no agreement at all? I get the MSXplayer trial much before any contacts to Marat. And a public beta-release is also a public release. Without permision.

fMSX was the first really compatible MSX emulator around. And its core is present is much other MSX emulators. I know that it's not perfect, but it is one of the most used, even being shareware. Also the first FM emulation and SCC emulation. What about that?

It's not a hack. Have you coded something better, Patriek?

Kind regards!

Ed Robsy

Quote:

If the MSXplayer was released only after an agreement with Marat, why was Marat so upset and his web said that no agreement at all? I get the MSXplayer trial much before any contacts to Marat. And a public beta-release is also a public release. Without permision.

I don't know about all this, not the exact details. As far as I know everything was sorted out on time, and for all I know this could be based on a misunderstanding between Marat and the Japanese folks from MSX-Association. It is not entirely unimaginable Marat's attitude doesn't match up well with Japanese customs.

Quote:

fMSX was the first really compatible MSX emulator around. And its core is present is much other MSX emulators. I know that it's not perfect, but it is one of the most used, even being shareware. Also the first FM emulation and SCC emulation. What about that? It's not a hack. Have you coded something better, Patriek?

Er... yes? What about a Gameboy emulator *for MSX*, with high compatibility and advanced features like dynamic recompilation??? Way more impressive than an MSX emulator for a fast PC, with disappointing compatibility, if I may say so, fmsx doesn't even come close. Marat ridiculed that Gameboy on MSX idea, by the way, didn't think it was feasible. Hah! Proved him wrong ;p. Anyways, I don't like him, that much may be clear. Yes, it's true, two of the better MSX emulators evolved from the fmsx codebase (being NLMSX and MSX-PLAYer), but I somehow doubt much of the original code is left in those.

And about the MSX-PLAYer's code not being available under GPL, Nishi never promised anything. He just stated what their intentions were about a project at that time still very much in design stage. Would you have rather had that we were only informed when it was already thought out in its entirety, so that such details were clear? No, I would think not, and they didn't do that because they cared about our opinions. In the end, obviously they had their reasons for not releasing it under GPL, which probably involved licensing issues and protection of their work from competing firms. And you can't expect a 'big' Japanese firm to explain every action and every decision they take to us, that would be too much to ask.

Anyways, I really can't understand this 'we have been left in the dark by MSX-Association' thinking that is going on with some people. Isn't it *awesome* that MSX-Association is trying to revive MSX? And do you really, honestly think, that at this time, with MSX-Association's ideas still untried and untested, they are already ready for a worldwide release?? Pardon me, but that's just not realistic. It doesn't surprise me at all they start small, Japan first, which is a common tactic. This can also be seen in the PSX example Rieks gave, which turned out to be a project with worldwide success, but only after a trial period in Japan. What would become of MSX-Association if they released worldwide, and it *didn't* become an (immediate) success? If they immediately went bankrupt because of one miscalculation, what other good could they do for MSX after that?

No, I'm sorry, but I totally agree that a European release is definately not an option right now. MSX was a much bigger success in Japan than in Europe, and MSX was also 'in business' a fair while longer overthere. MSX lasted like, 5 years longer in Japan than it did in Europe. So sure, everything has a price, and a license of Microsoft can be bought, but it won't be cheap (unless you tell me you think they're lying to us, now that would be quite an insult!), and that needs money to be paid. The point is, is there enough ensurance in advance that such a large investment will be worth its while? You can't just *snap* your fingers and say 'we'll do it!', and put the future of your company on the line. You need a prove of concept, so to say, run a test first. And which country would be more fit for that than good-ol' Japan!!

~Grauw

To get back to the topic: sure, who's stopping you? If the MSX hardware developers would finally get together and could make something, that'd be interesting. However that's nothing new, really (CIEL3++ - which is still not finished - comes to mind). And I've also yet got to see the MSX hardware developers starting to co-operate. As I understand from Sunrise, Padial isn't interested. That leaves the Sunrise + Ademir combination (that's not a *European* alternative), but then again, it's a long distance from Brazil to the Netherlands. That won't make things any easier.

Anyways, I have yet to see results from that, and in the meanwhile MSX-Association has already released several products, and more coming up. How's that for credibility.

~Grauw

About Microsoft being a lame excuse: look at project Egg. Its intention is making money, right? It is a commercial project, after all. Well then, if the Microsoft license were *NOT* an obstacle (as you are saying might be the case), then please enlighten me why for crying out loud they don't sell to Europe??? If they will make more money that way, I don't see ANY reason why they wouldn't do that otherwise.

The only thing I can say is that I don't see *any*single*reason* why they would be lying to us or anything of the sorts (the thought never even crossed my mind - why are people so distrustful?). And that there are probably more issues than we know about, however MSX Association won't tell us about all of them in exact details. Don't think creating a successful product available in stores all over the country is an easy task of which you or I know all about the factors involved. And multiply all that effort and the risks times 10 for a worldwide release.

I can name a few issues which are obvious by the way: translation costs, marketing advisor costs (the European market is quite different from the Japanese), shipping costs, risk calculations, available investment money (they're not *that* big), etc. All of them -aside from the Microsoft issue- obstructing releases overhere.


~Grauw

To get back at the Marat-being-angry-part. MSX Resource Center got their hands on a beta version of MSXPLAYer which was not intendet to go public at all. Because the beta version seemed to spread already, we decided to spread it ourselves. For a day or two, this beta was available for download on the MRC (our site was down due to heavy traffic for quite a while ). After that, we were approached by ASCII and MSX Association and asked to put the beta version offline. It was not MSX Association's decision to spread this beta, it was ours. And looking back on it it might not have been the smartest decision we ever made.

From what I heard Kazuhiko Nishi went to an awful lot of trouble to get a Microsoft license to distribute the complete MSX ROMS (including BASIC) in Japan only.

Quote:

And about the MSX-PLAYer's code not being available under GPL, Nishi never promised anything. He just stated what their intentions were about a project at that time still very much in design stage. Would you have rather had that we were only informed when it was already thought out in its entirety, so that such details were clear?

It wouldn't have hurt to state it was not certain yet. Also, if this plan was changed without any announcement, how do you know other plans won't change?

Quote:

No, I would think not, and they didn't do that because they cared about our opinions. In the end, obviously they had their reasons for not releasing it under GPL, which probably involved licensing issues and protection of their work from competing firms.

I am not surprised at all they didn't GPL it. First, they would need permission from Marat, who is, as far as I can tell, not really a GPL fan. Second, the software that runs in MSX Player is distributed in an encrypted archive. If the source to MSX Player were public, it would be very easy to make it load arbitrary ROM and DSK files, instead of only software sold by MSX Association.

But given those facts, why did Nishi announce MSX Player would be GPLed? Either he didn't think things through, or Nishi's vision and MSX Association's business plan are not the same. My guess is the latter.

Quote:

And you can't expect a 'big' Japanese firm to explain every action and every decision they take to us, that would be too much to ask.

MSX Association is not a big firm. ASCII was not even a big firm. And I don't expect any arbitrary company to explain their actions, but it's MSX Association that is trying to get the community involved with its plans, and if they're serious about that, it wouldn't hurt to be more open.

Quote:

But given those facts, why did Nishi announce MSX Player would be GPLed? Either he didn't think things through, or Nishi's vision and MSX Association's business plan are not the same. My guess is the latter.

I think Nishi just underestimated how hard Microsoft would 'pull' on the license of the MSX BIOS/BASIC ROMs. The only way to spread a copyrighted BIOS and copyrighted software is selling it. Encrypting the ROMs and software into a file only runnable by MSXPLAYer keeps the piracy away. I think both Microsoft and all the publishers (like Falcom) who spread their software through MSXPLAYer appreciate that.

Of course plans will change. This is a business project. A business project always suffers from (major) drawbacks and changes of the market. If a company doesn't respond to that the project is doomed to fail.