As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Star Control] Origins is out NOW. Be sure to enjoy the sauce.

1234568

Posts

  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    MechMantis wrote: »
    I'm all for Origins being a thing, cool, more Star Control never hurt anyone.

    But when you that "oh we are never going to use any of the stuff owned by this group", start advertising content for your new game ripped directly from stuff explicitly owned by that group, then turn around and say "Well we never said they owned anything we own it ALL"

    You lose your high ground, moral and otherwise. Stardock overplayed their hand on this, hard. They probably could have made a neat game based on Star Control without playing legal fuck fuck games, but they decided to play legal fuck fuck games, and are now stuck in a problem of their own making.

    And no amount of high-minded copyleft rhetoric is covering the stink when the actual owners of the IP are directly blocked from doing that novel use when they finally got the opportunity.

    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    It's been under steady use and upgrade for 15 years, don't move the goalposts.

    I'm not moving any goal posts. There have been three releases of Star Control before Origins:

    Star Control
    Star Control 2
    Star Control 3

    If you consider Ur-Quan Masters a major or novel release (which I would probably question since it is essentially/fundamentally the same as the original release of Star Control 2), that's fine, but the original release of Ur-Quan Masters would be the date I consider the date to count from not perpetual forum posts and patches or whatever.

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    I note you didn't address the point that I just made, namely when they actually tried to use the damn thing like you want them to, Wardell wouldn't leave them alone.

    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    I'm all for Origins being a thing, cool, more Star Control never hurt anyone.

    But when you that "oh we are never going to use any of the stuff owned by this group", start advertising content for your new game ripped directly from stuff explicitly owned by that group, then turn around and say "Well we never said they owned anything we own it ALL"

    You lose your high ground, moral and otherwise. Stardock overplayed their hand on this, hard. They probably could have made a neat game based on Star Control without playing legal fuck fuck games, but they decided to play legal fuck fuck games, and are now stuck in a problem of their own making.

    And no amount of high-minded copyleft rhetoric is covering the stink when the actual owners of the IP are directly blocked from doing that novel use when they finally got the opportunity.

    My position is that they should also have the right to make whatever they want based on the IP. Or did you forget that? I'm not saying that Stardock has a legitimate monopoly on the IP. I'm saying that no one should. It should be a part of the public domain.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Wardell directly blocked it, what they are doing is how you fight back against those tactics under this system. Wardell is trying to establish such a thing; there would have been no issue if Wardell had actually done his due diligence, left them be and actually made something new like Casey Hudson, but he didn't. They are the defendants for a reason here, Wardell up until this point has been wholly on the offensive, and in a silly goose fashion.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    I note you didn't address the point that I just made, namely when they actually tried to use the damn thing like you want them to, Wardell wouldn't leave them alone.

    I addressed that in my myriad other posts where I decried those actions.

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    NOLF is a case where nobody involved knows who the fuck owns the rights. Its fucked that its not with Monolith but wygd? Star Control on the other hand is a case where we know exactly who owns the rights.

    Stardock had the ability to make a perfectly good homage to Star Control without infringing on anything while also still calling it Star Control even, but they didn't because their boss is a guy who can't deal with not having his way.

    Copyright law in the US is kinda fucked but the part people talk about is where there are works under active copyright where the creator has been dead for 70+ years and enforced by multinational corporations, and not about the currently living having the right to have their work protected.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    Yeah, if you want to claim public use like that, wait until the body's cold for god's sake.

    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2019
    NOLF is a case where nobody involved knows who the fuck owns the rights. Its fucked that its not with Monolith but wygd? Star Control on the other hand is a case where we know exactly who owns the rights.

    Stardock had the ability to make a perfectly good homage to Star Control without infringing on anything while also still calling it Star Control even, but they didn't because their boss is a guy who can't deal with not having his way.

    Copyright law in the US is kinda fucked but the part people talk about is where there are works under active copyright where the creator has been dead for 70+ years, and not about the currently living having the right to have their work protected.

    Got it: you're all-in with IP squatters. That's a good thing to know when it comes to future discussions.

    Erlkönig on
    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    NOLF is a case where nobody involved knows who the fuck owns the rights. Its fucked that its not with Monolith but wygd? Star Control on the other hand is a case where we know exactly who owns the rights.

    Stardock had the ability to make a perfectly good homage to Star Control without infringing on anything while also still calling it Star Control even, but they didn't because their boss is a guy who can't deal with not having his way.

    Copyright law in the US is kinda fucked but the part people talk about is where there are works under active copyright where the creator has been dead for 70+ years, and not about the currently living having the right to have their work protected.

    But I am actively talking about exactly that.

    You're right, though, that most of the discourse is on the former and not the latter. I believe this is the case for a few reasons:

    1) I think there's more unanimity in that discussion (probably on both sides).
    2) Arguments are easier and more clear-cut around ownership by the dead or the dead's kin than of the still living.
    3) The idea of "you have to relinquish ownership of X" while you're still alive just doesn't sit well with most people.

    I understand that, and I get it, but I think art is a unique aspect of society where we have to really sit and think about what copyright law seeks to accomplish. It's ALL about promoting the perpetuation of art. That is the mission statement for copyright law, period. It's a balancing act between what would be artists and creators would consider "fair" enough re: ownership to continue to want to create art and how the public domain contributes to art and society and further perpetuates the cycle of art and creation.

    In my opinion, the balance is not currently being met. I think it needs to swing back (hard) toward the public domain, even while the original owners/creators are alive and kicking.

    I don't think copyright law is doing what it is supposed to do. I don't think the answer, to promote the perpetuation of art, is to allow content creators to hold onto their IP ownership forever, alive or not.

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    By that logic, CJ Cherryh would be an IP squatter for not writing an Alliance-Union book for 10-15+ years before now, which is patently ridiculous.

    You've somehow created an idea for an IP law milieu worse then the one we have now, because it would require someone to sweatshop out new things nonstop to keep their shit lest some company horn in and not pay royalties for jacking their shite. Bravo, that takes some doing.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    NOLF is a case where nobody involved knows who the fuck owns the rights. Its fucked that its not with Monolith but wygd? Star Control on the other hand is a case where we know exactly who owns the rights.

    Stardock had the ability to make a perfectly good homage to Star Control without infringing on anything while also still calling it Star Control even, but they didn't because their boss is a guy who can't deal with not having his way.

    Copyright law in the US is kinda fucked but the part people talk about is where there are works under active copyright where the creator has been dead for 70+ years, and not about the currently living having the right to have their work protected.

    Got it: you're all-in with IP squatters. That's a good thing to know when it comes to future discussions.

    Like what Brad is trying to do?

    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    Yeah, if you want to claim public use like that, wait until the body's cold for god's sake.

    No. Why? What if someone writes something when they are 10 or 15 and it changes society to such a degree that it becomes extremely iconic, memetic, or important. And this person lives to be 80 or 100. I don't think society is served best by allowing that person to retain ownership for 80+ years. Forcing them to relinquish ownership of course may cause some personal harm or distaste to the individual, but the benefit to society could be vast.

    I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that the current system causes more problems than it solves. I personally consider it an unforgivable travesty that, say, the original prints of the original theatrical releases of Star Wars are gone. They may exist in some capacity, but that was such an iconic aspect of history, I don't think George Lucas had the moral right to do that. I literally think the government should be able to prevent stuff like that.

    Libraries are important for a society and exist for a reason. Society should define what we archive, not individual creators. And libraries should inspire other works.

    It's a very complicated topic and I'm just angrily throwing my ideas down here, but it's not "la la la I want my toys" and it's not that I don't recognize creators need to be protected, but I think art needs to be protected more than its creators.

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    By that logic, CJ Cherryh would be an IP squatter for not writing an Alliance-Union book for 10-15+ years before now, which is patently ridiculous.

    You've somehow created an idea for an IP law milieu worse then the one we have now, because it would require someone to sweatshop out new things nonstop to keep their shit lest some company horn in and not pay royalties for jacking their shite. Bravo, that takes some doing.

    I don't know that author or those works, but I would probably argue that the creator should have some kind of ownership monopoly on the "Alliance-Union" mythos should have some limited ownership over the mythos. If they write a book 10 or 15 years later in that mythos, that particular work should be exclusively profitable to the writer, but the ownership length of the mythos should probably remain unchanged. So, yeah, I think it would be fine if some corporation or whomever started writing "Alliance-Union" books 25 years down the line. I certainly don't believe that they should be able to steal and sell the newest book.

    There are plenty of ways to construct feasible laws instead of just saying "nope, the person's alive, fuck the public domain until they are dead."

    I don't think death is a great delimiter anyway. It's so variable. What if someone writes a book today and gets whacked by a bus tomorrow. I think the estate should be able to control or profit from that for at least some amount of time posthumously.

    Let me ask this: If I wrote a sequel to IT and it became a raging success, would that really harm Stephen King significantly (ignoring the size and value of his own estate)?

    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that the current system causes more problems than it solves. I personally consider it an unforgivable travesty that, say, the original prints of the original theatrical releases of Star Wars are gone. They may exist in some capacity, but that was such an iconic aspect of history, I don't think George Lucas had the moral right to do that. I literally think the government should be able to prevent stuff like that.

    Then support better archiving laws, because the kind of legal precedent that (thankfully unlikely) Wardell victory is gonna set is even more hostile to your ideals then the current situation. It's not IP squatting to defend an artist's right to their creation, or someone's concepts from lazy copying. For god's sake, do you know what unholy shit you'd unleash on creators with lesser resources to defend their stuff with that kind of precedent?
    Let me ask this: If I wrote a sequel to IT and it became a raging success, would that really harm Stephen King significantly (ignoring the size and value of his own estate)?

    It's not folks like Stephen King that would be fucked by this, it would be smaller folks who need their fiction to eat; stuff like that corp lifting Alliance union would fuck folks who aren't A-list known authors.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Drez wrote: »
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    By that logic, CJ Cherryh would be an IP squatter for not writing an Alliance-Union book for 10-15+ years before now, which is patently ridiculous.

    You've somehow created an idea for an IP law milieu worse then the one we have now, because it would require someone to sweatshop out new things nonstop to keep their shit lest some company horn in and not pay royalties for jacking their shite. Bravo, that takes some doing.

    I don't know that author or those works, but I would probably argue that the creator should have some kind of ownership monopoly on the "Alliance-Union" mythos should have some limited ownership over the mythos. If they write a book 10 or 15 years later in that mythos, that particular work should be exclusively profitable to the writer, but the ownership length of the mythos should probably remain unchanged. So, yeah, I think it would be fine if some corporation or whomever started writing "Alliance-Union" books 25 years down the line. I certainly don't believe that they should be able to steal and sell the newest book.

    There are plenty of ways to construct feasible laws instead of just saying "nope, the person's alive, fuck the public domain until they are dead."

    I don't think death is a great delimiter anyway. It's so variable. What if someone writes a book today and gets whacked by a bus tomorrow. I think the estate should be able to control or profit from that for at least some amount of time posthumously.

    Let me ask this: If I wrote a sequel to IT and it became a raging success, would that really harm Stephen King significantly (ignoring the size and value of his own estate)?

    a vast, vast majority of published authors are not particularly well off, let alone as rich as Stephen King.


    also FWIW the toys post was massively misreading where you were coming from and I apologize.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    I did say "ignoring the size/value of King's estate." It was a bad example, but I just wanted to come up with an author and work we were probably all familiar with.

    My point is: I don't have a perfect answer but I think, in short, the following:

    1) We can come up with a system that promotes the public domain to a far greater degree than it does now.

    2) Society and individual artists are, in aggregate, better off with creations in the public domain sooner than later.

    3) I admit that a system which wrests control of an IP away from a still-living author COULD be problematic, but I don't think it necessary HAS to be. I think smart philosophers and legislators could envision a legal framework, and not even an overly complex one, which rebalances the concept of IP ownership without fucking over "the little guys" but does a better job of getting shit into the public domain so it can be used positively by other artists in the creation of their own art.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    While that could be done, it would have to explicitly forbid for profit use of public'd IP, or the abuses would never end.

    We need a Goddamn Seperate Thread for IP law, because while it needs fixing, for once it actually serves the needs of good right now in this case.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    NOLF is a case where nobody involved knows who the fuck owns the rights. Its fucked that its not with Monolith but wygd? Star Control on the other hand is a case where we know exactly who owns the rights.

    Stardock had the ability to make a perfectly good homage to Star Control without infringing on anything while also still calling it Star Control even, but they didn't because their boss is a guy who can't deal with not having his way.

    Copyright law in the US is kinda fucked but the part people talk about is where there are works under active copyright where the creator has been dead for 70+ years, and not about the currently living having the right to have their work protected.

    Got it: you're all-in with IP squatters. That's a good thing to know when it comes to future discussions.

    Like what Brad is trying to do?

    More like what P+F actually did last week.

    EDIT -
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    While that could be done, it would have to explicitly forbid for profit use of public'd IP, or the abuses would never end.

    We need a Goddamn Seperate Thread for IP law, because while it needs fixing, for once it actually serves the needs of good right now in this case.

    Based on who's value metric? 'cuz right now, as it stands, neither side is 'good'

    Erlkönig on
    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    NOLF is a case where nobody involved knows who the fuck owns the rights. Its fucked that its not with Monolith but wygd? Star Control on the other hand is a case where we know exactly who owns the rights.

    Stardock had the ability to make a perfectly good homage to Star Control without infringing on anything while also still calling it Star Control even, but they didn't because their boss is a guy who can't deal with not having his way.

    Copyright law in the US is kinda fucked but the part people talk about is where there are works under active copyright where the creator has been dead for 70+ years, and not about the currently living having the right to have their work protected.

    Got it: you're all-in with IP squatters. That's a good thing to know when it comes to future discussions.

    Like what Brad is trying to do?

    More like what P+F actually did last week.

    Nah, one of the the definitions of a trademark squatter is that they don't actually own most or any of what they're threatening legal action over.

    Also they're usually in China so they can avoid what stardock is going through.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    More like what P+F actually did last week.

    He was warned nonstop he was playing silly geese with the IP - as the Judge so wryly noted - but went ahead regardless, in several obvious attempts to flex on theirs; if you hit someone else with your toy, expect it to be taken away. You know why there isn't any GOTP stuff right now? Because they aren't playing silly geese with the IP because they aren't trying to be unnecessarily provocative and are trying to act in good faith here.
    Based on who's value metric? 'cuz right now, as it stands, neither side is 'good'
    The metric of serving the side that didn't demand 225k and no more stuff by the original guys, try and take over the SC subreddit to stop folks talking about the case, and instead offered an lenient settlement that would let both sides retire the field with dignity and do their own things. That Wardell got DMCA'd was a direct result of his inability to respond to civilized behavior and not see it as a sign of weakness.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    There isn’t anything so vitally important about this situation that it justifies being a prick to other members of the community.

    If you think I’m talking to you right now, i probably am.

  • HeirHeir Ausitn, TXRegistered User regular
    So...

    I had this game on my wishlist and promptly forgot about it until news of it being pulled from Steam was announced. Is it for sale anywhere else still?

    camo_sig2.png
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Possibly humble or stardock itself but I wouldn't bite, the code might not be accepted by steam if you get it, assuming the supply that Steam issued to Stardock isn't all gone.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    So...

    I had this game on my wishlist and promptly forgot about it until news of it being pulled from Steam was announced. Is it for sale anywhere else still?

    Stardock still has it up at half off through their site.

    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    Possibly humble or stardock itself but I wouldn't bite, the code might not be accepted by steam if you get it, assuming the supply that Steam issued to Stardock isn't all gone.

    This is straight-up misinformation.

  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Just because they haven't stopped taking the keys they already issued to SD, doesn't mean that they might not stop before they're used up, if they decide it might be a liability; Wardell's on record that what's being sold is what they have left, steam isn't issuing more until this is resolved. I believe GOG and Steam when they say that they won't get rid of the existing licences, at least not yet, but if they decide taking on new ones is a liability, they won't.

    Jeep-Eep on
    I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    Just because they haven't stopped taking the keys they already issued to SD, doesn't mean that they might not stop before they're used up, if they decide it might be a liability; Wardell's on record that what's being sold is what they have left, steam isn't issuing more until this is resolved. I believe GOG and Steam when they say that they won't get rid of the existing licences, at least not yet, but if they decide taking on new ones is a liability, they won't.

    So until Stardock's site lists it as "Sold Out," they can still sell and register their keys (as what's there is already issued stock).

    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • KrathoonKrathoon Registered User regular
    I bought one of their keys. I will try it in Steam later.

  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Jeep-Eep wrote: »
    Just because they haven't stopped taking the keys they already issued to SD, doesn't mean that they might not stop before they're used up, if they decide it might be a liability; Wardell's on record that what's being sold is what they have left, steam isn't issuing more until this is resolved. I believe GOG and Steam when they say that they won't get rid of the existing licences, at least not yet, but if they decide taking on new ones is a liability, they won't.

    So until Stardock's site lists it as "Sold Out," they can still sell and register their keys (as what's there is already issued stock).

    Time to hoard keys... *cough*

  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    I find this all very sad, and not sure what to think about it. Copyright laws are all very fluid, and there's plenty of good and bad points for both having an IP being open source to use as you like, and for the creators to have solitary use for their IP.

    If this gets P+F and Toys For Bob to start making Star Control games again, then wonderful. I don't think Stardock's entire body of work regarding Origins should be removed completely, though I am inclined to think that any DLC invoking copyrighted work can be taken down. Despite Wardell being an asshole, the game is more than his work, and it would be a goddamn shame if it was all flushed due to a shitty copyright clusterfuck.

    And yeah, P+F just sitting on the IP for decades and not doing anything about it doesn't exactly inspire confidence from me either. I like their works, including their newer ones... but there's a lot of games Konami has a deathlock on that I would love to see reinvented, but hell if we'll see that anytime soon either. Part of me believes that the IP copyright should be a bit like Sony's grip on Spiderman. They have it as long as they create something from the property for a certain time. And honestly I'm not sure if P+F really deserve it anymore considering how long they sat on it, but it's not my call to make and will not complain if they make content again.

    And no, Ur-Quan Masters is not a creation, it's a patch to a 15 year old game, and you're bullshitting yourself if you think that counts. Especially since P+F weren't even the ones that fucking patched it.

    wbee62u815wj.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    It should be noted that Activison wouldn't let P&F work on a new game for a long time, and they do have another one in progress now.

  • ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    It should be noted that Activison wouldn't let P&F work on a new game for a long time, and they do have another one in progress now.

    Do they, though? Aside from them saying that they were working on it over a year ago, has there been any further word on their project? Are they even still working on it, or have they diverted all money and attention towards their legal tiff with Stardock?

    Erlkönig on
    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Here's something else to consider. Toys For Bob is P+F's company, and Activision bought them as a subsidiary back in 2005. If P+F get full rights back for Star Control, does that mean Activision has that IP as well?

    Is Activision having the copyright instead of Stardock... better?

    wbee62u815wj.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    It should be noted that Activison wouldn't let P&F work on a new game for a long time, and they do have another one in progress now.

    Do they, though? Aside from them saying that they were working on it over a year ago, has there been any further word on their project? Are they even still working on it, or have they diverted all money and attention towards their legal tiff with Stardock?

    I imagine they're doing what Stardock *should* have and not talking about it much til after the court case.
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Here's something else to consider. Toys For Bob is P+F's company, and Activision bought them as a subsidiary back in 2005. If P+F get full rights back for Star Control, does that mean Activision has that IP as well?

    Is Activision having the copyright instead of Stardock... better?

    There's no back, and I don't think the rights are assigned to Toys for Bob. They're assigned to P&F themselves.

  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    It should be noted that Activison wouldn't let P&F work on a new game for a long time, and they do have another one in progress now.

    It was probably for the best anyway, the way the "AAA" publishers were trending the market at the time was not conducive to anything we would have wanted to see out of a Star Control. Don't forget, this is what Accolade was planning to do with their control of the Star Control name before somebody in the company was smart enough (though likely unintentionally so) to kill it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkfn_vBoajg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3NKQKreOMI

    If we look over to the Activision side of the equation, being forced to chug out a decade of shitty movie adaptations is probably a better option for P+F than what Activision would have wanted them to do to not-Star Control(this is where we assume until proven otherwise that P+F would not be able to use the Star Control name) in order to be more marketable to mid-2000s video game consumers.

    Donnicton on
  • KetarKetar Come on upstairs we're having a partyRegistered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Here's something else to consider. Toys For Bob is P+F's company, and Activision bought them as a subsidiary back in 2005. If P+F get full rights back for Star Control, does that mean Activision has that IP as well?

    Is Activision having the copyright instead of Stardock... better?

    Yes. (Though I expect the rights would be with P&F themselves, rather than Activision)

  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular

    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    There's no back, and I don't think the rights are assigned to Toys for Bob. They're assigned to P&F themselves.

    I mean... does it matter? Can P+F make another game without Activision's blessing?

    Sure, P+F can try and make a Star Control game on their own without a dev team and a publisher backing them. But that's not a plan... that's a Kickstarter.

    wbee62u815wj.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »

    There's no back, and I don't think the rights are assigned to Toys for Bob. They're assigned to P&F themselves.

    I mean... does it matter? Can P+F make another game without Activision's blessing?

    Sure, P+F can try and make a Star Control game on their own without a dev team and a publisher backing them. But that's not a plan... that's a Kickstarter.

    They are so apparently they think so.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Donnicton wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    It should be noted that Activison wouldn't let P&F work on a new game for a long time, and they do have another one in progress now.

    It was probably for the best anyway, the way the "AAA" publishers were trending the market at the time was not conducive to anything we would have wanted to see out of a Star Control. Don't forget, this is what Accolade was planning to do with their control of the Star Control name before somebody in the company was smart enough (though likely unintentionally so) to kill it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkfn_vBoajg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3NKQKreOMI

    If we look over to the Activision side of the equation, being forced to chug out a decade of shitty movie adaptations is probably a better option for P+F than what Activision would have wanted them to do to not-Star Control(this is where we assume until proven otherwise that P+F would not be able to use the Star Control name) in order to be more marketable to mid-2000s video game consumers.
    Goodness.

    That was supposed to release in 1998? That's the same year XCOM Interceptor came out.

    Was there something in the water in the mid 90s? Something that made popular franchises believe there was a successful Wing Commander inside them yearning to be free?

Sign In or Register to comment.