Magnet
12-12-2007, 11:37 PM
Many people have received the following response as a result of e-mailing Activision about the Rock Band PS3 patch fiasco...
Hello, thank you for contacting Activision Customer support. We do not have any information in regards to this matter here at Activision Customer Support. We can only comment on our own product and as far as title updates for our games are concerned, we cannot comment on any unreleased patches or updates nor do we have this information. Keep checking our website and various game message boards for information on any game patches or updates.
We definitely do not have any authorization or information in regards to other company's patches or updates. You would have to check with the company in question in regards to any issues with their updates or patches available on the Sony network. We cannot "BLOCK" anything on the SONY network as we do not have this authority or power to do so.
Seems like a pretty slimy way to phrase it. They may not have the authority to "BLOCK" it themselves, but they can object enough so that their objections directly cause a block (which is evidently what happened). I think that's a pretty terrible way of trying to weasel out of exactly what their intent has been with the patch, which was to block it entirely.
An alternate interpretation of this is that, (and this is very unlikely), this could be their way of claiming that they knew nothing about this. Perhaps tacitly saying that they're realizing that attempting to block the patch is hurting them more than it could ever help them so they're going to pretend it never happened.
Or it could be interpreted that maybe complaints should now be directed to Sony as that is the party holding up the patch right now. If a company objecting to a patch from another company's game leads to Sony halting it, what's to stop this from happening more and more in the future? Shouldn't any company be able to patch their own game without its contents being completely revealed and objected to by competing companies prior to the patch even being released? What would happen if Harmonix wanted to block the forthcoming PS3 GH3 patch? Would it be blocked simply because they object to it?
I think it all boils down to what is meant by, what Sony calls, Activision's "continued objection," which has not been elaborated on. Clearly Activision's objections must be blocking the patch or Sony would release it, which means that Activision's actions are indeed blocking something on the SONY Network - contrary to what they're trying to sneak out of saying. They may not have the authority as a company to block patches, but they certainly have the authority as a pressuring, influential third-party.
But what gets me is that with how intentionally vague Harmonix was about the patch throughout its submission process, how could Activision still legally do anything if the compatibility patch just "happened" to make the Les Paul compatible in its quest to support compatibility for the generic category of past, present, and future third-party guitars? Activision expressly prohibiting the use of the Les Paul in other games still doesn't seem like it should affect a patch for a different game that just happens to make the peripheral function differently in the game. Using the Les Paul in PS3 Rock Band would require the actions of end-users ultimately, and the potential for it to happen in Rock Band with a compatibility patch does not directly break any license about "using" it in the game.
In fact, PS3 owners of both GHIII and RB already know that you can use the Les Paul in Rock Band. It currently functions correctly as a standard controller. If there's no license being broken already by Harmonix/MTV Games/EA, then a patch that happens to make a third-party controller like the Les Paul function differently in a game that already supports it as a standard controller should break no licensing. If a user is violating a license already by using the Les Paul in Rock Band as a functioning Sixaxis, then the user will simply be violating the same license by using the Les Paul in RB as a functioning guitar after the release of the patch. If Harmonix or any lawyers on their side wanted to continue to fight Sony/Activision for this patch, some things to note (as I understand them, I could be wrong) would be that Activision's Guitar Hero controller license can only be broken when a user uses a Guitar Hero controller in another game. It is the user breaking the license when this is done, as a piece of software that happens to interpret the hardware in some unique way cannot be at fault for an end-user breaking a license. Also, a patch that simply happens to alter functionality of controllers not licensed for the game cannot be directly infringing upon any licensing (since the consumers do not have the license to use these controllers with the game at all to begin with).
I think Sony needs to realize that with this patch there will not be a huge barrage of negative repercussions from Activision. In fact, Sony will be please many of their customers by releasing the patch. At the most, Activision would make some empty threats and would be disappointed in Sony's decision to distribute the patch. However, Activision would have too much to lose by pulling anything from the Sony platform - and it's certainly way too much for a huge company to lose for some small, simple thing like distributing a patch for another company's game.
I guess I kind of rambled more than I was expecting. I am not a lawyer. These are just observations that I've made which could either be completely correct or horribly off anywhere or everywhere.
So what's your interpretation and response to the current canned response by Activision about Rock Band's PS3 patch?
Hello, thank you for contacting Activision Customer support. We do not have any information in regards to this matter here at Activision Customer Support. We can only comment on our own product and as far as title updates for our games are concerned, we cannot comment on any unreleased patches or updates nor do we have this information. Keep checking our website and various game message boards for information on any game patches or updates.
We definitely do not have any authorization or information in regards to other company's patches or updates. You would have to check with the company in question in regards to any issues with their updates or patches available on the Sony network. We cannot "BLOCK" anything on the SONY network as we do not have this authority or power to do so.
Seems like a pretty slimy way to phrase it. They may not have the authority to "BLOCK" it themselves, but they can object enough so that their objections directly cause a block (which is evidently what happened). I think that's a pretty terrible way of trying to weasel out of exactly what their intent has been with the patch, which was to block it entirely.
An alternate interpretation of this is that, (and this is very unlikely), this could be their way of claiming that they knew nothing about this. Perhaps tacitly saying that they're realizing that attempting to block the patch is hurting them more than it could ever help them so they're going to pretend it never happened.
Or it could be interpreted that maybe complaints should now be directed to Sony as that is the party holding up the patch right now. If a company objecting to a patch from another company's game leads to Sony halting it, what's to stop this from happening more and more in the future? Shouldn't any company be able to patch their own game without its contents being completely revealed and objected to by competing companies prior to the patch even being released? What would happen if Harmonix wanted to block the forthcoming PS3 GH3 patch? Would it be blocked simply because they object to it?
I think it all boils down to what is meant by, what Sony calls, Activision's "continued objection," which has not been elaborated on. Clearly Activision's objections must be blocking the patch or Sony would release it, which means that Activision's actions are indeed blocking something on the SONY Network - contrary to what they're trying to sneak out of saying. They may not have the authority as a company to block patches, but they certainly have the authority as a pressuring, influential third-party.
But what gets me is that with how intentionally vague Harmonix was about the patch throughout its submission process, how could Activision still legally do anything if the compatibility patch just "happened" to make the Les Paul compatible in its quest to support compatibility for the generic category of past, present, and future third-party guitars? Activision expressly prohibiting the use of the Les Paul in other games still doesn't seem like it should affect a patch for a different game that just happens to make the peripheral function differently in the game. Using the Les Paul in PS3 Rock Band would require the actions of end-users ultimately, and the potential for it to happen in Rock Band with a compatibility patch does not directly break any license about "using" it in the game.
In fact, PS3 owners of both GHIII and RB already know that you can use the Les Paul in Rock Band. It currently functions correctly as a standard controller. If there's no license being broken already by Harmonix/MTV Games/EA, then a patch that happens to make a third-party controller like the Les Paul function differently in a game that already supports it as a standard controller should break no licensing. If a user is violating a license already by using the Les Paul in Rock Band as a functioning Sixaxis, then the user will simply be violating the same license by using the Les Paul in RB as a functioning guitar after the release of the patch. If Harmonix or any lawyers on their side wanted to continue to fight Sony/Activision for this patch, some things to note (as I understand them, I could be wrong) would be that Activision's Guitar Hero controller license can only be broken when a user uses a Guitar Hero controller in another game. It is the user breaking the license when this is done, as a piece of software that happens to interpret the hardware in some unique way cannot be at fault for an end-user breaking a license. Also, a patch that simply happens to alter functionality of controllers not licensed for the game cannot be directly infringing upon any licensing (since the consumers do not have the license to use these controllers with the game at all to begin with).
I think Sony needs to realize that with this patch there will not be a huge barrage of negative repercussions from Activision. In fact, Sony will be please many of their customers by releasing the patch. At the most, Activision would make some empty threats and would be disappointed in Sony's decision to distribute the patch. However, Activision would have too much to lose by pulling anything from the Sony platform - and it's certainly way too much for a huge company to lose for some small, simple thing like distributing a patch for another company's game.
I guess I kind of rambled more than I was expecting. I am not a lawyer. These are just observations that I've made which could either be completely correct or horribly off anywhere or everywhere.
So what's your interpretation and response to the current canned response by Activision about Rock Band's PS3 patch?
