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:
So if they refer to it as a sequel to The Ur-Quan Masters then everything's good? That's the only issue here?
If they had started out that way it would have. If you read their latest posts they’re now making claims regarding Star Control I and III.
They are relying on the good will and brand awareness of Star Control to market their new game. That’s not acceptable. We don’t want to be associated with their new game.
They should just focus on making Ghosts the best game they can.
As someone sadly watching this unfold, this makes me wonder: Does the distribution agreement Stardock has include perpetual licensing for all of the copyrights on the CD? Logically, a perpetual contact should include them. However, I remember games being modified(one of the GTA games) or outright removed from digital distribution(Alan Wake) as a result of music licenses expiring. In those cases, a change in ownership of the distribution rights wouldn't change the music licenses from expiring and the games being unable to be sold digitally unless the licensed content is removed.
I consider it very unlikely(and messy) , but could there be a separate contract with a license(and expiration date) for the copyright of the game code itself? If so, they may assume that owning the game code is equal to owning the game. It would explain why they think Atari's rights expired.
Of course this raises a problem you have mentioned: If this is true, where is the legal documentation? They have shown none of it.
Sorry if the speculation bothers you Brad. As unlikely as it is, part of my brain was stuck on the idea of "What if?". I think this points towards of the issues already raised about publishing the contract if possible. It would turn it from a word of mouth on both sides situation into word of mouth vs actual legal paperwork and solid evidence. In addition to massively reducing speculation, it may prompt them to also publish documents in turn.
I hope that however the situation is resolved, it is as firm and ironclad as possible so everyone watching this mess unfold can get a clear understanding of what is going on. Since the dispute was posted openly on the blog for the public to see, I feel the solution should ideally be made as open to the public as possible.
This is unfortunate. I have been waiting for 25 years for a sequel to Star Control II, by Fred and Paul. Long before I knew anything about Stardock.
Having said that, I am also very happy that Stardock is making Star Control:Origins. I am already playing the beta!
I would suggest that both parties work in respectful collaboration in this matter. This way, us the fans, would certainly support both efforts and result in a win-win. But if you create a divide, that is what you'll get...A divided community, and divided support.
My two-cents: Fred and Paul made Star Control I+II, creating from their minds the universe we all love, the reason we are on this forum today. Now they are making a sequel many of us have been patiently waiting for! This does in no way associate them with Stardock in my mind, in fact, Stardock does not need to exist for this to happen, so I do not understand Stardock's requirement that they sign something saying that they do not associate? Unless there are other veiled statements included.
I would say the party with the most to gain from association, is in fact, Stardock.
Finally, there is enough room for both to exist and prosper, please don't spoil this for the fans.
i agree in a very humble and sincere way and with all respect to Both Brad and Paul and Fred.
I've been a forum member for quite sometime at Stardock, i just created this account as i don't want to be known who i am as i like to compliment both sides for their work and engage with the forum members in a positive light as this is a game deeply close to our hearts, and i in no way ever want any issues to influence these two wonderful companies and creative passionate talent on both sides.
But since this unfortunate occurance has sprung up i am forced to create this temporary account as i just feel i'd like to give an opinion as well
It's a very sensitive matter for P&F and i can fully understand it as explained below, on the other hand Stardock feels entitled to what they do as their understanding of the agreement obviously was different.
So no one's at fault i feel, however some toes are being stepped on a little, it's just a matter of getting both sides to work towards an agreement and walk away from this with no hard feelings.
This is how i see it.P&F created SC 1 and 2, telling them they cannot use the brandis like telling them they did not create SC1 and 2, their brand was a direct result of their success, and to use it, is the reward and recognition for the work that they have done, that is why i undertsand their frustration, they put their heart and soul into creating it,so i feel they should be entitled to use the SC2 brand to market their sequel. But wait...In saying that i'm not giving a one sided opinion here, i want to see both games being made, P&F Starcontrol sequal i have been waiting my whole life to see happen !Stardock came in and so far i am happy with the work they have done, so i want their game to exist as well.Here is what i feel needs to be done:I feel Both parties should be able to use the SC2 brand, one under Stardock and the other under Atari ? (if that is what Precursor will fall under?)If P&F wants their's to be the true sequal of sc2, then let it be, changes to how and when things play out can be reshuffled.I really really really really don't want to see this go under like the command and conquer series decades ago, with sour parties on both sides and the one party so angrythat it deliberately halted a franchise that would've been ranked in the first 3 genres of all time today.
I hate typing on a mobile, just lost my post and have to start over.
"Star Control" never belonged to Paul and Fred. The trademark was registered by Accolade. Which hired Paul to make a game for it.
There were more people involved with the games than Paul and Fred. Look at the credits of SC1&2 or one of the articles linked in the first post.
Stardock doesn't want to use the lore of the Ur-Quan universe. They want an agreement with P&F which would transfer the rights and responsibilities to Paul and Fred. And Stardock would have nothing to do with Ghosts of the Precursors.
Oh, so then it is Stardock trying to prevent them from making the sequel, indirectly, by trying to force royalties for the lore which Stardock does not actually own, which is exactly what Paul and Fred are saying...That is very disappointing, Stardock.
Stardock only owns the name "Star Control"...Who is claiming that Fred and Paul owned the name? It's common knowledge that the name originally belonged to Accolade.
As I have it, F&P are not going to name their game Star Control, just Ghosts of the Precursors.
"If you read their latest posts they’re now making claims regarding Star Control I and III. "
That is simply not true...they simply said "Hopefully Star Control I and III will also become available for free in the near future."
Given that is them who kept SC alive by allowing the community to have the source code for SC2 in the first place, I have no reason to doubt their sincerity.
Stardock's position however is crumbling - I would suggest a full, honest & concerted effort from Stardock, as soon as possible, to clarify what they are up to right now.
Where did I wrote that SD wanted royalties or even implied that?
I understood from Tailor's post that he was implying Paul and Fred had some claim to the brand, as in the trademark. If I misunderstood I apologise.
And it's not about the name.
Stardock owns more than the name.
"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"
At the moment if someone were to sue Paul and Fred for something included in Ghosts Stardock could be dragged into it.
Edit
Stardock has clarified their position.
"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."
NOTE - I am not speaking on behalf of Stardock and I have not seen the contacts in question.
Where did anyone say Stardock are trying to force royalties for the lore? I am not aware of Stardock trying to stop them making any game and in fact I think Brad and Stardock have been very supportive of them including posting about their game on these forums etc. That doesn't seem like someone trying to stop them making a game?
Regarding why a trademark cannot be shared : There could be damage to the brand (owned by Stardock) should the game be poor quality for example if everyone says that Star Control game was rubbish. This is also a problem if the game is marketed as a 'direct sequel' to Star Control II even if the name is different.
That makes no sense. Stardock owns no rights to the original games, so how can they want to transfer anything? If they did, in fact, own the rights then why-oh-why are they not using the original lore, which everyone wants? No, it appears they are being sneaky. If they really were so supportive to Paul and Fred, why kick up this current fuss?
The trademark was never going to be shared. F&P's game is called Ghosts of the Precursors. No amount of signing papers is going to have an impact on the damage, or the enhancement, of the name "Star Control" because of their game.
"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" - if this were true, why is the GOG agreement for the sale of Star Control I, II and III, with Paul and Fred, and not Stardock?? No, Stardock owns the trademark name "Star Control" only.
This discussion highlights why matters like this should be handled between the parties and competent legal counsel.
That's understandable, it's in Stardock's interests to protect their product's image from others making their own things and associating them with Stardock's product.
But this:
They have literally been calling their game an official sequel to Star Control II.
Have they? Their blog refers to it as a direct sequel to The Ur-Quan Masters and I wonder if that's a difference that matters. Perhaps there are other statements they've made elsewhere that I haven't seen.
At the same time I find it confusing that the FF&PR blog describes months of disagreement, while Stardock responds more along the lines of "First we've heard of it".
Also at the same time I didn't know FF&PR had any rights at all with Starcon 3.
Paul & Fred's argument assumes Paul & Fred made Star Control I & II. It takes a hell of a lot more than two people to create a game. Nevermind the fact that Accolade owned all of the IP, then it was sold to Atari, then to Stardock.
That was actually edited in later. The original post did mention Star Control by name. You can see the original post here.
For moral reasons. The original lore is FaP's concoction and they want to leave it that way. It's been stated numerous times for the past 4 years. They (Stardock) also want to put it in writing to disassociate themselves with original lore and UQM sequel legally.
New blog post from Fred and Paul:
https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come
I knew it. It was the inclusion of the classic games on Steam that infuriated them.
I am absolutely confused as to what exactly is owned by Stardock. Just the Star Control trademark / the name?
It's also worth noting there's never a mention of Accolade on that blog post. The sole owners of SC1 and SC2 are Paul & Fred according to them - which GoG/Atari also agrees with (supposedly after consulting their lawyers). That said, what kind of deal was made between and Atari and Accolade in the first place - if, as it turns out, Atari actually doesn't own the classic games?
a better question is what is owned by paul and fred? stardock says they own star control along with various agreements that were transferred to them including an exclusive licensing agreement to whatever ip paul and fred say they own.
this whole thing is disheartening.
I just hope both parties consult with their lawyers and clear this whole mess up as soon as possible. Lest they get dragged into a possible pro-Stardock or pro-ToysforBob movement on the internet further fanning their tempers/
At this point, it's clear ToysforBob only wants Stardock to stop selling SC1-3. The rest of it is just emotions flaring.
if that's all they want then why are they making internet posts? why dump their drama on the community?
Emotions. As stated. I'm not about to begin thinking about ulterior motives just yet.
As I've said all along, Paul and Fred have been selfish and disinterested in giving the fans of this franchise what they want for my entire adult lifetime. And now they're doing this. They made a great game, but it doesn't entitle them to be a-holes about it. It's sad enough that other game designers had to do what they were making excuses for not doing all this time.
I think it's too early for anyone to be choosing a perspective or opinion already. Deciding on a conclusion when not everything is clear only enables its own flaring of emotions among the crowd.
It's likely that there won't come a point where everything is clear to us, since resolution doesn't need it. But either way, no value in playing guess (or invent) the bad guy, since getting worked up just gets other people worked up.
I think it's too early for anyone to be choosing a perspective or opinion already.
I am a professional at this, though!
Without actually seeing the legal documents involved in all of this, nobody really knows what the actual situation is. Unfortunately, this is sounding too me like a situation where even when the actual lawyers see those documents, even they can't agree what the actual situation is. At least that is how this sounds too me. If that is the case, Stardock might want to take a page out of my fathers play book... if even the lawyers can't agree, contact the other party and do everything in your power to work it out between yourselves. In the end, both sides win because in a situation like this the only people who wind up winning in the end are the lawyers.
It at all possible, even if you have to give up something you are certain is yours by every right, this might be the best solution. Is selling SC1&2 really the only major issue? Are you really making a lot of money on that, I would imagine not. It isn't critical to the marketing of SCO. I think if my father was in this situation, and simply giving Paul & Fred SC1&2 would resolve it... that is what he would do. Even if he was certain that he had every right too it. If the lawyers can't agree on what the contracts say, Brad, Paul, & Fred all do the best for themselves by doing something like this.
Of course, I am making a wild guess as to the true nature of the situation. There could be much more too it than this. But if SC1&2 is the only issue... this is how all three of them can win instead of the lawyers being the only ones who win.
I got the feeling from something that Brad said earlier that there was a desire for Fred and Paul to stop using the Star Control name in promoting Ghosts of the Precursors, OR for them to pay a royalty fee associated with it. OR, very possibly, for them to sign an agreement that just limits their use of the name during promotion to a "reasonable degree."
If that's the case, I'd love to see those documents too. Basically what I'm saying is, businesses (and I include Fred+Paul in that), do everything in the open! Then everyone can decide for themselves and the he-said she-said will be a lot more informed. Want a contract signed? Post it in a news article!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
