UPDATE: Make sure you read the official statement from Stardock regarding newer events.
Re: November's blog post by Paul and Fred claiming Stardock's objection to their new game being promoted as a "true sequel" constitutes Stardock preventing them from doing a new game.
We are disappointed that Paul and Fred, two people we have a great deal of respect and admiration for, have chosen to imply that we are somehow preventing them from working on their new game.
Stardock has been nothing but supportive of their new project and wish them the best. I personally made the post here on StarControl.com in support of it.
With regards to their contentions:
First, as many people know, the classic Star Control games have been available for sale long before Stardock acquired the rights from Atari four years ago. For the entirety of the time we have held the rights, they have been getting paid for those sales. If they had an objection to the games being sold this is something that could and should have been addressed before we were ever involved.
Second, we have stated, repeatedly and consistently for over four years that we are not using any of the aliens from the classic series. As we have stated, our position is that, to the best of our knowledge, the classic alien IP is owned by them.
We have also discussed, at length, why it wasn't commercially viable for us to attempt to continue or retell the Ur-Quan story. 25 years is just too long of a gap. This is one of the reasons why we have been so excited about Paul and Fred's project. Their game frees us to introduce new characters and a new story into the new Star Control while allowing fans of the classic series a way to continue the classic story. This strikes us as a win-win situation.
Lastly, when we acquired Star Control from Atari in 2013, many assets were transferred to us including the various publishing agreements to the Star Control franchise. The short version is that the classic IP is messy. We understand that this makes them "really really angry" but we weren't a party to that agreement. All we can do is try to put something together that releases them from the restrictions placed on their IP that they agreed to and transfer any and all rights and responsibilities to them. We want them to make Ghosts but we don't want any liability or association with it.
Given the disturbing and unanticipated post by Paul and Fred, we are persuaded more than ever that a clear and irrefutable document that makes it clear that we are not associated or involved with their new game is needed.
We have nothing but respect and admiration for Paul and Fred and wish them well in their new project.
Update 12/4/2017:
Paul and Fred continue to make unsubstantiated claims regarding the DOS-based Star Control games. If they have any documentation to provide evidence to their assertions, we have yet to see them.
Stardock, by contrast, possesses a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide licensing and sales agreement that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade that has Paul Reiche's signature along with a signed distribution agreement between Atari and GOG for the DOS Accolade Star Control games.
The tone of their blog posts is similar to the kind of correspondence they had with us since the announcement of their Ur-Quan Masters successor, vague, full of demands and without any documentation.
With all due respect to Paul and Fred, they really should talk to competent legal counsel instead of making blog posts.
Update 12/5/2017:
Dealing with the sales and distribution of 20+ year old DOS games is an unusual way to spend a Tuesday afternoon. Nevertheless...
Atari had transferred to Stardock a signed agreement between Atari's President and GOG that we assumed was the agreement. Paul and Fred claimed they were the ones who had set up the agreement and upon verification with GOG, we instructed them to terminate this agreement which they have which we appreciate.
The games are now correctly transferred to Stardock and we will continue to ensue that Fred and Paul receive royalty payments for the games per the publishing agreement. We apologize if anyone was inconvenienced.
Old IP can be messy to deal with. The best way to deal with that is to have the parties talk to each other (as opposed to making public Internet posts) and work something out. We remain committed to dealing with this situation with as much restraint and gentleness as possible.
Update 2/27/2018
Added link to https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred to address Paul and Fred's latest complaints.
At this stage, the parties are seeking to resolve their disagreements in court. Stardock wishes this could have been resolved otherwise.
For the record, if Paul and Fred had simply announced their game as a sequel to Ur-Quan Masters and requested Stardock to remove the DOS games from distribution, Stardock would have complied out of respect, even if we would have been unhappy that they chose now, after 25 years, to jump back in the middle of Stardock's efforts to bring Star Control back.
However, by promoting their new game as a "direct-sequel" to Star Control (and in other places as the "true" sequel) while using the Star Control box art (which is owned by Stardock) a great deal of consumer confusion has been created requiring Stardock to protect its IP rights.
Other links:
Because I think part of the previous near-universal acceptance of the fanbase for Origins being a Star Control game has been tied to the endorsement of the franchise founders that it is one and is being made with the blessings and the input from the people who made the two first beloved games. (As opposed to Star Control 3 which I personally liked and enjoyed quite a bit but many of the fanbase don't consider to be a "real" Star Control game because P&F have disavowed it and were not involved.)
If Stardock and P&F have a harsh, angry and very public divorce I think it's reasonable to predict that you'll have some Star Control fans who will be fine with considering Origins a true part of the Star Control canon/lore and others who will disagree and consider it to be another "Star Control 3" type game that isn't a "true" Star Control but merely a space game with the name slapped on it by a company that took the franchise away from the founders.
Basically that it will just have the name.
I don't consider myself one of those people. I fully intend to play Origins and judge the game on it's own merits, but I think that a lot of other fans will split into two sides on the validity of the game being Star Control.
Edit: This is actually one of the things that I see as key to the argument from Stardock's point of view, that they feel that P&F caused the problems and by doing so they're doing the very sort of damage that I describe above. From Stardock's viewpoint, P&F are poisoning the perception of their upcoming game.
This made me realize something. In the legal update thread it was mentioned that Folks here side with SD (naturally) while the majority of Star Control fans side with F&P which is outside this forum.
Think about that.
I am of the age when the original games were published yet I never heard of them. After reviewing the features and 'fun' that SCO will bring I was excited to be on board with it. I think that if this game is done well with good game-play and 'fun' that Star Control Origins will go on to exceed anything the original games sold. Fans may be loyal but gamers love a good game. Word of mouth. That was how I heard about Gal Civ II years ago. It is how I heard about Star Control Origins. Good game-play, good story, good replay-ability , (in my opinion) will trump a biased fan base.
It will gather other gamers looking for a game that they are NOT FAMILIAR with since the only game like it was DOS based!
I don't want to slam Star Control fans, but it isn't like the remaining fan base is even a meaningful number. The vast majority of sales were always going to be to people who never played the original Star Control games.
No offense to Paul and Fred, but Star Control 1 and 2 doesn't mean anything to 99.99% of gamers today. The only people who care about their involvement in the franchise number in the low ten thousands. Stardock didn't drop millions into this game to sell it to a handful of fanboys from 1990.
Stardock has a right to market a game they've developed without getting publicly attacked every few days by the lead designers of a game from 25 years ago. Paul and Fred can go back to developing the amazing games their studio is well known for in the last TWO decades: 102 Dalmatians: Puppies to the Rescue, Disney's Extreme Skate Adventure, Madagascar, Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, <bunch of> Skylanders <crap>.
I'll take a space game from Stardock anyday over a developer that has spent the last two decades making the junk listed above. Why is no one discussing the fact that Paul and Fred's company hasn't made a single game that wasn't a junk game for over two decades? Why is it reasonable to believe they can make a good game, of any kind?
Talonious, I (we) appreciate the open dialogue as well - thanks for rationally sharing your thoughts and opinions. The only additional comment I'll make is to be super clear that we didn't want the escalation either. But when it gets to a point where it materially impacts our business and IP, we had no choice but to respond. I wish I could find a way to communicate just how much respect there has been not just for the Star Control IP, but for Paul and Fred. So this is painful on many levels as fans too. I think some of the emails we've shared tell that story. As you may have noticed, I updated the Q+A this morning saying that to demonstrate goodwill and show our true concern is about protecting our IP, we are pulling the original games from sale on April 4 until this is resolved. It's a gesture intended to make crystal clear what our real focus and remove any ongoing debate about the sale of the old games while this is being resolved.
Thanks again,KevinStardock
It sounds as if Reich may be the 3rd person in his family with that name...................just saying...............
I guess this is where I have a different opinion/perception. I played SC3 and I somewhat liked it. Or rather, I didn't completely hate it. I didn't care on ANY level who made the game. The reason I didn't like it all that much was because, in my opinion, it was a much inferior game, including graphics, implementation, music, and length. I really couldn't care less whether original designers were involved. Didn't care about that one little bit.
I feel about this like I feel about Star Trek, so I'm going to use that analogy. I loved TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and all the movies including recent reboots. I also couldn't watch Star Trek Discovery. Hated everything about it.
DS9 was fantastic, and Roddenberry wasn't involved in it in any level (well, he was dead by the time). I don't care who made it. It was fantastic. I liked it 10x better than TOS.
Discovery, in my opinion, is like Star Control III. It's... meh. I could barely watch it, and I quit after half a dozen episodes. And again, I don't care who made it or whether it was with approval of Roddenberry (if he was still alive), or he was kicked out from the franchise due to disagreements (again, just as an example, if he was still alive and involved).
I'm hoping that Origins ends up like DS9 or TNG. If I get a Voyager or Enterprise, I'll be happy as hell too. If it ends up like Discovery, I will cry.
This is unfortunately correct. Though I am the rare breed of SC Fan that likes developers on MERIT only. I suppose being a Mega Man fan made that kinda easy, what with Inafune embarassing himself and Capcom subsequently redeeming themselves (MML3 or no, I can forgive them). So, having seen for myself Angels turn into Devils and vice versa, it's not hard for me to put biases aside.
Either way, it'd be nice if gamers were loyal less to brands and companies, and more to quality and good faith.
I must be that rare breed of Star Control fan that played SC1 and SC2 when he was young (I was born in '84) and outright support Stardock's side in this. I see what SCO is, what it has the potential to be. I -want- that.Meanwhile, I've seen nothing I personally consider playable from Fred and Paul for the last twenty-five years. Right now, they seem like two (albeit talented) old men throwing a tantrum because they want their ball back.
You are not THAT rare I feel exactly the same way! '76 here.
Saying what? Something involving Third Reich?
On more serious note, i am with Talonius here, if there is any chance to drop all the lawsuits and find common ground, it should be taken, instead of dragging this to bitter end.
What harm do you mean? If you could agree on mutually acceptable settlement now, why would it matter, what they said and did before, if from this point on, there will be no more issues with them? Do you feel you lost any potential SCO sales as a result of their actions?
Fanboism is the worst stage of fandom.
Timmaigh, do you really think there has been zero impact to Stardock's marketing efforts for the game, or that there has been zero damage to the game's acceptance at release by the Star Control fanboys? Fred and Paul actually liked a tweet threatening to intentionally bomb the reviews of SCO. There is damage that can't be undone, that is on Fred and Paul - it is not Stardock or Brad's fault that Fred and Paul decided to wage a war in the media.
Regardless of the above, the real issue is Fred and Paul have shown that they can't be trusted to handle disagreements reasonably. Fred and Paul have also shown that they have very unreasonable demands on how far they can go to control Stardock's game. The biggest reason Stardock can't settle is that Fred and Paul haven't agreed to nor have they offered settlement terms that would even come close to protecting Stardock from Fred and Paul's potential abusive acts in the future, when said acts could pose even more potential to harm Stardock.
Again, I want to remind everyone that the only games Fred and Paul have made in the last two decades are the following: 102 Dalmatians: Puppies to the Rescue, Disney's Extreme Skate Adventure, Madagascar, Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, <bunch of Skylanders crap>.
They may have been the lead developers for a couple of great (at the time) games, but since SC1 and 2 they have literally made nothing but junk "money grab" games. I don't think it is reasonable to believe they are capable TODAY of making a game that is any good. They don't have the original team and they haven't made a game that wasn't a junk title for over two decades. I don't know why anyone reasonably thinks they would make a better Star Control game than Stardock (if you actually believe they really intend on making one, I don't).
Yep, and once the you realize Reich is being a copyright fascist working for a 3rd party company, the parallel is hard to unsee.
There should be a way to cancel copyright if the holder doesn't do anything meaningful with the IP for say, 25 years.
Looks like copyrights last quite a LONG time.
-- Snip from legalzoom --
Life Plus 70
The lifetime of copyrights is no different if the creator records a song, shoots a film, or throws a pot: The copyright is enforceable for the life of the creator plus another 70 years. If an artist paints a picture at 40, and lives until 90, then 120 [50 + 70] years will elapse before copyright expiration.
You can register your own copyright or your employer can register it for you. If you are paid to write articles, then the law will presume that your employer is also paying for your copyright. The company that paid you to write the articles owns the copyright for them. Unlike copyrights owned by an author, the company's copyright lasts 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever is shorter.
It initially WAS 25 years though (and you might have been able to renew it if you were actively using it, not sure), but scumbag corporations lobbied to get it extended so that they could keep selling it after the original person died. In the short run, we just kinda have to live with it, in the long run, we MAY be able to end the BS if we throw our support behind non-partisan groups aimed at getting money out of politics:https://represent.us/
Of even non-corporate douchebags like Reich can abuse copyright this way, SOMETHING needs to be done.
Dont know if I'd go as far as douchebag... Just a silly selfish old guy.
I think it is weird that a patent, and a copywright has a way different timeframe. A patent is 17 years while a copy wright is either 95 years, or 70 years after the death of the owner. If atari didnt own the copy right then they shouldve said that right away, instead of selling what they didnt have. That is fraud. If this trus paul and fred should of said something right away, instead of waiting millions of dollars later.
Essentially a patent is on invention. copyright is for art. With a patent you get a limited time of exclusivity for your invention, but then it becomes public domain for the benefit of all mankind. Invention and art are very different things, the benefit to humanity of invention is tangible. While invention should become public domain, the creators should have a period of exclusivity in making money on their invention. Otherwise there is no monetary incentive to invent things, and it's just the right thing to do.
Art is, obviously, a very different thing. I think an artist/writer/etc should own what they create for the rest of their lives. Should Gene Roddenberry lose Star Trek after 17 years, and who owns it when he does? Paramount? Why? Both of those laws make perfect sense too me.
Of course, Paul & Fred just wrote a story for an SFU campaign done as computer software. The only thing they ever "owned" was the story and characters, all of the game elements are "owned" by Steve Cole. So most of what they are claiming is "their IP" isn't theirs and never was.
I have to disagree there. While there is some merit to copyright holders having artistic control, current copyright law grants WAY TOO MUCH control. Effectively, it is using a legal nuke to kill a cultural mosquito.
Simply put, the ability to fully control and deny ANY use of ANY reference to the art to even those seeking NO profit, is going WAY too far. Not to mention, even IF someone wants to profit off of it, if they are willing to make the work non-canon and give you a cut of the profit royalty style, there is no reason they should be allowed to shut it down. Beyond that, we reach the grey areas, and infinite shades of grey within. But copyright law, as it exists now, has arms so long they can reach Mars, which is a bit much, no?
The point is this; Sure, some amount of additional control for artistic property makes sense, but on the level we have it now? I'm sorry, I just can not agree.
I am no lawyer, but "fair use" allows for reasonable reference/use of things from other people's stories and art. Parody is granted particularly wide latitude. That's why I can call the "hell" of my own story the "Eternally Unstuck Reflection of the Dark Side of Armageddon" (a dual Babylon 5 & Star Wars reference). Reference and parody is allowed, artists don't have the kind of total ownership and control that you are describing. I am no expert, or lawyer, but I know that "fair use" is pretty broad.
And, even if you are wanting to do something "non-canon", that should be up to the original author. I can only use my own story as an example, but if you know nothing about the military, don't understand the "engineering lore" and how to keep consistent with it, and have the exact opposite political beliefs that I do and want to infect my story with all of this... why should I be forced to allow you to do that? And ruin my story from both my own perspective and anyone who were fans of it?
Why do you think you should have the right to destroy someone elses "universe" when that person says that you just don't get it, and shouldn't be allowed to expand upon it?
On paper yes, in practice, Fair Use is largely ignored if you don't have multi-million dollar lawyers. Granted, this is partly because of the larger problem of corporate legal bullying, but mostly because Fair Use, by its nature, is not concretely defined and so can only really be used defensively once a Copyright holder has become abusive. Most people do NOT want to fight it out in court unless something serious is at stake, certainly not a fun little commentary or review.
This, in turn, creates massive incentive for abuse, and it shows.
If it's non-canon, I fail to see how it destroys the "universe" or "story" as you put it, as, by definition, anything non-canon does not really effect said universe or story. This is why I emphasized non-canon in the first place, as it solves all of your complaints, save for maybe the politics one. And as for politics, that's a problem with ANYTHING involving two or more people I'm afraid. No two people have the exact same politics, so any time you have to work with, reference, talk about, etc. another person or their work, there is the risk of conflicting politics irritating one or more people.
But to stifle creative works because of a problem that potentially exists within every human interaction ever, is a bit much I must say.
What "creative works"? If you are just demanding to write your own Star Trek or Star Wars stories, for example, that is not really "creative", is it? It's actually kind of admitting that you are not "creative", can't come up with something of your own, so you just want to tell your own story in someone elses universe because you aren't capable of creating your own. If that is the case, you are just a pretender anyway. You need someone else's story to build upon because you can't create your own. Why should they be forced to give you their universe to work within?
And it does ruin the story even if it is not canon. Canon or not, it is still that universe, and if you do it all wrong you detract from it. You taint it. You ruin it. The new Star Wars and Star Trek stuff is a perfect example of this, except that they actually own it and are legal allowed to ruin it. Both Star Wars and Star Trek are dead, they've been completely ruined as far as their core audiences are concerned. Taken over to advance an agenda that the vast majority of the audience either disagrees with or is actually offended by. They own it, so they can ruin it like they have if they want too. But why should someone who is still in control of their own story be forced to allow a third party to ruin their story the same way that Disney and CBS have ruined Star Wars and Star Trek.
I can't help but mention that I actually love the fact that this has happened. It leaves the field of sci-fi wide open for a new story to emerge as the new dominant universe of the genre. Until recently Star Wars and Star Trek were unassailable, you couldn't seriously hope to rival them. Now... It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's more than a realistic goal, it almost seems easy to take their core audience away from them, most of whom have already left even without anything else to move too. The entire sci-fi genre is just lying open for the taking right now, and I never thought that would be the case in my lifetime.
It has already emerged and its called "The Expanse." Third season to air from 11th April.
And surely you could compete with likes of Star Wars and Star Trek before. Babylon 5 did fairly successfully, its every bit as good as Star Trek shows from 90s, if not better. Then BSG came in and succeeded big time. Not to mention almost cult-like status of Firefly... Surely both "Star" universes are best known even to non-scifi fans, but that its down to being the first really successful and having the word "star" in their respective names.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
