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:
None of those shows ever competed with Star Wars or Star Trek, they were not even remotely in their league. Babylon 5 came close, in England, but never in America. By comparison, very few people have ever even heard of Firefly or The Expanse. Battlestar Galaxtica never became a big thing, not even as bit as the original BSG had been in it's day. Just being a sci-fi story doesn't put you in the same class with Star Trek and Star Wars. Those two shows have (or, had would be more accurate, they are dead now) millions of fans. It would be almost impossible to find a single person on this planet who has not heard of them.
Until the last few years, thinking of competing with them was not a reasonable goal. Now that people who don't get them, and don't have the right vision to be telling those stories, have been allowed to ruin them, there is a "sci-fi vacuum" waiting to be filled that hasn't existed since Star Wars and Star Trek took the positions they had held until recently in the late 1970's and early 1980's. And that is a perfect example of what I was saying. People with the wrong vision, people who simply don't get it, will ruin a story. So why should the original creator be forced to allow such people to destroy their story. They shouldn't. They should have the control of allowing people they trust to work within their universe, and telling those who just don't get it to "go away, kid, you bother me".
To me, all of the shows, that gain sort of "cult" viewership status, like the ones i mentioned, are succesful, regardless of the numbers of their fans. Star Wars is not even that liked, because it is sci-fi in the first place - in other words, part of those millions, who are fans of it, are maybe not even sci-fi fans in general. Being sort of mainstream does not make it somehow better.
So if you are happy they are failing now, as you said, cause they will make a place for something new to replace them, gotta say hello - but it is already here! Does it matter how many people will follow it, if its great anyway? The Expanse is fairly new, so OFC it cant compare with ST or SW in numbers of fans. That does not take away one bit from its quality. What do you know, 40 years from now, it may be considered the same classic those 2 are now. All i know for now, its every bit as good as either of them (although indeed different, more hard sci-fi).
So no, there is no sci-fi vacuum. Although i agree, the classic space operas from the 90s, with aliens and stuff, are not that "in" these days. Maybe its down to higher costs needed to make that kind of stuff, but mostly i feel, the creators tend to think nowadays their audience considers that bit childish and prefers more mature stuff - so even if you get sort of space-opera like BSG for example, its all about humans. But overall, it seems sci-fi shows these days are mostly near future, ground based, concerning stuff like time-travel, parallel universes, cloning, AIs and whatnot...
It is not already here. There is now a big, huge, gaping opening in sci-fi that has not existed since Star Trek became dominant in the mid-1970's. Shows like Firefly and The Expanse are virtually unknown, and not in the same category as Star Wars and Star Trek. And they never can be, because they don't follow the formula that made Star Wars and Star Trek so unique and so dominant in the genre. It does matter how many people follow it, in fact that is all that matters in this regard.
I had only brought this up to illustrate the point of how quickly turning over even the best and most revered story to the wrong people will destroy that story and drive the audience away, as has recently happened to both Star Wars and Star Trek. This subject you are bringing up is a different one. There is a reason, in fact there is a set of reasons, why Star Wars and Star Trek stand head-and-shoulders above all other sci-fi universes that have ever existed. There is a "formula" too them, a set of qualities they possess that no other sci-fi stories share. Babylon 5 is the sole exception, but there was a unique set of circumstances that prevented Babylon 5 from rising up to stand alongside of Star Trek and Star Wars.
These minor sci-fi stories you are mentioning like Firefly, The Expanse, and BSG do not follow this formula. They do not share this set of qualities that made Star Trek and Star Wars unique, and stand so far above all other sci-fi stories in terms of both finanicial success and recognition. Like I said in a previous post, you would have a hard time finding a single person on this planet who has not heard of Star Trek and Star Wars. There is a reason for that. It is a set of qualities they possess that the other "minor sci-fi stories" do not. A "formula" that made them so vastly more appealing and popular than all other sci-fi stories.
I'm not going to reveal what this formula, or "set of qualities" is, because I hope that others can't see it and don't get it. But Star Trek and Star Wars were both dominant for several generations for a reason, and other sci-fi stories are not really a part of the same discussion as Star Trek and Star Wars. They are different, there is more too them, then you find in shows like BSG or Firefly. I am not putting down these other shows, they simply lack many, many aspects and elements that make Star Trek and Star Wars what they are, and make so many people describe them as "special" as compared to all other sci-fi.
And I can say, with certainty, that 40 years from now The Expanse will not be thought of anything like Star Trek and Star Wars. It can never achieve that status, it lacks the qualities necessary to achieve that status. I don't have anything against it, but it is a "minor story" that will never be seriously compared to Star Trek or Star Wars.
These posts are now so off-topic, you should probably take them elsewhere.
Half the fanbase?
Paul and Fred are bleating their half-truths to all of their Twitter followers, which is about a thousand people. A good chunk of which ahang around here. I don't think "half the star control fanbase" are in danger of walking out, here. I would hazard that a significant percentage of gamers have never even heard of Paul and Fred and are blissfully unaware of this entire dispute, even among people who played SC1/2.
No, I'm in the same boat as you. SC2 is my second favourite game of all time (after Starflight) and I would consider myself a mega-fan of SC1 and SC2 (not so much SC3). Until all of this, I was in the P&F fanclub big time. But now I have sadly lost all respect for them. They are trying to take their toy and go home because they are clearly afraid that someone else is going to make a successful Star Control game and they aren't sure they'll be able to anymore. But sadly for them, it's not even their toy anyway - they got to choose it's color and size and how it was played with 25 years ago, but someone else owned it and has since sold it to Brad. And they're bitter about that. IMO.
Okay you know what? I didn't read the rest. Wanna guess why? Because you are clearly switching to semantics so you can seem like you're not really in the wrong here. BEING wrong is ok, being unwilling to see it and self examine is not.
You see, i love Star Trek to bits, DS9 and then Babylon 5 are my favourite shows ever, but you are so wrong here, its mind-boggling.
But whatever, feel free to ignore all the quality new stuff there is, without checking, whether by chance you might actually like it, because not enough other people are watching it (as if Star Trek or Star Wars had the same fanbase in its beginning they have now) - since apparently this is the most important criteria to you.
@DarkGildon> discussion tends to evolve. Why keep it at all costs on-topic, if that one is beaten to death and just goes around in circles. When something new relevant happens, it will get back on track.
Good, I'm glad you understand that. Now take your own advice. I was not "switching to semantics" and I imagine almost everyone who read it, unlike you, completely understood what I was saying. Nice try at a propaganda answer that completely avoids what is being said, though, it's just not a game that works with me.
You see, i love Star Trek to bits, DS9 and then Babylon 5 are my favourite shows ever, but you are so wrong here, its mind-boggling.But whatever, feel free to ignore all the quality new stuff there is, without checking, whether by chance you might actually like it, because not enough other people are watching it (as if Star Trek or Star Wars had the same fanbase in its beginning they have now) - since apparently this is the most important criteria to you.@DarkGildon> discussion tends to evolve. Why keep it at all costs on-topic, if that one is beaten to death and just goes around in circles. When something new relevant happens, it will get back on track.
Like I said, I am not going to lay out point-by-point the "formula" that makes Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 a completely different thing than the other "minor sci-fi stories" that you are talking about. But there is a vast difference between these three stories and all other sci-fi stories. I have seen Firefly and The Expanse and, of course, both versions of BSG. I was involved with creating a lot of the ship/fleet lore of both Star Trek and Babylon 5. This stuff has been my life, and I know it very well. There are specific reasons why Star Trek and Star Wars stand so far above all other sci-fi stories, and were the dominant sci-fi stories for generations. Other sci-fi strories like BSG, Firefly, and The Expanse aren't the same thing. They are in a completely different category, and they can never achieve the same level of popularity and recognition because of that.
There are many people who practically devoted a part of their lives to either Star Trek or Star Wars. That can't happen with "minor sci-fi stories" like Firefly and The Expanse. They don't posess the qualities that make that a possibility to begin with. You think that they are all the same thing, they aren't. Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 are a completely different thing than other sci-fi stories. A different category. A different type of story, completely.
I won't post about this anymore because it really is "off-topic", and not just people saying it is "off topic" as a ploy to shut down discussion of a subject they don't like... and because if others can't see or understand what I am saying here, that's a good thing as far as I am concerned;-)
Like I said, I am not going to lay out point-by-point the "formula" that makes Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 a completely different thing than the other "minor sci-fi stories" that you are talking about. But there is a vast difference between these three stories and all other sci-fi stories. I have seen Firefly and The Expanse and, of course, both versions of BSG. I was involved with creating a lot of the ship/fleet lore of both Star Trek and Babylon 5. This stuff has been my life, and I know it very well. There are specific reasons why Star Trek and Star Wars stand so far above all other sci-fi stories, and were the dominant sci-fi stories for generations. Other sci-fi strories like BSG, Firefly, and The Expanse aren't the same thing. They are in a completely different category, and they can never achieve the same level of popularity and recognition because of that.There are many people who practically devoted a part of their lives to either Star Trek or Star Wars. That can't happen with "minor sci-fi stories" like Firefly and The Expanse. They don't posess the qualities that make that a possibility to begin with. You think that they are all the same thing, they aren't. Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 are a completely different thing than other sci-fi stories. A different category. A different type of story, completely.I won't post about this anymore because it really is "off-topic", and not just people saying it is "off topic" as a ploy to shut down discussion of a subject they don't like... and because if others can't see or understand what I am saying here, that's a good thing as far as I am concerned;-)
Whatever. Even if you wanted, you would not be able to back up your claims with any objective reasons anyway, so yeah, why waste time. Good night.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/semantics?s=t
When you switch from debating the larger point of how Copyright Abuse limits what entertainment can be produced, to the definition of "creative work", that is semantics.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/semantics?s=t When you switch from debating the larger point of how Copyright Abuse limits what entertainment can be produced, to the definition of "creative work", that is semantics.
No, it's a real thing. Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 have a "formula" that runs through them. They share a set of qualities that other sci-fi stories don't have. It's not "semantics", it is a tangible thing. One of those qualities, to give just one example, is "scope and scale". Those stories aren't about "a fictional world" or "the humans". They are about "a fictional galaxy". That is just one of the qualities that I am talking about. Just this one alone, there are several other qualities they all share that are just as much if not more important, makes these shows much more interesting than "minor sci-fi stories" like Firefly or The Expanse. Nobody is going to become a Star Trek/Star Wars level fan boy over a show about just Earth and the humans at a level of technology where they can barely even leave their own solar system.
I like those shows, but by comparison they are "short stories" while ST/SW/B5 are "full novels".
Half the fanbase?Paul and Fred are bleating their half-truths to all of their Twitter followers, which is about a thousand people. A good chunk of which ahang around here. I don't think "half the star control fanbase" are in danger of walking out, here. I would hazard that a significant percentage of gamers have never even heard of Paul and Fred and are blissfully unaware of this entire dispute, even among people who played SC1/2.
The people who have heard of Paul and Fred have a pretty huge overlap with who is excited about a new Star Control game. They're the people like me who have waited 25 years for a new one. The whole reason the IP had value when it was sold was largely based on the positive feelings towards previous games in the series, which were synonymous with those two names.
If you don't think that people know who Paul and Fred are, then you also have to assume that they've done no damage to the Star Control brand...which is a pretty damn core part of Stardock's argument. You can't simultaneously argue that P&F are doing a ton of damage while also arguing that nobody really knows or cares who they are. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.
This is Stardock's home turf and so naturally the people who spend a lot of time posting here are going to be more favorably inclined towards Stardock's POV and arguments than the broader Star Control fanbase. This needs to be remembered.
Ummm, did you mean that as a reply to the OTHER guy you were debating?
Don't you wish you could fork threads in a discussion when that happens? Just send it to a new one with everything inline?
No, it's a real thing. Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 have a "formula" that runs through them. They share a set of qualities that other sci-fi stories don't have. It's not "semantics", it is a tangible thing. One of those qualities, to give just one example, is "scope and scale". Those stories aren't about "a fictional world" or "the humans". They are about "a fictional galaxy". That is just one of the qualities that I am talking about. Just this one alone, there are several other qualities they all share that are just as much if not more important, makes these shows much more interesting than "minor sci-fi stories" like Firefly or The Expanse. Nobody is going to become a Star Trek/Star Wars level fan boy over a show about just Earth and the humans at a level of technology where they can barely even leave their own solar system.I like those shows, but by comparison they are "short stories" while ST/SW/B5 are "full novels".
That "formula" you refer to, is set of "qualities" which make you personally to like these shows. Surely, between the millions of fans, there would be others, who would like them for exactly same reasons.
This however does not mean, that there cant be another show, which would lack every single of your "qualities" and still gain equally massive fanbase - you know, there are many different people with many different tastes. Your set of qualities is not somehow universal recipe for success, if you believe that, i am just speechless.
Therefore, saying things like nobody is going to become fan(boy), if not the "scale" and "scope" is totally preposterous. It is almost given half of those people, who are ST or SW fans, like it for completely different reasons. However, if you by scope mean sort of "richness" of those particular fictional universes, this is absolutely not bound to how many solar systems and galaxies it spans, rather the depth of the source material, the show/movies are based on. If you knew something about Expanse, which you clearly dont, and i have hard time believing you truly seen it, the show is based on set of science-fiction books. If the show keeps its ratings, it has enough source material to go on for maybe 10 seasons. The world of the future, which it depicts, is truly rich and well thought out, actually it is way more realistic look at the future of humanity than Star Trek ever was, in every possible way. And believe it, there is audience for that, people who would consider Star Wars just a fable for little kids.
BTW, again, while currently Expanse (by that i mean TV show) is bound to a single star-system, i hope i wont spoil it too much for you or anyone reading this, if i say, this is not going to stay that way forever. The "Expanse" name is not random. So, no short story. Just because it has only about 30 episodes right now, compared to Star Trek cca 700, does not mean its shallow and that its gonna stay that way.
I guess 8 years ago you did not believe Game of Thrones could compete with Lord of the Rings in popularity (when it comes to fantasy) - look where it is now. Annualy most torrented show, probably the most popular TV show of last decade. Despite being nothing like LotR.
Kavik_Kang has already been warned about this in the Q+A thread.
The people who have heard of Paul and Fred have a pretty huge overlap with who is excited about a new Star Control game. They're the people like me who have waited 25 years for a new one. The whole reason the IP had value when it was sold was largely based on the positive feelings towards previous games in the series, which were synonymous with those two names.If you don't think that people know who Paul and Fred are, then you also have to assume that they've done no damage to the Star Control brand...which is a pretty damn core part of Stardock's argument. You can't simultaneously argue that P&F are doing a ton of damage while also arguing that nobody really knows or cares who they are. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive.This is Stardock's home turf and so naturally the people who spend a lot of time posting here are going to be more favorably inclined towards Stardock's POV and arguments than the broader Star Control fanbase. This needs to be remembered.
I think you are misstating the argument. The argument is that a very small fraction of the eventual player base of SCO will have played SC1 and 2. The number of fanboys of SC1 and 2 is VERY small. That doesn't mean Fred and Paul can't harm Stardock and Stardock's game, however. Some examples follow:
Fred and Paul hired a marketing company and redirected all of the media attention from SCO to their vaporware at the exact moment Stardock was approaching an important milestone in SCO's development and was increasing it's marketing. They knew the time to do this because Brad had been communicating with them regarding the game openly.
Fred and Paul literally liked a tweet threatening to review bomb Stardock's game. Maybe you are ignorant of how Steam reviews work, but a tiny fraction of very motivated people are quite capable of tanking a games review scores which inflicts serious damage on sales.
Fred and Paul have already abused DCMA take-down notices when the stakes were lower, would it be surprising to see them issue abusive DCMA notices at the time of SCO release?
I don't understand why the fanboys are taking Fred and Paul's side. Fred and Paul arguably aren't even capable of providing a new Star Control game based on their body of work over the last two decades (exclusively developing mediocre money grab games). Fred and Paul have done nothing to prove a real intent to make a new game (they could have found a way to make a new Star Control if they wanted to, fanboys need to stop giving them unlimited benefit of the doubt that somehow these rich, powerful game developers were prevented from creating a sequel they really wanted to make <laugh> for a quarter of a century - simple truth is Paul and Fred want to make games that will make money with little to no risk).
Stardock has already dropped millions of dollars into a new game and has shown they do care about making it a great game for the minority of Star Control fanboys out there. When you choose Fred and Paul's side, you are choosing the side of never having a new Star Control game. While that may be your choice, as a member of the handful of Star Control fanboys, the rest of us would like a game.
Cheers.
Star gate atlantis was good. Ok this is about star control. Im assuming this relates to star control. First i was reading stardock forums when what i believe what started this was posted.
Lets go back a little further with me. It probably started when i compared the similararities of civilization, and galacted civilizations. Partly due to me not playing a lot of games, but sticking with one untill i find better. So some one pulled a me, and mentioned how whoever it was wanted galacted civilizations to be more like star control.
So that was when galactic civilizations decided to buy star control.
Galactic civilizations is kind of like star control lore wise. Brad loves the game he is not trying to ruin it. He respected fred and paul enough to not mess with the story that is already made. It would have been easier if origins would have been a paralell world though.
Fred and Paul have already abused DCMA take-down notices when the stakes were lower, would it be surprising to see them issue abusive DCMA notices at the time of SCO release?I don't understand why the fanboys are taking Fred and Paul's side. Fred and Paul arguably aren't even capable of providing a new Star Control game based on their body of work over the last two decades (exclusively developing mediocre money grab games). Fred and Paul have done nothing to prove a real intent to make a new game (they could have found a way to make a new Star Control if they wanted to, fanboys need to stop giving them unlimited benefit of the doubt that somehow these rich, powerful game developers were prevented from creating a sequel they really wanted to make <laugh> for a quarter of a century - simple truth is Paul and Fred want to make games that will make money with little to no risk).Stardock has already dropped millions of dollars into a new game and has shown they do care about making it a great game for the minority of Star Control fanboys out there. When you choose Fred and Paul's side, you are choosing the side of never having a new Star Control game. While that may be your choice, as a member of the handful of Star Control fanboys, the rest of us would like a game.Cheers.
The word "fanboy" has a negative connotation. I don't consider myself a fanboy of anyone in this discussion.
The bolded part is why I feel you don't understand the argument that I'm trying to make. The argument that I've made all along and am continuing to make is that brutal, drawn out litigation will split the fanbase. People here on Stardock's own forums are getting mainly Stardock's representation of the story and the facts and many of them, like you, are accepting them as the whole, incontestable truth and just are not considering any arguments in the other direction. If you go to a different forum like, for example, this one that's been active for many years:
http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php
You get a lot more arguments in the other direction.
Even mildly pointing that out has lead you to assume that I'm taking Fred and Paul's side when my own viewpoints are far more nuanced than simply "Stardock is completely right" or "Paul and Fred are completely right".
As just an example in the other direction of an argument that can demonstrate that this is not the complete open/shut case that people like you who unconditionally back Stardock are presenting it as... At one point, Good Old Games - hardly a company with a bad reputation for anti-consumer practices in the industry - was told by Fred and Paul that they didn't have the right to sell the games Star Control 1 and Star Control 2.
They (GoG) reached out to Atari's lawyers, and Atari's lawyers concurred with that assessment that those two games still properly belonged to Fred and Paul. GoG's own lawyers concurred, and they apologized to those two and offered to take the games off their platform. Fred and Paul then worked out an agreement with GoG wherein they got part of the royalties in return for GoG being able to go back to selling those games.
So why, then, does Stardock now claim the right to sell the games and are doing so on Steam as we speak? Were GoG's and Atari's lawyers both wrong? I don't know. I have no idea in fact. I'm not a lawyer. So I don't bother pretending to be one.
But they sure seem to disagree with Stardock's lawyers on the ownership of those games. Which means that perhaps the case is not quite as Open/Shut as it is sometimes presented as being from one point of view or the other. Hence, why I am trying to keep an open mind and not just assume that one side or the other is just being a bunch of thieving scoundrels.
This might be a reasonable position if this email had ever been shared with Stardock (and still hasn't).
Stardock doesn't have a desire to sell 25 year old DOS games it doesn't have the right to. But we had been given zero reason to think that that wasn't the case. We had a GOG agreement for the games. The games had been online for sale on GOG for several years. Paul and Fred had confirmed that we had these rights.
They only changed their tune when they decided they wanted to compete with Star Control with their own self-styled "sequel".
The 1988 agreement is murky which is why Stardock hasn't tried to touch that.
The trademark, however, is not. You cannot represent your product as a sequel to a competitor's product. That is, as they say, open and shut. The fact that a few die-hards on the UQM forums don't want to acknowledge this is not to their credit.
They could have gotten a license from us to associate their game with Star Control. Instead, they have sought to gain the benefit of the Star Control trademark without having had to pay for it as Stardock did. This is unfortunate and we wish they hadn't done that. Stardock, having spent multiple years and millions of dollars has no choice but to defend its trademark or risk losing it.
Kind of see the point of star trek of being one of a kind on scale, but as far as the series dealing with morale issues that was common with sci fi of the time.
Deep space nine had gotten a lot of slack for not being like star trek, but babylon five, and deep space nine had turned into closely related shows untill babylon five went off the air. Voyager advertised being a cross between battle star galactica, and lost in space. Enterprise killed the franchise for awhile.
Starwars was the first movie to say that aliens were alien looking at least that got anywhere.
Star gate didnt do bad.
People in general are just not that rational. They think Major/Head developers represent the product itself, and everything that ever went right with it. This simply isn't true, but even if it were, people change over time, so someone who produced a stellar work 20 years ago, can't necessarily produce an equally stellar one today, or even necessarily back then.
While the reasons for this are many and varied, the point remains that people's lack of rationale leads them to think attacking such people is the same as attacking their beloved games, and/or harms them in some way. Not to mention, fans often think they owe these people for making the game, which might have merit if said game were freeware. It doesn't matter that they payed money and possibly due respects, they feel indebted, because people are not rational enough to see why they are not.
Understanding the limits of human sentience makes it easy to see. It is based on these same limits that I drop the e from the back of Reich's name and don't mention the other guy's name.
Alright, I want to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, not ALL of us are ONLY seeing Stardock's side of the story. Before viewing this thread, I actually watched Leonard French's 2 videos on this very case. He laid out both sides objectively and said little other than Stardock tried to work with Reich and the other, that Reich and whoever refused because they had their own ideas, and that the case was complicated.
But his commentary aside, the sides went as follows:
Stardock:-Tries to work with Reich and his pal for over 3 years
-Gets told to fuck off over and over
-Decides to enforce Trademark since Reich and his other manchild buddy spent over 3 years being stubborn assholes. (I suspect that legal stuff is why the official reason differs, though FWIW it is MUCH easier to emphasize with this than the official reason)
Reich and Manchild #2:
-Yeah they tried to work with us, but we asked them nicely not to.
-MINE MINE MEIN!!!! NO COPYRIGHT FOR YOU!!!!!
So yeah, their side of the argument naturally didn't help them in my eyes. And frankly, I personally DO NOT CARE who has the right to sell SC1 and 2. Wanna guess why? Because MY concern is with copyright Fascists like Reich limiting products that the consumer can, well....consume.....I'm NOT okay with that. Reich and that other guy have SAT ON STAR CONTROL FOR FUCKING YEARS, they have done NOTHING with it until Stardock started producing SCO.
Explain/defend that. Why is it okay for them to sit on a franchise for decades, then act like Copyright Facsists when someone else steps up to the plate, announcing their own game to save face, that they probably won't finish anyway since they only announced it so that they wouldn't look so bad?
And speaking of the UQM forums, I did used to post there. There was constant anticipation and interviews with Reich and that other guy, and guess what? No announcements ever came. The community leaned on them constantly, and has done so for over 10 years (and I would know because I was on those forums that long ago), and they never did anything. They never wanted to. Fuck their rights as Copyright holders, I hope the judge revokes it.
People shouldn't be allowed to hold a copyright if they NEVER produce anything with it, that harms the consumer and NONE of us should be okay with that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
